(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. Meta – in this specific case Facebook – has, according to consistent industry reports, begun algorithmically to stop recommendingpages relating to alcohol. Not deleted, not banned, not necessarily sanctioned. But removed by the algorithm from precisely the shop window that has become a lifeline for many businesses in recent years: recommendations, suggestions, “You might also like”, new target groups, organic growth.
That sounds like nothing more than a detail of so-called platform mechanics. But for wine estates, retailers, bars, restaurants and wine media, it is a real watershed. Because anyone who wants visibility today does not live only from followers, but from systems that pass oncontent. Anyone who falls out of those systems becomes less visible – and not just a little, but structurally. The wine market is thus unexpectedly being served a taste of the “new world order”: rules decided elsewhere intrude into our everyday lives, without us having a say, voting, or even understanding the criteria by which decisions are currently being made.
Particularly bitter: even accounts that place adverts with Meta are not automatically protected. This seems paradoxical, but is technically plausible. Paid ads and organic recommendations are two separate machine components. Ads are delivered through an auction system: target group, budget, relevance, bids. Recommendations, by contrast, run through their own classifiers and “eligibility” rules: Is an account suitable for suggestions? Is the subject “sensitive”? Is there an increased risk to minors? Does it fit the brand-safety logic? If a system says, “We do not recommend alcohol pages”, it is of little help that one is spending money elsewhere within the same group. You buy reach – but you do not necessarily buy access to organic serendipity.
This is more than a marketing problem. It is a problem of reporting, discourse and cultural presence. Wine – whether one loves or criticises it – is part of everyday European culture: agriculture, gastronomy, craftsmanship, regional identity, enjoyment. When a US platform decides that wine is “not recommendable”, culture quickly becomes a marginal issue. Without a prohibition sign. But with the throttle turned down.
And this raises the question that everyone who has chosen Instagram as their stage in recent years is currently asking: When will Instagram follow suit? Instagram belongs to Meta. The technical building blocks are similar: recommendation surfaces, the Explore tab, Reels discovery, suggested accounts. If Facebook draws a line here, it is at least conceivable that the same logic – perhaps in a different form – will also reach Instagram. And then things become serious: while Facebook already seems “older” to some industries, Instagram is the central channel for many wine brands, sommeliers, retailers and media outlets.
What we are seeing at the moment is a classic dynamic of digital platform power: measures are rolled out, users receive vague indications, specific reasons remain absent, and avenues of appeal are laborious. For small businesses, this is devastating, because they do not have the means to suddenly build anew on other channels. And for consumers it is equally dispiriting: less discovery, less variety, more bland uniformity. Not because the market wants it – but because an algorithm sorts things that way.
That brings us to the delicate but necessary question: Are we seriously threatened by US providers? Is a “Cancel Wine” on social media looming? “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 like a cultural filter. Not articulated in moral terms, but implemented technically. And technology is the most elegant form of power: it does not have to explain itself; it works as its developers want and plan it to.
The consequence cannot be to look back nostalgically to “the past”. The consequence is diversification – and, in the medium term, sovereignty. Europe needs a serious initiative for its own digital infrastructure: providers, servers, hosting, but also platforms that do not treat cultural industries like risk products. At the same time, the wine world needs something it has so far lacked: its own social media, at least as a network in which producers, retailers, sommeliers and media can communicate independently of the whims of foreign platforms. It does not have to be huge, but it has to 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 stage. Mailing lists, their own websites, RSS, search engine optimisation, collaborations, perhaps also federated networks – anything that reduces dependence is suddenly relevant again. Because the lesson of this Meta decision is brutally simple: Anyone who does not own the infrastructure can be removed from the shop window at any time. And wine is too big, too cultural and too European to put up with that permanently. Wineparty left Facebook on Monday.