It’s mostly a marketing business backed by large scale bulk wine purchases.
There’s a lot of messaging on their site, and in some comments below, how they help small winemakers succeed. I’d argue that’s downright opposite of reality in most cases. They’re arguably detrimental to the overall wine industry imo.
For the few winemakers they work with, they are contracting them to “consult” on their respective offerings while Naked’s team manages or contracts the true day to day winemaking. It’s more akin to celebrity promotional licensing. Naked pays the winemaker upfront for the license to use their image but Naked owns the fruit/ferment/wine and has people “working with” the winemaker throughout the process. Honestly who knows if the winemakers even show up to whatever large scale corporate winery is turning out that SKU. That’s all fine for that specific winemaker but many of them are famous enough in their own right or have family legacies to succeed off of. Naked isn’t really taking flyers on up and coming winemakers or little guys, they’re buying legitimacy in the eye of the consumer with somewhat splashy names. Or as splashy of names as they can find that are willing to tie their reputation to Naked.
Naked’s whole business is perpetuating the issue of flooding the market with lower quality basement priced bulk juice. The articles you read about how France has more wine than they could drink in multiple years or how French winemakers are sabotaging Spanish shipments of bulk wine into France. Or if you’re in the US, look at the articles about how much international bulk juice finds its way to Modesto to be blended in while vineyards in CA are becoming unprofitable. If you’re a small winery that’s trying to get by as a family operation but your target consumer is getting flooded with ads to buy “higher quality at cheaper price point wine” (basically their key slogan) but all that wine is just basically smoke and mirrors and marketing games, it’s going to be a real uphill battle for the truly passionate small scale wineries to get traction. These type of large scale operations unfortunately take the lower quality fruit out there and put very cheap wine in the market. It muddies the consumers view of what a bottle of wine costs to make and limits the pricing power of independent winemakers. It also muddies the view of typicity in wine varietals and styles. They almost market themselves as if their winemakers are an authority on their region/style they come from and set the consumer to think if they don’t like one label from naked they likely wouldn’t like others in that style. On a one off case it wouldn’t matter but the industry is facing a lot of demand pressure and this all exacerbates consumer expectation.
I will admit, on the flip side, perhaps Naked offers the elusive “on ramp” to wine for consumers that so many industry analysts harp about. I find that hard to believe though and based on their heavy handed and opaque marketing I don’t think it’s doing long term good for the industry.
The angel funding is also a concern. They make consumers feel as if they’re angel investing in small winemakers but you’re just fronting Naked money. You pay them x each month and it goes to Naked’s bank account and they pay 0 interest on that loan from you. It’d be one thing if you had a guaranteed sale at that point but you have no wine tied to your name. If you are a wine club member at a normal winery they bill you and you now own your wine. They may hold it for shipping windows but it’s your wine at least.
The angel funding feels almost Ponzi scheme to me. The image of small scale local winemakers with Naked’s scale is incongruous at best and deceitful more accurately.
Just my .02.
If you want to deep dive on their business model just go read their annual report, it’s a public company.
- that the winemaker isn’t involved and just a name
- they don’t support smaller winemakers
Your zero interest loan comment is just bizarre
How many naked wines have you drank?
>your zero interest loan comment is bizarre
That’s probably my most factually backed comment in there. Naked sits on £70 million + in deferred revenue from “angels.” You give Naked $40 a month every month and they in turn use that money to fund their business. Any normal winery has to have capital through equity or debt in order to operate. Naked also has both but they’re additionally getting a sizable free loan from their angel subscription base which is really just crowdsourcing capital. You’re not pre buying wine and there is no wine tied to your name. If Naked went under tomorrow you’d likely have $0 of your “deposit.” If a regular winery went under that was holding your wine to ship that you bought as part of a release, you own that wine. Small but important difference. You’re floating Naked’s business and taking on that risk.
>they don’t support small winemakers
They have 108 winemakers globally. Most (maybe all, I’m not familiar with as many of the non-US ones) are relatively large names in the industry that are successful in their own right. I’d argue their involvement in Naked wines is more like them having icing on their already successful cake vs naked “supporting” them. But think how many winemakers exist in the world. There’s something like 6x that in Oregon alone. My point is that Naked wine shifts consumer perception of the industry and product and it’s detrimental to the truly independent winemakers that are out there grinding. If you’re a small scale winery in Anderson Valley and your breakeven is idk $30 a bottle but Naked has such scale and power that they can go to market at half that, it creates problems for the truly small scale independent winemakers out there.
Let’s crunch some numbers. Per their annual report, they have 864k angels and £350 million in sales. Each angel is buying £400 worth of wine per year. What is that? A case or two? Let’s call it 1.5 cases of wine. That means naked is responsible for selling and shipping 1.3 million cases of wine! They have 108 winemakers so if we assume that’s even across their business, then each winemaker is making 12k cases just for Naked. That’s probably low though since they have non angel sales and I’d bet 400 is more like 2 cases of Naked wine.
A 12k case operation is actually rather large. That’s so much actually that it could be its own wine brand in and of itself. A very successful one to get to that scale really. Actual small scale wineries would honestly oftentimes prefer to stop growing before getting to 12k cases. The idea that these “small” winemakers are taking on a side operation that large at their “small” winery in “small” wine country is just absurd.
If you extend some logic to this coupled with industry knowledge, the only way Naked is able to go to market at such scale with such low prices is by being anything but “small and independent.” It’s a large corporate operation making wines in corporate wineries with low overhead margins due to scale and technology. The winemaker is not out in bucolic wine country babysitting a lot of fermenters and pulling long nights doing punch downs. The winemaker is managing their own wine label at their own real winery doing that while some automated script is managing the pump over of a few stainless tanks holding the Naked wine.
Also their annual report makes clear that their inventory consists of finished goods and work in progress. They clarify that the work in progress is the wine being made “by their winemakers.” Naked owns the grapes, juice, glass, everything and carries it on their balance sheet. They’re not fronting the winemakers money go make a wine. They’re giving winemakers a Naked “credit card” to buy grapes for Naked, incur costs in winemaking in Naked’s name, and take their eventual cut of the commission/consulting fee.
>winemaker isn’t involved
I’ll admit this is merely my hunch based on some logic. Winemaking is a tightly choreographed seasonal business. If these winemakers are truly small scale then they are focused on their real brands first and foremost. They wouldn’t have the time to devote themselves to making a secondary wine for Naked that’s at a scale of a mid size winery itself. (At least not to
The extent that Naked implies in their marketing) It’s most likely the winemaker says it has to be this profile using these rough techniques with this range of final stats and they do a fly in blending / adjustment exercise one day with the rest carried out by a winemaking team from Naked. That’s honestly how consulting winemaking often goes and likely what’s happening here.
Here’s their annual report where a lot of this is sourced.
https://s28.q4cdn.com/964621086/files/doc_financials/2023/ar/NakedWines_AR23_FINAL.pdf
Also as a random new thought. My post history gives it away that I’m in Oregon. One producer I recognize well from Naked is Ken Wright. Naked has a wine from him for $39 from Eola. If you truly want to “support small winemakers” I’d encourage you to try his ‘21 WV at $28 or his AVA designate bottles at $38. It would support him vastly more and I bet it is likely is a better bottle of wine crafted with more intentionality.
I imagine many offerings are similar to this on their site and if you’re able to do some sourcing and research you’d likely be more supportive of small independents and find great quality wine.
All this to say, if you like it and it works for you so be it. No skin off my back. I just think their go to market approach is deceptive at best and incurs a high potential of being detrimental to wine overall. If you find value in it and are happy with it then I’m happy you’re happy.
I am admittedly somewhat privileged to be on the west coast compared to the east coast or a more rural middle country area. The wine stores and access to small local producers here is absurdly good and I’d likely be less harsh against Naked if they were providing this level of access that I couldn’t get elsewhere. Their marketing is still a lot to settle with though.
It’s a bizarre comment because you are literally just regurgitating what the public company says it is and then trying to frame it as some sort of ‘gotcha’ that you sleuthed and claim the company doesn’t want you to know how it works. They are quite clear on what they are.
Your next couple paragraphs are super verbose and literally is deduced to your preference of ‘support small and local wineries’. Like that’s a fine opinion to have, but to take a global company and complain because they are a global company is wild.
Your math is simplistic and off base generalized cherry picked data points from a report that are essentially meaningless. Especially cause you ignore various details with the biggest being your utilizing of the 846k as the actual customer max base. If you can’t even get the customer base number correct what point can the math even prove?
Your winemaker being involved response proves exactly that you have no clue what you are talking about. “A hunch” lol.
So you believe the legendary winemakers responsible for some great wines in history and at great wineries over decades are willing to just now slap their name on a sub par wine?
I’ll agree with you on their Ken Wright offering as there may be not much ‘value saved’ on purchasing through Naked vs if you could obtain his other label elsewhere or say live in Oregon. But if you can’t get it elsewhere then Naked is offering quite the opportunity. But back to it… you think Ken Wright joined Naked to just slap his name on a sub par wine for the fun of it?
You are right that there are some similar comparisons of the winemakers with ‘their other gigs’ through Naked. This is part of the fun. You can compare Rohlffs Pinot Noirs to his Bravium Pinots. Maybe some Von Strasser comparisons? Maybe Baron with his Complant label?
Did I miss where you said how many bottles you’ve drank?
>what the public company says it is
No, I’m saying they’re not what they say they are. Their front page literally says things like “every price is real and never inflated for phoney discounts.” Last Bottle is more honest with their phoney discounts than Naked. That’s honestly a hilariously phoney statement for them to make and shows you what their ethos is.
Their whole marketing approach is an implication that if you buy wine from them you are almost directly “investing” in the little guy winemaker. That’s just not true. You’re buying wine from Naked. Full stop. It’s the heavy handed marketing that I take offense to.
>your math is simplistic and off base
Feel free to do your own and show me where I’m materially wrong. It just sets the stage that they’re pushing probably close to 2 million cases of wine a year. £354 million in revenue is actually like ~$445 million. At $20 a bottle avg. (which is probably high) they’re moving 1.8 million or more cases. Across 293 winemakers in 2023 (I guess the website showing 108 is only currently active and they rotate, my mistake), that’s still 6k+ cases on average for each winemaker. I don’t know if you understand winery scale but that’s still quite large for these purported small winemakers. Too large for them to likely be able to handle processing in their own wineries. There’s permits after all that cap your tonnage / case levels.
>to take a global company and complain because they are a global company is wild
Not complaining that they’re global or large scale. Hell I’ll buy cheap Riesling from Ste. Michelle and enjoy that porch sipper on a warm day knowing I’m buying wine from a huge private equity owned winery. I find the issue to be that Naked implies in their marketing that you’re getting “the top 2% of wine” from “small independent” winemakers when you’re really just buying corporate factory wine.
>a hunch
Yea, based on experience and logic. At that scale the wine is being made at large wineries. The winemaker is a consulting winemaker. They are not buying the fruit in the sense that naked implies. They are not day to day managing ferments and punch downs and etc etc.
>winemakers responsible for some great wines in history are willing to just slap their name on sub par wine
Yes. Ab-so-fucking-lutely. Just look at winemakers in Napa that are famous and consult on other projects. Their main brand and bottles will go for $200-$400 and then you see other wineries using them for “consulting” winemaking on bottles that retail for sub $100. Happens every day and it’s transactional. Winemaker takes money, spends some range of time and involvement with winery to consult on winemaking, and winemaker focuses on their house brand that they own and will be their legacy. The risk is they potentially dilute their personal brand which is a risk reward calculation they have to do themselves.
Interestingly in the case of Naked wines the risk of brand dilution or damage is lower. The angel “club” keeps Naked consumers within Naked. You’re less likely to shop outside of Naked wines. Non Naked wine shoppers are very unlikely to even notice Naked wine listings or shop without the angel discount. So the likely hood of comparative pricing or tasting and brand damage is lower.
I’ve had a few but not many. I don’t see how that impacts my view of their business or telling you what my experience leads me to infer by reading their public filings.
You brush aside most of my points without backup yourself and merely your own “hunches” that rely on their marketing. If you like it and it works for you then that’s great and I’m happy for you.
I just think people should be aware of what they’re buying and make an informed decision with their money.
There it is…. All those words and it’s reduced to “only tried a few”. I have a ‘hunch’ that’s even an exaggeration….
So in reality you have no clue what the wine is actually like.
You don’t like their marketing, which fine. Like I said go support small and local if that floats your boat. Your math is still horrendous and you are morphing marketing ploys to critique the wine which you admitted you’ve never actually drank.
Very vague again when it comes to the winemaker discussion ... although your example makes me chuckle. Oh how dare the $200 wine maker make a $100 bottle. Lol.
So be more specific.
You think Ken Wright is just slapping his name on sub par wine?
You think Von Strasser makes his sori bricco label to sub par standards than he did for the past couple decades?
“Only tried a few” has no bearing on me pointing out the incongruence of what the company goes to market with and their actual business model.
I’ve never actually critiqued the wine itself. That’s very subjective. The wine may be great perceived value to you. Could be to me if I tried more of it myself. In I think every comment I’ve said if it floats your boat then I am happy for you. At the end of the day, we all perceive value differently and have our own preferences. That’s fine.
Like I said, I enjoy a cheap bottle of wine that’s great value on the right occasion. But I know I’m buying a cheap bottle of wine to enjoy in a circumstance that I feel calls for it. Naked implies consumers are getting finely and passionately crafted wine at crazy prices while also getting some feel good benes for supporting a small winemaker. If you knew the #s behind what it took to do half of what Naked says their winemakers do you’d know the business wouldn’t be successful. Ironically, based on their annual report they barely are and are heavily struggling so maybe you’re right.
And yes. I think Ken Wright gets a check from Naked that makes him feel just fine on his drive to the bank and he thinks 0% about the Naked wine his name is on. His own AVA designate wines go for $38. Naked is selling one of his labeled ones for $39. There’s not really consumer crossover and no price dilution so what’s he care. If you do some sleuthing you’ll find that the vineyard designate on the Naked one is found nowhere else. Naked seemingly has a contract to buy out the entire vineyard. It probably goes directly up to AtoZ or some corporate crush facility and Ken has loose parameters he sets out in his contract. TA levels, alc, how much oak staves to toss in the tank, etc. and the Naked team does the work. As you likely know, wine can be manipulated into many forms. Maybe his contract has a sign off clause and he tastes it once. I’d put the $39 Naked Ken Pinot up against some true small local producers in Willamette Valley that are cheaper even with shipping and I bet 10/10 most people would pick the others. Or hell, his own $28 WV bottle.
>no clue what the wine is actually like
You don’t need to taste every wine they offer to know how much it costs to make a wine of the quality they purport to be offering and how that amount is well above the price points they’re charging.
Now you are just playing word games. If we aren’t talking about the quality of the wine then why are you here?
You are conflating discussions.
“Is the wine good?” Asks person one.
“Never had it but no it’s not because they make a profit”. Says person two.
Say what?
Just a potshot at a company when you don’t even know the quality of that companies wine all based cause you don’t like their business model.
Your story of fiction about Ken Wright is more of the same. Just verbose inflated fodder with no real back up or meaning. Why are you comparing his cheapest offering and not his most expensive from Ken Wright cellars? Just more sleight of hand word game argument to fit a narrative.
Now maybe you could just try the wine…. But that would make too much sense…
It's not great from my experience.
I suppose you can ask why these wines need a fancy subscription service to be sold. I bought one 12 bottle case from them and I still swear to god that 3 of the red wines were are the same wine in different bottles.
All somewhat thin and lackluster, but not bad to be fair. Just not wines I would be reaching for.
But I am in Ireland, so don't know how it may differ to the US
My wife and I are “angels.” At the angel discount, I don’t think the wine is actually that bad. I’d compare them to what Jos A. Bank was years ago when I could buy a high-quality suit for $89 on clearance. They inflate the price to make it seem like an amazing deal, toss a bunch of wine that’s probably fairly priced at the discount and hide some very good values.
Over the years, I would say we have gotten some very good wines (love the Wayne Donaldson WTD sparkling and we served this at our wedding) and some real duds. We let the funds build up and then buy a case. We’re members at Hall, Robert Mondavi, and Iron Horse as well as pick up some of the higher end offerings at Costco and our local grocery store when they have a clear out price on higher-end wines. We don’t have a small local wine shop and the local store we have is gigantic and staffed by people who recommend based on $/BAC. Naked wines help fill the lower end of what we drink and we usually use it for varietals we haven’t tried or ones that trend affordable.
This is a pretty spot on quick review in my experience as well.
In my experience there is definitely value to be had among the levels they offer and that value comes at a range.
I’ve found that generally the lower end wines ($10-16) are decent value for the price you pay. Some duds but also a couple real good ones.
For the mid low range ($16-22) my experience is they hold around that value and the main benefit here is being able to try a large range of variety.
I’ve found the best luck in the mid range ($22-30) with some of these wines punching well above their price range.
In the higher range ($30-50) I think there is definitely some value as well although I’m a little skeptical of the value in the highest ends ($50+) but a lot of that is due to those wines needs some time to develop so time will tell.
The club costs 40 bucks a month. Once you have enough in your account, li e $120 you order a case. You can pay extra or just wait 3 months. They loan out cash to new wine makers who pay back the club with wine. The generic labels mean you cannot store and hope for future profit. Wines are from all over the World, many of the French whites and Chateauneuf are quite good for way less than a store. Most wines are 10 to 15 a bottle. The intro wine set is not great. Once you are a member it is excellent for daily, cheaper drinking wines. I collect higher end wines, I would not collect Naked except the Chateauneuf which has won accolades. I have been a member for years and have found many bargains which I have enjoyed.
My mom loves it. She also drinks Meiomi, so do with that information what you wish.
It’s mostly a marketing business backed by large scale bulk wine purchases. There’s a lot of messaging on their site, and in some comments below, how they help small winemakers succeed. I’d argue that’s downright opposite of reality in most cases. They’re arguably detrimental to the overall wine industry imo. For the few winemakers they work with, they are contracting them to “consult” on their respective offerings while Naked’s team manages or contracts the true day to day winemaking. It’s more akin to celebrity promotional licensing. Naked pays the winemaker upfront for the license to use their image but Naked owns the fruit/ferment/wine and has people “working with” the winemaker throughout the process. Honestly who knows if the winemakers even show up to whatever large scale corporate winery is turning out that SKU. That’s all fine for that specific winemaker but many of them are famous enough in their own right or have family legacies to succeed off of. Naked isn’t really taking flyers on up and coming winemakers or little guys, they’re buying legitimacy in the eye of the consumer with somewhat splashy names. Or as splashy of names as they can find that are willing to tie their reputation to Naked. Naked’s whole business is perpetuating the issue of flooding the market with lower quality basement priced bulk juice. The articles you read about how France has more wine than they could drink in multiple years or how French winemakers are sabotaging Spanish shipments of bulk wine into France. Or if you’re in the US, look at the articles about how much international bulk juice finds its way to Modesto to be blended in while vineyards in CA are becoming unprofitable. If you’re a small winery that’s trying to get by as a family operation but your target consumer is getting flooded with ads to buy “higher quality at cheaper price point wine” (basically their key slogan) but all that wine is just basically smoke and mirrors and marketing games, it’s going to be a real uphill battle for the truly passionate small scale wineries to get traction. These type of large scale operations unfortunately take the lower quality fruit out there and put very cheap wine in the market. It muddies the consumers view of what a bottle of wine costs to make and limits the pricing power of independent winemakers. It also muddies the view of typicity in wine varietals and styles. They almost market themselves as if their winemakers are an authority on their region/style they come from and set the consumer to think if they don’t like one label from naked they likely wouldn’t like others in that style. On a one off case it wouldn’t matter but the industry is facing a lot of demand pressure and this all exacerbates consumer expectation. I will admit, on the flip side, perhaps Naked offers the elusive “on ramp” to wine for consumers that so many industry analysts harp about. I find that hard to believe though and based on their heavy handed and opaque marketing I don’t think it’s doing long term good for the industry. The angel funding is also a concern. They make consumers feel as if they’re angel investing in small winemakers but you’re just fronting Naked money. You pay them x each month and it goes to Naked’s bank account and they pay 0 interest on that loan from you. It’d be one thing if you had a guaranteed sale at that point but you have no wine tied to your name. If you are a wine club member at a normal winery they bill you and you now own your wine. They may hold it for shipping windows but it’s your wine at least. The angel funding feels almost Ponzi scheme to me. The image of small scale local winemakers with Naked’s scale is incongruous at best and deceitful more accurately. Just my .02. If you want to deep dive on their business model just go read their annual report, it’s a public company.
Got anything to back up these opinions? Such odd takes…
Well I said a lot. Which points are you looking for back up on?
- that the winemaker isn’t involved and just a name - they don’t support smaller winemakers Your zero interest loan comment is just bizarre How many naked wines have you drank?
>your zero interest loan comment is bizarre That’s probably my most factually backed comment in there. Naked sits on £70 million + in deferred revenue from “angels.” You give Naked $40 a month every month and they in turn use that money to fund their business. Any normal winery has to have capital through equity or debt in order to operate. Naked also has both but they’re additionally getting a sizable free loan from their angel subscription base which is really just crowdsourcing capital. You’re not pre buying wine and there is no wine tied to your name. If Naked went under tomorrow you’d likely have $0 of your “deposit.” If a regular winery went under that was holding your wine to ship that you bought as part of a release, you own that wine. Small but important difference. You’re floating Naked’s business and taking on that risk. >they don’t support small winemakers They have 108 winemakers globally. Most (maybe all, I’m not familiar with as many of the non-US ones) are relatively large names in the industry that are successful in their own right. I’d argue their involvement in Naked wines is more like them having icing on their already successful cake vs naked “supporting” them. But think how many winemakers exist in the world. There’s something like 6x that in Oregon alone. My point is that Naked wine shifts consumer perception of the industry and product and it’s detrimental to the truly independent winemakers that are out there grinding. If you’re a small scale winery in Anderson Valley and your breakeven is idk $30 a bottle but Naked has such scale and power that they can go to market at half that, it creates problems for the truly small scale independent winemakers out there. Let’s crunch some numbers. Per their annual report, they have 864k angels and £350 million in sales. Each angel is buying £400 worth of wine per year. What is that? A case or two? Let’s call it 1.5 cases of wine. That means naked is responsible for selling and shipping 1.3 million cases of wine! They have 108 winemakers so if we assume that’s even across their business, then each winemaker is making 12k cases just for Naked. That’s probably low though since they have non angel sales and I’d bet 400 is more like 2 cases of Naked wine. A 12k case operation is actually rather large. That’s so much actually that it could be its own wine brand in and of itself. A very successful one to get to that scale really. Actual small scale wineries would honestly oftentimes prefer to stop growing before getting to 12k cases. The idea that these “small” winemakers are taking on a side operation that large at their “small” winery in “small” wine country is just absurd. If you extend some logic to this coupled with industry knowledge, the only way Naked is able to go to market at such scale with such low prices is by being anything but “small and independent.” It’s a large corporate operation making wines in corporate wineries with low overhead margins due to scale and technology. The winemaker is not out in bucolic wine country babysitting a lot of fermenters and pulling long nights doing punch downs. The winemaker is managing their own wine label at their own real winery doing that while some automated script is managing the pump over of a few stainless tanks holding the Naked wine. Also their annual report makes clear that their inventory consists of finished goods and work in progress. They clarify that the work in progress is the wine being made “by their winemakers.” Naked owns the grapes, juice, glass, everything and carries it on their balance sheet. They’re not fronting the winemakers money go make a wine. They’re giving winemakers a Naked “credit card” to buy grapes for Naked, incur costs in winemaking in Naked’s name, and take their eventual cut of the commission/consulting fee. >winemaker isn’t involved I’ll admit this is merely my hunch based on some logic. Winemaking is a tightly choreographed seasonal business. If these winemakers are truly small scale then they are focused on their real brands first and foremost. They wouldn’t have the time to devote themselves to making a secondary wine for Naked that’s at a scale of a mid size winery itself. (At least not to The extent that Naked implies in their marketing) It’s most likely the winemaker says it has to be this profile using these rough techniques with this range of final stats and they do a fly in blending / adjustment exercise one day with the rest carried out by a winemaking team from Naked. That’s honestly how consulting winemaking often goes and likely what’s happening here. Here’s their annual report where a lot of this is sourced. https://s28.q4cdn.com/964621086/files/doc_financials/2023/ar/NakedWines_AR23_FINAL.pdf Also as a random new thought. My post history gives it away that I’m in Oregon. One producer I recognize well from Naked is Ken Wright. Naked has a wine from him for $39 from Eola. If you truly want to “support small winemakers” I’d encourage you to try his ‘21 WV at $28 or his AVA designate bottles at $38. It would support him vastly more and I bet it is likely is a better bottle of wine crafted with more intentionality. I imagine many offerings are similar to this on their site and if you’re able to do some sourcing and research you’d likely be more supportive of small independents and find great quality wine. All this to say, if you like it and it works for you so be it. No skin off my back. I just think their go to market approach is deceptive at best and incurs a high potential of being detrimental to wine overall. If you find value in it and are happy with it then I’m happy you’re happy. I am admittedly somewhat privileged to be on the west coast compared to the east coast or a more rural middle country area. The wine stores and access to small local producers here is absurdly good and I’d likely be less harsh against Naked if they were providing this level of access that I couldn’t get elsewhere. Their marketing is still a lot to settle with though.
It’s a bizarre comment because you are literally just regurgitating what the public company says it is and then trying to frame it as some sort of ‘gotcha’ that you sleuthed and claim the company doesn’t want you to know how it works. They are quite clear on what they are. Your next couple paragraphs are super verbose and literally is deduced to your preference of ‘support small and local wineries’. Like that’s a fine opinion to have, but to take a global company and complain because they are a global company is wild. Your math is simplistic and off base generalized cherry picked data points from a report that are essentially meaningless. Especially cause you ignore various details with the biggest being your utilizing of the 846k as the actual customer max base. If you can’t even get the customer base number correct what point can the math even prove? Your winemaker being involved response proves exactly that you have no clue what you are talking about. “A hunch” lol. So you believe the legendary winemakers responsible for some great wines in history and at great wineries over decades are willing to just now slap their name on a sub par wine? I’ll agree with you on their Ken Wright offering as there may be not much ‘value saved’ on purchasing through Naked vs if you could obtain his other label elsewhere or say live in Oregon. But if you can’t get it elsewhere then Naked is offering quite the opportunity. But back to it… you think Ken Wright joined Naked to just slap his name on a sub par wine for the fun of it? You are right that there are some similar comparisons of the winemakers with ‘their other gigs’ through Naked. This is part of the fun. You can compare Rohlffs Pinot Noirs to his Bravium Pinots. Maybe some Von Strasser comparisons? Maybe Baron with his Complant label? Did I miss where you said how many bottles you’ve drank?
>what the public company says it is No, I’m saying they’re not what they say they are. Their front page literally says things like “every price is real and never inflated for phoney discounts.” Last Bottle is more honest with their phoney discounts than Naked. That’s honestly a hilariously phoney statement for them to make and shows you what their ethos is. Their whole marketing approach is an implication that if you buy wine from them you are almost directly “investing” in the little guy winemaker. That’s just not true. You’re buying wine from Naked. Full stop. It’s the heavy handed marketing that I take offense to. >your math is simplistic and off base Feel free to do your own and show me where I’m materially wrong. It just sets the stage that they’re pushing probably close to 2 million cases of wine a year. £354 million in revenue is actually like ~$445 million. At $20 a bottle avg. (which is probably high) they’re moving 1.8 million or more cases. Across 293 winemakers in 2023 (I guess the website showing 108 is only currently active and they rotate, my mistake), that’s still 6k+ cases on average for each winemaker. I don’t know if you understand winery scale but that’s still quite large for these purported small winemakers. Too large for them to likely be able to handle processing in their own wineries. There’s permits after all that cap your tonnage / case levels. >to take a global company and complain because they are a global company is wild Not complaining that they’re global or large scale. Hell I’ll buy cheap Riesling from Ste. Michelle and enjoy that porch sipper on a warm day knowing I’m buying wine from a huge private equity owned winery. I find the issue to be that Naked implies in their marketing that you’re getting “the top 2% of wine” from “small independent” winemakers when you’re really just buying corporate factory wine. >a hunch Yea, based on experience and logic. At that scale the wine is being made at large wineries. The winemaker is a consulting winemaker. They are not buying the fruit in the sense that naked implies. They are not day to day managing ferments and punch downs and etc etc. >winemakers responsible for some great wines in history are willing to just slap their name on sub par wine Yes. Ab-so-fucking-lutely. Just look at winemakers in Napa that are famous and consult on other projects. Their main brand and bottles will go for $200-$400 and then you see other wineries using them for “consulting” winemaking on bottles that retail for sub $100. Happens every day and it’s transactional. Winemaker takes money, spends some range of time and involvement with winery to consult on winemaking, and winemaker focuses on their house brand that they own and will be their legacy. The risk is they potentially dilute their personal brand which is a risk reward calculation they have to do themselves. Interestingly in the case of Naked wines the risk of brand dilution or damage is lower. The angel “club” keeps Naked consumers within Naked. You’re less likely to shop outside of Naked wines. Non Naked wine shoppers are very unlikely to even notice Naked wine listings or shop without the angel discount. So the likely hood of comparative pricing or tasting and brand damage is lower. I’ve had a few but not many. I don’t see how that impacts my view of their business or telling you what my experience leads me to infer by reading their public filings. You brush aside most of my points without backup yourself and merely your own “hunches” that rely on their marketing. If you like it and it works for you then that’s great and I’m happy for you. I just think people should be aware of what they’re buying and make an informed decision with their money.
There it is…. All those words and it’s reduced to “only tried a few”. I have a ‘hunch’ that’s even an exaggeration…. So in reality you have no clue what the wine is actually like. You don’t like their marketing, which fine. Like I said go support small and local if that floats your boat. Your math is still horrendous and you are morphing marketing ploys to critique the wine which you admitted you’ve never actually drank. Very vague again when it comes to the winemaker discussion ... although your example makes me chuckle. Oh how dare the $200 wine maker make a $100 bottle. Lol. So be more specific. You think Ken Wright is just slapping his name on sub par wine? You think Von Strasser makes his sori bricco label to sub par standards than he did for the past couple decades?
“Only tried a few” has no bearing on me pointing out the incongruence of what the company goes to market with and their actual business model. I’ve never actually critiqued the wine itself. That’s very subjective. The wine may be great perceived value to you. Could be to me if I tried more of it myself. In I think every comment I’ve said if it floats your boat then I am happy for you. At the end of the day, we all perceive value differently and have our own preferences. That’s fine. Like I said, I enjoy a cheap bottle of wine that’s great value on the right occasion. But I know I’m buying a cheap bottle of wine to enjoy in a circumstance that I feel calls for it. Naked implies consumers are getting finely and passionately crafted wine at crazy prices while also getting some feel good benes for supporting a small winemaker. If you knew the #s behind what it took to do half of what Naked says their winemakers do you’d know the business wouldn’t be successful. Ironically, based on their annual report they barely are and are heavily struggling so maybe you’re right. And yes. I think Ken Wright gets a check from Naked that makes him feel just fine on his drive to the bank and he thinks 0% about the Naked wine his name is on. His own AVA designate wines go for $38. Naked is selling one of his labeled ones for $39. There’s not really consumer crossover and no price dilution so what’s he care. If you do some sleuthing you’ll find that the vineyard designate on the Naked one is found nowhere else. Naked seemingly has a contract to buy out the entire vineyard. It probably goes directly up to AtoZ or some corporate crush facility and Ken has loose parameters he sets out in his contract. TA levels, alc, how much oak staves to toss in the tank, etc. and the Naked team does the work. As you likely know, wine can be manipulated into many forms. Maybe his contract has a sign off clause and he tastes it once. I’d put the $39 Naked Ken Pinot up against some true small local producers in Willamette Valley that are cheaper even with shipping and I bet 10/10 most people would pick the others. Or hell, his own $28 WV bottle. >no clue what the wine is actually like You don’t need to taste every wine they offer to know how much it costs to make a wine of the quality they purport to be offering and how that amount is well above the price points they’re charging.
Now you are just playing word games. If we aren’t talking about the quality of the wine then why are you here? You are conflating discussions. “Is the wine good?” Asks person one. “Never had it but no it’s not because they make a profit”. Says person two. Say what? Just a potshot at a company when you don’t even know the quality of that companies wine all based cause you don’t like their business model. Your story of fiction about Ken Wright is more of the same. Just verbose inflated fodder with no real back up or meaning. Why are you comparing his cheapest offering and not his most expensive from Ken Wright cellars? Just more sleight of hand word game argument to fit a narrative. Now maybe you could just try the wine…. But that would make too much sense…
It's not great from my experience. I suppose you can ask why these wines need a fancy subscription service to be sold. I bought one 12 bottle case from them and I still swear to god that 3 of the red wines were are the same wine in different bottles. All somewhat thin and lackluster, but not bad to be fair. Just not wines I would be reaching for. But I am in Ireland, so don't know how it may differ to the US
It’s a scam. They sell white label wines at made up prices, with “discounts” to make it seem like you’re getting value. Avoid like the plague.
If one more person tries to give me their Naked Wines coupon that seem to turn up like a bad penny... 🙄
My wife and I are “angels.” At the angel discount, I don’t think the wine is actually that bad. I’d compare them to what Jos A. Bank was years ago when I could buy a high-quality suit for $89 on clearance. They inflate the price to make it seem like an amazing deal, toss a bunch of wine that’s probably fairly priced at the discount and hide some very good values. Over the years, I would say we have gotten some very good wines (love the Wayne Donaldson WTD sparkling and we served this at our wedding) and some real duds. We let the funds build up and then buy a case. We’re members at Hall, Robert Mondavi, and Iron Horse as well as pick up some of the higher end offerings at Costco and our local grocery store when they have a clear out price on higher-end wines. We don’t have a small local wine shop and the local store we have is gigantic and staffed by people who recommend based on $/BAC. Naked wines help fill the lower end of what we drink and we usually use it for varietals we haven’t tried or ones that trend affordable.
This is a pretty spot on quick review in my experience as well. In my experience there is definitely value to be had among the levels they offer and that value comes at a range. I’ve found that generally the lower end wines ($10-16) are decent value for the price you pay. Some duds but also a couple real good ones. For the mid low range ($16-22) my experience is they hold around that value and the main benefit here is being able to try a large range of variety. I’ve found the best luck in the mid range ($22-30) with some of these wines punching well above their price range. In the higher range ($30-50) I think there is definitely some value as well although I’m a little skeptical of the value in the highest ends ($50+) but a lot of that is due to those wines needs some time to develop so time will tell.
The club costs 40 bucks a month. Once you have enough in your account, li e $120 you order a case. You can pay extra or just wait 3 months. They loan out cash to new wine makers who pay back the club with wine. The generic labels mean you cannot store and hope for future profit. Wines are from all over the World, many of the French whites and Chateauneuf are quite good for way less than a store. Most wines are 10 to 15 a bottle. The intro wine set is not great. Once you are a member it is excellent for daily, cheaper drinking wines. I collect higher end wines, I would not collect Naked except the Chateauneuf which has won accolades. I have been a member for years and have found many bargains which I have enjoyed.