Marketing is more the case with sugared water (ie.e. sodas, that actually spends billions in advertising each year), than with champagne, which is not a single-brand product but tons of different producers, and that was popular way before modern mass marketing was a thing.
People seldom get to even see champagne commercials except in posh magazines or during the holidays. Contrast with sodas, beer, and co.
No marketing needs to be involved, except to promote this or that particular brand of champagne, and that only in the last century.
> EU law and the laws of most countries reserve the term "Champagne" exclusively for wines that come from this region
We still (in Europe) call champagne anything that's a champagne in nature, regardless of origin, even if its maker can't say so on the label.
(The same way perhaps one would say "xerox" even if the machine is from another maker).
"People seldom get to even see champagne commercials"
10 seconds of googling: https://productplacementblog.com/tag/champagnes-and-sparklin...
Sugar content vary wildly between labels and with that the taste. A lot of people whom don't like wine do like champagne because of the sugar overwhelming much of the other acid tones, and call it "fruity".
Also tannis contents vary a lot between bottles which can cause varying reaction to taste and enjoyment, up and including migraine.
With all that I mean there's a chance that a champagne/wine of your liking is out there but it's hard to find because labels prefer to talk about flavors and notes instead of giving out useful information
Each to their own I guess, but I agree that "universal appeal" is overblown.