Mike Steinberger on Antonio Galloni's New Venture

“I pointed out that hosting a for-profit tasting with producers whose wines are reviewed by The Wine Advocate seemed at odds with Parker’s ethical guidelines. Galloni said he made clear to the wineries that participation or non-participation in the Barolo event would have no bearing on their ratings…”

Steinberger says the Barolo producers invited to the event were asked to comp all the wine and their travel expenses.

Mike’s Blog

Doesn’t pass the “smell test” regarding conflicts of interest, IMO. What say you?

It seems to be dangerous grand. Nonetheless, Antonio also seems to be supremely confident in his own integrity. I am impressed by him (have had lunch with him once and spoken on a number of occasions) and hope that this doesn’t create issues for him. I was impressed by the candor of his responses in the interview and also over on the eBob thread.

Yeah he comes off fairly well.

However, it’s cashing in on the WA name and the whole story of the WA was that it’s entirely funded by subscriptions. I don’t have a problem if they try to make some money from the name and rep, but that’s kind of what every magazine does isn’t it? So why not accept ads? It’s not like they have any moral high ground any longer once they start selling the name for commercial purposes other than subscriptions. Moreover, since they don’t taste blind, it’s kind of interesting that they’d ask the producers to ante up something for an event when the proceeds go straight to their pockets.

Shanken and co have been holding money-making events for years, but they taste blind so there’s at least a plausible argument that they can make if they’re accused of shaking anyone down.

Anyhow, I think it’s a bit weird but I give Galloni credit. At least he’s ready to deal with the issue head on and didn’t get overly defensive. More importantly, he says he’s willing to re-think the issue if it becomes a problem. Smart. Makes it harder to bitch too much when he doesn’t throw up all kinds of defenses and excuses.

Mike did a good job, as always.

This whole thing worries me in the least. Without a person like Antonio, what is the chance of WA subscribers getting to go to a dinner with such monumental personalities from Piedmont, and for them to be in front of some of their best customers. For me it adds to the value of the WA, as long as he does an event in Seattle [stirthepothal.gif] at some point and continues to be forthright in his actions and intentions. Parker has been above reproach as has Antonio and David, the rest not so much and put themselves in those positions by not being upfront about their actions.

I don’t think anyone has an issue with Antonio’s integrity or intent. That point is settled.

But Bob has been so vocal about not having such arrangements. In a recent exchange I saw with Eric LeVine on the Parker board, Bob stated that the main reason he didn’t want to partner with CT was that he wanted to remain “totally independent.”

Seems he wants to have it both ways. (I’m talking Bob here, not Antonio)

To me, the problem isn’t Antonio’s having these wine events. The problem is that Bob has set up (and reminded everyone at every opportunity) that he wants to remain fiercely independent and, as Mike quoted in his article, he has said “It can be no other way.”

TWA now finds itself talking out of both sides of its mouth–having a principle that they invoke when its convenient to crow about maintaining the moral high ground, but then they deviate from it when monetary interests are involved.

It would have seemed obvious to me that this violates Bob’s policy. Either change the policy (and stop getting on his high horse about it constantly) or change the behavior but I don’t see how you can have it both ways. THEY (Bob) set the policy; we didn’t.

I agree with the replies above lauding Antonio’s integrity, his intent to rate wines fairly, and for his openness about this question. However, the next time he goes to Piedmont to rate a Barolo vintage, he will meet and taste with a range of producers. Let’s say he visits 35 domaines, just to pick a number. And 15 of them have been “sponsers” of his event, in that they have contributed time, wine, and expenses that helped make Antonio’s event successful and profitable. How could I read his reviews, and perhaps spend big bucks influenced by his judgements, without some concern over his objectivity. Even if my concern is on a subliminal level, rather than overt distrust, it still undermines the clarity of The Wine Advocate’s message, IMO. Critics have to work in a lot of grey areas of judgement… Is this wine truly complex? Is it balanced? Will that oak absorb with cellaring? Are those tannins merely firm, or are they astringent? Etc, etc. This kind of grey area will always be grey, and always difficult. I’d prefer that additional greyness based on direct contributions to Antonio’s bottom line not be introduced. JM2C.

A bit of arrogance and naivety on Galloni’s part here. Either remain completely independent or don’t and don’t claim that using the TWA name to make money off events including TWA-rated producers cannot possibly be a conflict of interest. We’re not mind readers here, which is why the perception of conflict of interest is of importance.

“Galloni acknowledged that the controversy involving Miller and Squires has brought heightened scrutiny to The Wine Advocate. “I’m not naïve—I recognize that some of my colleagues haven’t behaved in the most forthright manner,” he told me.”

Eessh! That won’t help employee relations at TWA!

I find this straightforward. He’s using his and TWA’s name and brand to put together for-profit tasting events that include producers and their wines that are routinely reviewed by him and TWA. My understanding is that these aren’t one-off events, for charity, or done blind – these seem to be a new revenue stream for Galloni based on his power as the heir apparent to Captain Bob.

I personally have no issue with this and assume that Galloni’s intentions are pure.

But then there’s this ridiculous document that sits on ebob: http://www.erobertparker.com/info/wstandards.asp

This goes beyond conflict. This is schizophrenia.

This is what I just posted over there, and it expresses my feelings on the matter:

I’ve thought long and hard aobut this (which says something - I am not sure what though), and this is just too much of trying to have it both ways. The Wine Advocate cannot state that it is independent AND have FOR PROFIT events like this organized by its (now) principle writer.

I’m done. subscription will lapse next time it comes up for renewal. I will be sad to no longer read David Schildknecht’s writings on German wines, but Antonio, who I trusted as one of the bastions of WA integrity, has crossed - no - he has erased the line.

To be clear, if Antonio crossed a line, it’s a really stupid line. I don’t see any good reason why reviewers shouldn’t be able to do these kinds of events – especially if the producers are donating their time and wines and are fully aware of the financial arrangements of the events. If Antonio turns into a shill for these producers later on, the market will respond accordingly – it’s not in Galloni’s best interest to act that way.

TWA subscribers aren’t looking for divine purity in their reviewers, or at least they shouldn’t be. They want good information quickly on what to buy. They want reviewers with the best inside access. Scoops, etc.

Parker’s repeated pompous grandstanding on these issues is the problem. Not Galloni.

The costs (and profit) of putting on an event was born partially by participating wineries. That happens all the time. By default, those wineries received a recommendation by Galloni just by mere association with his name and the event. These kinds of ties are created all of the time with all sorts of products.

While wine-dine-review cruises are obviously over-the-line – or at least over-the-line to 99.9999998% of the population – we shouldn’t think that our professional critics can be totally detached from the industry they write about and still provide the kind of access and insight that we want. It’s what they do with the access that must ultimately pass the smell test.

Let’s not require chastity of our clergy, but we should keep an eye on their flirting.

I can agree with that, but don’t put out a code of ethics that requires more than that & then just violate it when convenient.

Wilfred’s point about integrity and intent are a worthwhile starting point. I follow in step with those who are impressed with AG’s character, charm, generosity, talent and genuine passion for fine wine.

I believe he unintentionally stuck his foot in to this quagmire. But stuck it seems to be. A new line needs to be drawn. Some sort of non-profit entity? Organization managed by a 3rd and neutral party? Careful and unbiased invitations to a variety of producers? Don’t know the answer(s). There’s no doubting that the recent Barolo evening was a very popular success. The most extreme shift would be dropping the neutrality/independence policy at WA, which would potentially cripple the brand.

RT

The wineries provided free all time great wines and I’m supposed to think this will in no way influence Mr G.?

“It will not effect future ratings”. Sure, Mr. G, and “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”.

I know if it was me in his shoes my ratings would be affected, I would not want to displease potential future “donors” to events that make my reputation.

That sums it up pretty well. Wine Spectator’s been doing events like this forever and nobody cares. The only reason it’s a big deal for the WA to be doing the same thing is because Parker decided to invest so much of his brand identity in his holier-than-thou grandstanding about his independence. No doubt about it, this type of thing violates Parker’s (stated) standards, but it’s fair to question whether those standards serve much purpose other than feeding Parker’s ego.

I do have to wonder, though, if the producers contributed the wine and paid their own travel expenses, why was it $700 a seat? That sounds like quite a hefty profit.

Bing bing bing! This is the issue. The fact that WS does similar things isn’t relevant since they’ve always taken ads etc. Note, too, that there’s always rumors and slanders around the WS reviews being biased toward advertisers etc. That issue dogs them and there’s a level of distrust in their reviews that doesn’t haunt Tanzer, Gilman, TWA, etc because those newsletters have always maintained one source of money - the reader/subscriber. Parker has been very vocal about this… that Antonio is getting away with it is the most persuasive argument that he’s in some ownership position.


Or, NOT DOING THE EVENTS… It doesn’t matter how nice AG is, how much people trust him, etc. Those of you who know him are and always will be a tiny minority of TWA subscribers. And please… AG’s not a dumb person. He didn’t wanter blindly into this. He knows precisely what he’s doing.

Devil’s advocate: since many or most of the WA reviews are actually done while the reviewer tastes with the producer, on the property, for me the “bias” question has long ago been answered (it’s questionable, at best). Without blind, themed tastings, the ability to minimize bias is definitely in question. Given the methodology of WA tastings, at least for the most famous producers, does a dinner like this really alter anything about the relationship between WA and those producers? Personally I don’t think so.

What I’m saying is that this is completely consistent with existing WA principles. You either accept those, or not, but this is nothing new in my mind.

“What kind of girl do you think I am?”

Have you ever inquired what the cost is to rent out Del Posto on a Saturday night? I have and it ain’t cheap. Plus, there was the NYC sommelier all-star team of approximately 20 serving everyone’s wine needs. And I know what some them charge for their services - again, not cheap. I believe Antonio when he said there was a profit but it wasn’t that substantial.

Disclaimer - I consider AG a friend.