When “Approximately” isn’t clear Enough
2007 | When “Approximately” isn’t clear Enough
PURPOSE
The initial project was simple - an expansion of the Mateus Rosé range, with the purpose of establishing the brand as a Rosé specialist and assuring that the brandʼs values of differentiation, innovation and adaptation were honoured. However, the story quickly became about overcoming a protectionist measure within the annexes of the Common Market Organisation (CMO) which threatened to block, the expansion of the Mateus brand.
*The images of Mateus Rosé are copyrighted and owned by Sogrape.*
Initial market research showed that 74% of consumers favoured an extension of the Mateus Rosé range, and 56% preferred the Mateus bottle, which was canteen-shaped. From this, a new range of Mateus was conceptualized to include international and national varieties.
Problems arose from an area that the marketeers had not considered - what they wanted to do was not foreseen in wine regulations. In other words, it was illegal. In Europe, all wines are governed by an all-inclusive regulation under the CMO, which exhaustively sets out technical parameters ranging from oenological practices, to labelling and presentation of European wines.
The Presentation Annex in these regulations reserves specific bottles for defined Geographical Indications (GI):
The use of each bottle type was supposed in indicate to consumers that a wine was from a particular protected Denomination of Origin (DO) or GI. The Bocksbeutel, similar to the Mateus bottle, is used in the Franconia region of Germany, but grandfathered for GI wine in regions of Italy, Greece and Portugal.
However, this Mateus expansion faced an obstacle, not being a GI the bottle could not be used due to the CMOʼs regulation.
Even so, there was hope; the update of the CMO regulations began in 2007, coinciding with the Mateus expansion project. The EU Commission objective was to make the European Wine Sector more competitive versus other international producers. With this, the first proposal of the amended regulations removed protectionist and restrictive measures, the problems apparently being over, and the expansion destined to move forward. However, the measure was brought back by three German MPs, who wanted to keep the restriction until an alternative protective measure was found. The proposing party argued that the bottle shape evoked for consumers a wine with a particular appellation of origin - however, since the bottle was used in multiple regions, this argument was weakened. In the face of this, it was necessary to get creative and find an alternative in order for the expansion to go forward.
The mission became to assure that the Mateus expansion project was viable. Three main arguments were prepared to combat the CMO restriction, reading as follows: 1. The measure was protectionist and did not meet consumer interests, going against the spirit of reform; 2. The bottle was used in 4 countries and 18 Denominations of Origins + 1 without Geographical Indication, therefore it did not create a clear association between consumers and a specific appellation of origin; 3. The measure was not definitive as it highlighted the proportions of the bottle only as “approximately”.
Three influential bodies were contacted - the Portuguese Government, the European Commission and the European Wine Federation, as well as several homologous international organisations. National governments soon responded, drawing attention to the unfair competition this bred of, in particular when the intention was to reserve the use of certain bottle shapes without consideration of intellectual property rights.
At a secondary level of communication, the message that the Mateus bottle was not the same as the Bocksbeutel was circulated, with the dimensions of the former being clearly presented, and differing from the approximated value provided by the regulation. Banking on the lack of regulatory definition and on the evolution of the bottle over the years, it was possible to separate the Mateus bottle from the Bocksbeutel.
Multiple interlocutors, submitted contributions on multiple aspects of the new regulation. The most important one came in mid-2008, which proposed the following: a) The regulation should specify the type of wine, and the colour of the bottle b) The regulation should be specific on the dimensions of the Bocksbeutel, and eliminate the word “approximately”.
While the first argument was rejected, and the political settlement which closed at the end of 2008 still contained the Presentation annex, with the reference to the Franconian Bocksbeutel, the word ʻapproximatelyʼ had been removed, indicating exact dimentions for the protected bottle.
This effectively put the Mateus bottle outside the legal definition of the Bocksbeutel, and allowed the Mateus range to expand their offer to consumers. The project was successful due to an international collaboration with European and non-European entities, as well as the fostering of a good network who helped spread the word.
Successful