Livermore Wine District Sees 24% Marketing Hike but 9% Drop in Revenue as WID Model Faces Scrutiny

As the holiday season approaches, discussions about Winery Improvement Districts (WIDs) are resurfacing in California’s wine regions. The proposed Sonoma County Wine Improvement District, a topic of debate before this year’s harvest, remains on hold. Meanwhile, attention has shifted to Livermore Valley, one of the few regions with a long-standing WID, as its 2024–2025 annual report was quietly released ahead of the Livermore City Council meeting scheduled for November 24.

The Livermore Wine Heritage District’s report details how funds from its 2% tax on direct-to-consumer (DTC) sales were allocated over the past year. The breakdown shows 33% spent on marketing and brand awareness, 18% on quality enhancement and education, 15% each on administration and advocacy, and 10% on professional development. The remaining funds covered fees and contingencies. The district plans to renew the WID next year and expresses confidence in its value.

However, a closer look at the numbers reveals some challenges. Marketing expenditures increased by nearly 24%, rising from $481,802 in 2023–2024 to $597,066 in 2024–2025. Despite this investment, revenue from the WID’s 2% assessment dropped by more than 9%, from $567,829 to $514,714. This decline in DTC sales outpaces the industrywide drop of 5% reported by Sovos/ShipCompliant for 2024. The report also notes that four Livermore wineries closed during the year.

These figures raise questions about the effectiveness of WIDs as a solution for struggling wine regions. While WIDs are efficient at raising money through assessments, there is little evidence that increased spending alone can reverse broader industry trends or prevent closures. The optimism in official reports contrasts with the reality of declining sales and business closures.

The experience in Livermore suggests that simply increasing marketing budgets may not be enough to address deeper structural issues facing California’s wine industry. Some industry observers are now questioning whether local WIDs are too limited in scope to make a significant impact. Instead of competing region by region—Sonoma versus Livermore versus Santa Barbara—there is growing interest in exploring a statewide approach.

A California-wide Wine Improvement District could pool resources from across all regions to promote California wine as a whole. Proponents point to successful statewide campaigns like “I Love New York,” which helped revitalize tourism across New York State. A unified campaign could potentially boost DTC engagement and raise the profile of California wines nationally and internationally.

Implementing such a model would require coordination among regional associations, government agencies, and industry leaders. It would also demand new leadership willing to bridge political and economic divides within the state’s diverse wine community. While challenging, supporters argue that large-scale problems require equally ambitious solutions.

For now, local WIDs like Livermore’s continue their work while other regions watch closely. As Sonoma County considers its own WID proposal and other areas weigh their options, the conversation about how best to support California’s wine industry is far from over. The idea of a statewide effort is gaining traction among those who believe that collaboration—not competition—may be key to ensuring the future success of California wine.