Last year over the holidays, I attended a virtual wine tasting event that was put on by one of our partners. It was with a vineyard / winemaker in Spain and so it was evening for us and some ungodly hour for him.

At the end of the tasting -- which was exceptional, by the way -- I asked him what he thought about the Niagara region. Some of you may know that I love to support local Ontario wines. His response was hilarious and something along the lines of: "When we think of Niagara wines, we think of a part of the world that shouldn't produce wine but somehow does."

Ouch.

This was maybe the case before. But I think the region, vines, and industry have all matured. We also have some exceptional winemakers, some of which have come from the Old World because our startup-y wine region affords them far more creative freedom.

But you might also argue that things are changing because our climate is changing. The Financial Times recently published an interesting "big read" about how agricultural production and crop types are shifting around the world in the face of climate temperatures.

It turns out that wine grapes are a pretty good leading indicator. A canary in the coal mine if you will. Because climate matters a great deal if you're trying to make exceptional wines. And if you've been harvesting a particular thing at a certain time for the last 5 decades and you're now doing it several weeks earlier, it might be a sign that something is changing.

It also turns out that two countries, in particular, stand to disproportionately benefit from this shifting agricultural landscape: Canada and Russia. As temperatures change, a new agricultural frontier is going to be created. And it is expected that more than 50% of this land will be in these two countries. See image at the top of this post.

Of course, there's a flipside to this change. Countries on the other end of the spectrum with marginal growing climates and/or low production yields, could be severely impacted by higher temperatures. So perhaps it is a good idea to stay on top of what's happening in the world of wine. Might I recommend something from Niagara?

Image: FT

So Soho House went public this week. It is now trading on the NYSE under the ticker $MCG. It renamed itself the Membership Collective Group Inc. for the IPO given the myriad of brands that the company now operates. The company went public at $14 a share and with a $2.8 billion valuation. It raised $420 million through the offering.

My first reaction when I heard the news was that going public is maybe at odds with being a cool, urban, and exclusive membership club. We're all about creatives; also, buy our stock. But maybe I'm wrong. This is just the company maturing. At 26 years old, the company now has some 119,000 members and has 30 Soho Houses around the world in 12 different countries.

Full disclosure: I am a member and a big fan of Soho House.

But now that the company is public, we also know that it has never turned a profit. And it hopes to do that by next year, as well as open some five to seven new Soho Houses each year while trying to remain "asset light". As the company does this and pushes toward profitability, there is, of course, a very natural question about what that does to the experience and the overall brand.

Does it get diluted at all?

I don't think that necessarily needs to be the case. But of course the company will end up evolving. On a related note, if anyone from Soho House / MCG is reading this post (unlikely), I would love to connect about an opportunity here in the Toronto area. I think it has the potential to become something truly remarkable -- not to mention, much needed. I can be reached, here.

I was picking up food the other night on Bloor Street (via Uber Eats) and the lineup of delivery drivers outside of the restaurant was at least ten people deep when we arrived. While we were waiting, another handful of drivers pulled over to quickly pickup their deliveries. This is what is happening in our cities right now, especially here in Toronto while we live through another stay-at-home order. And the numbers certainly reflect it.

Last month in March, Uber's delivery business (which is separate from the company's mobility business) recorded a 150% year-over-year increase in annualized gross bookings. The company's run-rate as of March is now $52 billion. To put this number into perspective, the company's mobility business also had its best ever month in March with an annualized gross bookings run-rate of $30 billion.

Delivery > mobility right now. Makes sense.

To further put this into perspective, total restaurant spending across the entirety of the United States was $670 billion in 2019 (figure from Benedict Evans). So Uber Eats has quickly become a meaningful part of how we eat. I obviously believe that people are dying to get out and eat at restaurants again, but these figures are still interesting nonetheless.

It's also interesting to think about the above trendline from a broader logistics perspective. Alongside the rise in Uber Eats, we are seeing a wave of capital move toward "rapid delivery apps." These are platforms that allow meals, groceries, and other stuff to be delivered, in some cases, almost right away, which aligns with where I think consumers are moving. Rather than making lists and doing weekly shops, it's now about just-in-time delivery.

It's arguably a lazier way of going about things, but water will always find the path of least resistance.

Many, or perhaps most, of these platforms have adopted an asset light approach. Instacart, which partners with existing grocers, would fall into this category. Their model revolves around gig workers going into existing stores, picking orders directly from the shelves, and then delivering those orders. And it is what Blair Welch was getting at in his recent RENX interview when he reasoned that grocery shopping is still being done, almost exclusively, at local stores.

This approach is enough for Instacart to be valued at nearly $40 billion, according to the Financial Times. So something seems to be working.