(Editorial team / Manfred Klimek)
It is one of those moments when the industry realises that ‘digitalisation’ does not just mean attractive reach curves, but dependence. According to consistent industry reports, Meta – in this specific case, Facebook – has begun to stop algorithmically recommending pages related to alcohol. Not deleted, not banned, not necessarily penalised. But, with the help of the algorithm, removed from precisely that showcase which has become a lifeline for many businesses in recent years: recommendations, suggestions, ‘You might also like this’, new target audiences, organic growth.
That might sound like nothing more than a minor detail of so-called platform mechanics. For wineries, retailers, bars, restaurants and wine media, however, it marks a real turning point. After all, anyone seeking visibility today relies not only on followers, but on systems that distribute content. Those who fall out of this system become less visible – and not just a little, but structurally so. The wine market is thus unexpectedly being served a dose of the ‘new world order’: rules decided elsewhere are encroaching on our daily lives without us having a say, being able to vote, or even understanding the criteria on which decisions are currently being made.
What’s particularly bitter is that even accounts that run adverts on Meta aren’t automatically protected. This seems paradoxical, but it’s technically plausible. Paid adverts and organic recommendations are two separate parts of the system. Adverts are served via an auction system: target audience, budget, relevance, bids. Recommendations, on the other hand, run through their own classifiers and ‘eligibility’ rules: Is an account suitable for suggestions? Is the topic ‘sensitive’? Is there an increased risk to minors? Does it fit within the brand safety framework? If a system says, ‘We do not recommend alcohol-related pages’, then it is of little help that you are spending money elsewhere within the same group. You are buying reach – but you are not necessarily buying access to organic serendipity.
This is more than just a marketing problem. It is a problem of reporting, discourse and cultural presence. Wine – whether you love it or criticise it – is part of everyday European culture: agriculture, gastronomy, craftsmanship, regional identity, enjoyment. When a US platform decides that wine is ‘not recommended’, culture quickly becomes a marginalised topic. Not with a ‘no entry’ sign, but with a throttle.
And this raises the question that everyone who has chosen Instagram as their stage in recent years is now asking: when will Instagram follow suit? Instagram is part of Meta. The technical building blocks are similar: recommendation feeds, the Explore tab, Reels Discovery, suggested accounts. If Facebook draws a line here, it’s at least conceivable that the same logic – perhaps in a different form – will also reach Instagram. And then things will get serious: whilst Facebook already seems ‘old-fashioned’ to some sectors, Instagram is the main channel for many wine brands, sommeliers, retailers and media outlets.
What we’re seeing at the moment is a classic dynamic of digital platform power: measures are rolled out, users receive vague hints, concrete justifications are lacking, and appeal processes are cumbersome. For small businesses, this is devastating, as they lack the resources to suddenly rebuild their presence on other channels. And for consumers, it is equally unwelcome: less discovery, less diversity, more uniformity. Not because the market wants it – but because an algorithm sorts it that way.
This brings us to the delicate but necessary question: are we seriously under threat from US providers? Is there a risk of a ‘Cancel Wine’ campaign on social media? ‘Cancel’ is a big word. But yes: If visibility is regarded as infrastructure – and it has long been so – then any restriction on recommendations can act as a cultural filter. Not formulated in moral terms, but implemented technically. And technology is the most elegant form of power: it need not explain itself; it functions as its developers intend and plan.
The consequence cannot be to look back nostalgically to ‘the old days’. The consequence is diversification – and, in the medium term, autonomy. Europe needs a serious initiative to build its own digital infrastructure: providers, servers, hosting, but also platforms that do not treat cultural sectors as high-risk products. At the same time, the wine world needs something it has lacked until now: its own social media, at the very least as a network where producers, retailers, sommeliers and the media can communicate independently of the whims of third-party platforms. It doesn’t have to be huge, but it must work. If in doubt, federated, open, with clear rules – more like a digital wine village than a global stadium.
Until then, the rule is: anyone communicating about wine should not rely on just one platform. Mailing lists, dedicated websites, RSS feeds, search engine optimisation, collaborations, perhaps even federated networks – anything that reduces dependence is suddenly relevant again. Because the lesson of this meta-decision is brutally simple: if you don’t own the infrastructure, you can be taken off the shelf at any time. And wine is too big, too cultural and too European to put up with that in the long term. Wineparty left Facebook on Monday.