The International Review of Wine Packaging and Aesthetics, Vol. 12. *Special double-dog edition! *

Yard Dog
Petit Verdot-Cabernet-Melboc blend; South Eastern Australia
$13 (Savannah)

Bulldog Red
Syrah-Grenache-Mourvedre blend; Paso Robles, California
$18.50 (Savannah)

[Note: This is the twelfth installment in a regular Murketing feature. For previous installments and an explanation, go here.]

Yes, that’s right, it’s a special double-shot of wine label aesthetics today, as we assess two dog-themed labels.

First up: Yard Dog.

As you can see, the label depicts a frightening, teeth-bearing dog, who looks starved, angry, miserable, and dangerous. This poor beast is juxtaposed against jaunty polka dots and some newsprint, in a collage effect. It’s quite an image. Particularly for a wine label.

It caught E’s attention the store, and resulted a rare instance of wanting to read the backmatter: “I really wanted some information.”

“Yard dog, every street has one,” it says. “The once beloved family pet that has gone feral, a canine prisoner condemned….” It goes on to make a comparison between these sad creatures and allegedly “neglected” wine varieties that, if we follow correctly, this brand is saving. “Beware of the Yard Dog.”

While “fairly horrifed by the description,” E bought the bottle, because, of course, we have this project going, etc.

Anyway, R. and E are largely in agreement that the whole thing is a bit grotesque. Why a tortured-looking animal as your mascot? Why suggest that every “yard dog” looks like this? (Our dog lives indoors, but our neighbors, for example, have some docile, friendly, well-cared-for animals who happen to live outside much of the time, and I suspect they’d be offended.) Finally, does every street in Australia really have a dog that looks like this wandering about? If so, says, E, “I’m not going.”

Having said that, we admit that it’s a pretty attractive design. But it’s much more appropriate for an art gallery than a consumer product. By and large, most people don’t want to think about suffering animals while enjoying a fine meal. We suspect. (Or hope.)
The bottom line, in our view, is that comparing wine varieties to animal abuse seems, you know, really crass. Says E: “I won’t be buying any more of this. For that reason.”

Regarding the actual wine: Fine.

Next up: Bulldog Red.

R. bought this one, because he knows that E is crazy about bulldogs. (And R. is crazy about E, so there you have it.) Clearly this wine is aiming very squarely at precisely that customer: The person attracted to pictures of bulldogs.

Now, the interesting sidenote here is that the IRoWPaA happens to be based in the state of Georgia. The bulldog is a rather iconic figure in Georgia, at least among those who are supporters of the University of Georgia football team. The team is called the Bulldogs, and its mascot is a bulldog, named Uga.

Both R. and E originally assumed, in fact, that this wine must somehow be a local product. Aside from the fact that bulldog on the bottle is white-furred, like Uga, the background of the label is a color not unlike that worn by the UGA football team. Plus the typeface in which Bulldog Red is rendered has a sort of sports-y look about it.

But no. The bottle says it’s a California product. Although the backmatter does mention tailgating. Hmmm. Certainly there can’t be anywhere else in the country where a retailer would have the moxie to charge $18.49 for this (screw-top!) wine, is there?

Anyway, clearly the actual design here is not nearly as compelling as the yard dog. In fact neither R. nor E can come up with anything particularly nice to say about it, except that there’s a picture of a bulldog on it, which is pleasing.

E summarizes: “This celebrates the dog. The other one humiliates the dog. Who doesn’t like looking at a big old bulldog face with his teeth jutting out? He’s cute. I’d give him a scratch.”

So: While it’s an inferior design, it’s simultaneously more pleasing to look at.

Regarding the actual wine: So-so, and, obviously, a total ripoff at that price.