Not quite grasping the market...

Apparently some French people in charge of Champagne believe that somehow or other cheap champagne is ruining the image of the product...
Telegraph.

Supermarket cut-price deals are “a parasite on the image of champagne”, according to a trade association representing producers.
Last Christmas, Asda and Tesco sold exclusive label champagne at £10 a bottle – less than half price. The supermarkets also slashed the cost of branded labels, with 71 per cent of the total volume sold at reduced prices.
But the drastic discounts being offered have been criticised by the producers’ professional body, the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC). Its communications director Thibaut le Mailloux told Off Licence News (OLN) magazine: “It’s just a marketing ploy. It puts in the head of the consumer that champagne can be made at that price.
“It’s at the expense of champagne. It’s a parasite on the image of champagne. Retailers are shooting themselves in the foot by downgrading the category and making consumers expect a price where producers and retailers can’t make a margin that’s sustainable.
“The message is not to make everything as cheap as possible, but to give balanced offers to consumers.”

 Do you get the feeling that they don't wish their product to be accessible to the peasants?
Now I don't know where the supermarkets got their product from, but I'd be willing to bet that they didn't make a loss out of the deal. They might have used it as a loss leader (unlikely it's not something everyone would buy) but in the end M. Thibaut le Mailloux doesn't quite appear to grasp the ethos of the supermarkets whose task is to sell as much as possible and make as much as possible and by selling champagne at £10 a bottle they appear to have found a market for it rather than have it gather dust on the shelves at £20 a bottle. I hardly need mention that you aren't going to get many wine connoisseurs in a supermarket going over the shelves for cheap plonk either.
Champagne is what it is, a celebratory drink on the whole and its image such as it is, is hardly likely to be damaged by selling it cheap. After all you can buy many just as worthy competitors as cheap which can taste just as good from fizzy sweet to fizzy vinegar depending on the persons taste.
Once again we have some who want the world what they want it to be (even if they price their products out of the market) rather than what it now is.

Truth hurts

Not too far from me in Kent there are a series of stables and stud farms for horses, there's a little industry going here to breed a product that (some) people clearly want and presumably enjoy. I gather it's both expensive to do and I'm told horses are a costly hobby both to keep and maintain. I also realise that people do not like to think of the actual mechanics of the industry so to speak, for in essence an industry it is...
Mail.

A star jockey prompted outrage yesterday by playing down the death of a horse during a big race.
After spectators and TV viewers watched in horror as Our Conor suffered a fatal fall at the Cheltenham Festival, Ruby Walsh said the animal was replaceable.
The 34-year-old Irishman said: ‘Horses are horses. You can replace a horse’.
The comments by Walsh, who has twice won the Grand National, provoked a furious response from animal rights campaigners. They described his words as callous and lacking respect for the horse.
Mr Walsh, who reached a record 40 wins at the Festival after a double-victory yesterday, added: ‘It’s sad, but horses are animals, outside your back door. Humans are humans. They are inside your back door.
‘You can replace a horse. You can’t replace a human being. That’s my feeling on it.’
The comments sparked fury from animal rights campaigners and are likely to reignite the debate over whether horse-racing is an unnecessarily cruel sport.

Now as to whether horse racing is a cruel sport or not, I simply do not know. I suspect some horses may enjoy being raced but that in many places it's reached the stage where the money is far more important than the actual pleasure and a bit like Olympic athletes the fun at the top is replaced by the dedication to get there and remain there and the horse is simply one of the tools of the trade.
That said, Ruby Walsh is correct, the way horses are bred means there's always another one ready willing and able (the stud farm not the horse) to be supplied to a jockey. Yes horses are living and deserve to be treat with respect, but from the viewpoint of the racing industry they are a replaceable product in the way that a cycle is a replaceable product in the Tour de France.
I'm pretty sure that the animal rights groups out there would love to close the racing industry down, I doubt they've considered what will happen to the stud farms or their product if they succeed though. I suspect they'd be outraged at the massive cull that would occur if they got their way, though somewhat less outraged at the loss of jobs and livelihoods for the people involved.
So, they can be outraged all they like, truth though is that Walsh is correct and words are simply just that, words, they may believe them to be callous, but I doubt the horse cares, only people care about words and they are often enough incapable of dealing with the truth.