Galloni backhands Parker

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
Nate Simon
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 1639
Joined: September 17th 2009, 8:41pm

Galloni backhands Parker

Post #1  Postby Nate Simon » March 5th 2013, 3:54pm

Advertisement

Russ Williams
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 6299
Joined: January 30th 2009, 10:58am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #2  Postby Russ Williams » March 5th 2013, 4:14pm

Priceless indeed!!! Absolutely love it!!!
"That said, if you prefer the Russian River pinots, you probably have the palate of a yak."
-Bob Wood R.I.P.
User avatar
ky1em!ttskus
(Online)
 
Posts: 2753
Joined: January 27th 2012, 8:38am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #3  Postby ky1em!ttskus » March 5th 2013, 4:17pm

Points are stupid. The merits of professional reviews can be debated forever. But man, I like AG.
User avatar
Mark Y
SubscriberSubscriber
Go Hawks!
 
Posts: 5347
Joined: May 1st 2009, 11:19am
Location: Woodinville, WA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #4  Postby Mark Y » March 5th 2013, 4:25pm

I'm guessing the WA declined to use the Sonoma review b/c they are worried about supporters crossing over to AG?
Y.e.
User avatar
Chris Blum
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: October 10th 2009, 1:40pm
Location: Home of the Mayo Clinic

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #5  Postby Chris Blum » March 5th 2013, 4:38pm

Out of my deep respect for Bob, our joint readers, and in the spirit of collaboration, on February 15 I offered to make the Sonoma reviews available to TWA readers for free, on my new platform, once the article had been written and posted. TWA declined.


Well played, sir. Well played. [cheers.gif]
"Well, wine only turns into alcohol if you let it sit" -- Lucille Bluth
"The Packers f'n suck" -- Todd French
Russ Williams
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 6299
Joined: January 30th 2009, 10:58am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #6  Postby Russ Williams » March 5th 2013, 4:54pm

markye wrote:I'm guessing the WA declined to use the Sonoma review b/c they are worried about supporters crossing over to AG?


Sort of like Squires displaying ******** anytime someone typed Berserkers? Lot of good that did. This pathetic attempt will have the same effect.
"That said, if you prefer the Russian River pinots, you probably have the palate of a yak."
-Bob Wood R.I.P.
User avatar
Chris Seiber
SubscriberSubscriber
Omnivinovore
 
Posts: 6949
Joined: April 28th 2010, 3:22pm
Location: Newport Beach, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #7  Postby Chris Seiber » March 5th 2013, 4:58pm

I'm not a partisan as between AG and RP, so I ask innocently if I understand this correctly: these are reviews some of most of which AG made while employed by TWA, and now he's going to publish them on his new website, and he offered to let RP's customers come view them for free on AG's new website, but RP declined.

I don't see RP being in the wrong on any of that, particularly in declining to collaborate with a program clearly designed to move a bunch of his subscribers over to familiarize themselves with AG's new competitor site, based on content some or most of which RP paid AG to create.

But maybe there are details outside of this story that give it some context (because I don't care too much about taking sides as between critics, I didn't follow the long thread about AG's departure from TWA).
"Appreciating old wine is like making love to a very old lady. It is possible. It can even be enjoyable. But it requires a bit of imagination." - Andre Tchelistcheff
WvanGorp
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: April 19th 2009, 9:37am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #8  Postby WvanGorp » March 5th 2013, 5:06pm

Wow. GO ANTONIO! He's not afraid to speak out. Bravo.
Wilfred van Gorp
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bacchus and Vesuvius
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #9  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:11pm

Chris, for sure one detail wrong is that AG was not an employee of TWA (he was an independent contractor.)

Other than that, I agree this is a move to get TWA subscribers to look at his site, which RMP understandably declined. AG's making them available for free to anyone accomplishes this anyway and makes TWA look like they're willing to deny their subscribers something in the name of holding market share, which is where this make RMP/TWA look bad.

I'm neutral on the theory that anybody did anything wrong. It seems like everybody is technically fine ethically but TWA was outmaneuvered again.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #10  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:12pm

Chris Seiber wrote:I don't see RP being in the wrong on any of that, particularly in declining to collaborate with a program clearly designed to move a bunch of his subscribers over to familiarize themselves with AG's new competitor site, based on content some or most of which RP paid AG to create.


Has it been confirmed that AG was paid in any way for this?
I don't know the terms of his agreement with WA, but it wouldn't be unusual for an IC to get paid (and re-imbursed for expenses) after the job is completed.

Not that it would matter much to me... I think Galloni has behaved pretty unprofessionally here, and the mere fact that he hasn't been paid yet wouldn't change my opinion.
Free Klapp!
WvanGorp
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: April 19th 2009, 9:37am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #11  Postby WvanGorp » March 5th 2013, 5:16pm

Galloni makes it clear the reviews aren't completed. Given he left TWA last month and the reviews are not yet completed, he could not have been paid for a product since it isn't completed yet.
Wilfred van Gorp
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12091
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA & Bern, Switzerland

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #12  Postby Eric LeVine » March 5th 2013, 5:16pm

Only Bob, Antonio, and Lisa really know how things went down. They did. Done.

Regardless, now Antonio is willing to make content freely available that otherwise people would have had to pay WA or AG to see. Of course there is some self-interest on his part, but it is my personal belief that his core motivation is trying to do right by the consumer. I find it hard to criticize him for that. Some folks seem to disagree and only see self interest in his actions. OK, that's your call.
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
User avatar
c fu
(Online)
ModeratorModerator
Domaine De La Husky
 
Posts: 24294
Joined: January 27th 2009, 2:26pm
Location: DTLA/Pasadena

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #13  Postby c fu » March 5th 2013, 5:17pm

Bruce G wrote:
Chris Seiber wrote:I don't see RP being in the wrong on any of that, particularly in declining to collaborate with a program clearly designed to move a bunch of his subscribers over to familiarize themselves with AG's new competitor site, based on content some or most of which RP paid AG to create.


Has it been confirmed that AG was paid in any way for this?
I don't know the terms of his agreement with WA, but it wouldn't be unusual for an IC to get paid (and re-imbursed for expenses) after the job is completed.

Not that it would matter much to me... I think Galloni has behaved pretty unprofessionally here, and the mere fact that he hasn't been paid yet wouldn't change my opinion.

depends.

If it's a typical work for hire, it's the WA's property... anything he was done while being contracted by WA is their property. Otherwise every single independent contractor doing a work of art, would complete 90% of their work, quit and then say they don't owe jack. I would think this falls into it as well, but who knows what their contract says.
Ch@rlie F|_|

"Roulot is Roulot"©
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bacchus and Vesuvius
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #14  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:22pm

Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #15  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:24pm

Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.
Free Klapp!
Jane Crabill
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: March 28th 2011, 12:34pm

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #16  Postby Jane Crabill » March 5th 2013, 5:29pm

I'm most likely going to read the published reviews since Sonoma is one of my favorite wine regions. I'm less likely to subscribe for future articles.
Fayetteville, NC
User avatar
Poppy Davis
SubscriberSubscriber
Missing Bob
 
Posts: 4134
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:51pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #17  Postby Poppy Davis » March 5th 2013, 5:30pm

Seeing how WA has been doing business, I wouldn't be shocked at all if there is no actual written contract and this was all done on a handshake. It's still unbelievable to me that someone would buy this company without assurances in place that something like this couldn't happen.
Poppy Davis Fruchtman, formerly ITB
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bacchus and Vesuvius
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #18  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:30pm

Bruce G wrote:
Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.


With respect to TWA subscribers, he's doing exactly the opposite of that (in a self-serving way that screws TWA).

IMO the big "screw you" was in how TWA treated AG (based on public statements by LP-B).
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
User avatar
Ian Dorin
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #19  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 5:36pm

Larry P wrote:Chris, for sure one detail wrong is that AG was not an employee of TWA (he was an independent contractor.)

Other than that, I agree this is a move to get TWA subscribers to look at his site, which RMP understandably declined. AG's making them available for free to anyone accomplishes this anyway and makes TWA look like they're willing to deny their subscribers something in the name of holding market share, which is where this make RMP/TWA look bad.

I'm neutral on the theory that anybody did anything wrong. It seems like everybody is technically fine ethically but TWA was outmaneuvered again.


It seems as though outmaneuvering TWA is like playing tackle football with the Venus De Milo.
ITB, Heritage Auction.

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.” -WC Fields
User avatar
Ian Dorin
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #20  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 5:39pm

Larry P wrote:
Bruce G wrote:
Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.


With respect to TWA subscribers, he's doing exactly the opposite of that (in a self-serving way that screws TWA).

IMO the big "screw you" was in how TWA treated AG (based on public statements by LP-B).


+1 to Larry's comment. This was open arms all the way to subscribers.
ITB, Heritage Auction.

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.” -WC Fields
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #21  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:40pm

Larry P wrote:With respect to TWA subscribers, he's doing exactly the opposite of that (in a self-serving way that screws TWA).


I disagree.
WA subscribers have to visit another site, The reviews won't be integrated into searchable database that they have paid for. God only knows how long free access to the reviews will be allowed.
The best thing for a WA subscriber would unquestionably be that Galloni finish up the report and hand it over to WA as per usual.

IMO the big "screw you" was in how TWA treated AG (based on public statements by LP-B).


It may well be that Galloni was treated so poorly that he decided that this was his only option.
Short of him being fired, though, I don't see how that lessens his obligations to his readership.
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bacchus and Vesuvius
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #22  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 5:45pm

It's clear that TWA demanded a change AG's employment agreement, that's public record. At that point does his responsibility to TWA (and the subscribers) end? I'd say it ends once his agreement with TWA is terminated, which has passed already.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #23  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 5:54pm

If he was terminated then he holds no obligations.
If he decided to quit then he is obliged to finish up any work that was promised and pending at the time he tendered his resignation. Unless, of course, WA told him it wasn't necessary to do so.
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bacchus and Vesuvius
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #24  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 6:00pm

This, however, gets into details we don't know. If we have to speculate on unknown scenarios to say AG screwed anybody, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Particularly given the obviously antagonistic original statement by LP-B about writers being "a dime a dozen" and that AG is making the reviews available to everybody.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
User avatar
Ken V
SubscriberSubscriber
Fine Wine Geek
 
Posts: 36318
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Delmar, NY

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #25  Postby Ken V » March 5th 2013, 6:06pm

Bruce G wrote:
Larry P wrote:Who owns the reviews is a matter of contract which none of us are privy to. I'm willing to give Antonio the benefit of the doubt that he has legal grounds based on his contract to do what he's doing.


I'm not disputing that.
But his response adds up to a flat-out "Screw you" to both the WA and (far more importantly) its subscribership. This is not about legally binding contracts, it's about professionalism.

You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.

Note that the WA editorial calendar for 2013 still includes articles by Antonio in every issue:

http://www.erobertparker.com/info/WineA ... lendar.asp

It has not been changed. He left the WA on 2/12 and delivered his one scheduled contribution to the February issue (Central & Southern Italy).
Ken V @ s t o l @
The Fine Wine Geek
Click on the W W W button under my name to see my website.
"Don't be meek, embrace the geek." -Terry Theise
Twitter: @FineWineGeek
User avatar
Ken V
SubscriberSubscriber
Fine Wine Geek
 
Posts: 36318
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Delmar, NY

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #26  Postby Ken V » March 5th 2013, 6:10pm

Charlie Fu wrote:If it's a typical work for hire, it's the WA's property... anything he was done while being contracted by WA is their property. ....

This is not so in this case. I know that from the beginning Antonio would not join the WA without retaining all of his intellectual property.
Ken V @ s t o l @
The Fine Wine Geek
Click on the W W W button under my name to see my website.
"Don't be meek, embrace the geek." -Terry Theise
Twitter: @FineWineGeek
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #27  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:15pm

What you say is, I guess, plausible. I don't know that it is likely, though.

Galloni has already stated that this was a resignation, not a termination of employment.
I can't imagine why the WA would turn down an offer from him to finish up his pending projects as per the previous working arrangement.
I guess that he might have suggested that to WA and been told that he'd have to agree to have these unfinished projects covered by the new WA terms. Seems to me that he would have taken the opportunity to mention that in his summary of this incident. All we have there (and according to him) is that he proposed new terms to cover these unfinished matters. He makes no mention of WA doing the same.
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Ian Dorin
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #28  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 6:23pm

Bruce G wrote:What you say is, I guess, plausible. I don't know that it is likely, though.

Galloni has already stated that this was a resignation, not a termination of employment.
I can't imagine why the WA would turn down an offer from him to finish up his pending projects as per the previous working arrangement.
I guess that he might have suggested that to WA and been told that he'd have to agree to have these unfinished projects covered by the new WA terms. Seems to me that he would have taken the opportunity to mention that in his summary of this incident. All we have there (and according to him) is that he proposed new terms to cover these unfinished matters. He makes no mention of WA doing the same.


Bruce, not only did it not appear in the calendar, Parker himself posted on Valentine's Day that the Sonoma reviews were not making issue 205. It's on the forum.

A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not "finishing" his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That's extremely unfair. I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he's not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.

I'm pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so Galloni "taking his ball and going home" are as fair play as any move he could have made.
ITB, Heritage Auction.

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.” -WC Fields
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #29  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:26pm

Ken V wrote:You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.


Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12091
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA & Bern, Switzerland

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #30  Postby Eric LeVine » March 5th 2013, 6:32pm

Bruce G wrote:
Ken V wrote:You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.


Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).

He is tying it up, and he has told you where you will be able to read it for free...
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
User avatar
Daniel H
 
Posts: 374
Joined: February 3rd 2010, 10:01pm

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #31  Postby Daniel H » March 5th 2013, 6:39pm

Bruce G wrote:
Ken V wrote:You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.


Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).



I don't understand your extreme reaction. Galloni's report will be available free for everyone, including WA subscribers. He isn't depriving them of anything. Are you arguing that he should only let WA subscribers read it? What's the point? The days of getting a great deal on the "best" wines as a subscriber are long gone. Retailers usually update their prices within minutes of a singificant new critic report...
H.e n.n e.s s.e.y
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #32  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:42pm

Ian Dorin wrote:Bruce, not only did it not appear in the calendar, Parker himself posted on Valentine's Day that the Sonoma reviews were not making issue 205. It's on the forum.


Again, I don't see the relevance of this.
If he agreed to take on the project for WA and started it, then he should finish it up. I don't think he needs to continue tasting wines (he mentions having more wines to taste), but a report on what he tasted and learned from producers up through the day he tendered his resignation is in order.

A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not "finishing" his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That's extremely unfair.


The claim of unprofessionalism is not thrown about lightly.
It's true that we don't know the terms of his contract. But a number of people, including Galloni, have spoken about the matter publically. I use those pronouncements (discounting those that seem to be in dispute) to make the claim.

I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he's not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.


I empathize with Galloni over the fact that things didn't work out well for him.
Again, though, I fail to see the relevance with regard to his obligations to the WA subscribership.

I'm pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so Galloni "taking his ball and going home" are as fair play as any move he could have made.


Not sure what you mean by "fair play". I have no knowledge that his actions are an abrogation of a legally binding contract, and certainly have made no claims to that effect.
From a professional standpoint I think he could have handled things better.
Free Klapp!
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #33  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 6:52pm

Daniel Hennessy wrote:I don't understand your extreme reaction.


And I don't understand why you view my reaction as extreme.

-He agreed to take on a project for an employer.
-Part way through he decided that he no longer wanted to work for the employer.
This is my understanding of the facts. I may be wrong here, and would welcome anyone showing me where I'm in error.
If the two statements above are correct, though, then I think that a sense of professionalism requires that he tie things up in a manner suitable to his employers, consistent with the terms that existed when he initially agreed to take on the work.
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Ian Dorin
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3684
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:39pm
Location: Springfield, NJ

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #34  Postby Ian Dorin » March 5th 2013, 6:53pm

Bruce G wrote:
Ian Dorin wrote:Bruce, not only did it not appear in the calendar, Parker himself posted on Valentine's Day that the Sonoma reviews were not making issue 205. It's on the forum.


Again, I don't see the relevance of this.
If he agreed to take on the project for WA and started it, then he should finish it up. I don't think he needs to continue tasting wines (he mentions having more wines to taste), but a report on what he tasted and learned from producers up through the day he tendered his resignation is in order.

A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not "finishing" his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That's extremely unfair.


The claim of unprofessionalism is not thrown about lightly.
It's true that we don't know the terms of his contract. But a number of people, including Galloni, have spoken about the matter publically. I use those pronouncements (discounting those that seem to be in dispute) to make the claim.

I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he's not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.


I empathize with Galloni over the fact that things didn't work out well for him.
Again, though, I fail to see the relevance with regard to his obligations to the WA subscribership.

I'm pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I'm wrong), so Galloni "taking his ball and going home" are as fair play as any move he could have made.


Not sure what you mean by "fair play". I have no knowledge that his actions are an abrogation of a legally binding contract, and certainly have made no claims to that effect.
From a professional standpoint I think he could have handled things better.


Bruce, I'm getting the impression you are steadfast in your opinion b/c you are a guy that will play things out even if they were going your way, and I greatly applaud you for that.
ITB, Heritage Auction.

“I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted.” -WC Fields
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3268
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #35  Postby Jim Brennan » March 5th 2013, 6:56pm

Bruce G wrote:Ken:

This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?

This is an honest question, as I genuinely don't know.
But everything I've seen, including Galloni's own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers... that being, the people who pay to read the WA).


The only obligations he has are those that are contractually specified. Whether he started work or not on the Sonoma report is irrelevant if he had not yet been compensated for that work, and was not otherwise contractually committed to it. And no obligation can even be inferred since it was not on the editorial calendar.
Last edited by Jim Brennan on March 5th 2013, 6:59pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bacchus and Vesuvius
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #36  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 6:58pm

Bruce G wrote:-He agreed to take on a project for an employer.
-Part way through he decided that he no longer wanted to work for the employer.
This is my understanding of the facts. I may be wrong here, and would welcome anyone showing me where I'm in error.


How about...

-Part way through, his employer changed ownership, and the new owner notified him the terms of his employment would be changed if he was to continue with his project.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
User avatar
Scott Brunson
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 5733
Joined: November 15th 2011, 3:55am
Location: in between coastal SC and south FL

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #37  Postby Scott Brunson » March 5th 2013, 7:08pm

Larry P wrote:
Bruce G wrote:-He agreed to take on a project for an employer.
-Part way through he decided that he no longer wanted to work for the employer.
This is my understanding of the facts. I may be wrong here, and would welcome anyone showing me where I'm in error.


How about...

-Part way through his employer changed ownership, and the new owner notified him the terms of his employment would be changed if he was to continue with his project.

yes, maybe so
but we can't speculate about AG's professionalism and is indebtedness to TWA since we don't have access to the contracts or the transcripts to their top secret club meetings
Tous les chemins mènent à la Bourgogne!
On CT, I'm S1
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #38  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 7:09pm

Jim Brennan wrote:The only obligations he has are those that are contractually specified.


That's certainly one way to go.
Though to my mind "He fulfilled all contractual obligations" doesn't make for the most stirring of epitaphs.

Whether he started work or not on the Sonoma report is irrelevant if he had not yet been compensated for that work or contractually committed to it. And no commitment can even be inferred since it was not on the editorial calendar.


I don't know his contractual commitments.
But on his website and with regard to this matter Galloni writes:
"When I began tasting Sonoma wines earlier this year, I realized my article would be far larger than I had originally anticipated. On January 15, I informed The Wine Advocate’s Editor in Chief, Lisa Perrotti-Brown, I would not be able to write a comprehensive article in time for their February issue that would do full justice to the region and the extraordinary diversity of its wines."

Sounds like he agreed to take on the work.
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 3268
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #39  Postby Jim Brennan » March 5th 2013, 7:13pm

Clearly not going to agree on this one. Moving on, dead horse, and all that.
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 12091
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA & Bern, Switzerland

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #40  Postby Eric LeVine » March 5th 2013, 7:16pm

Jim Brennan wrote:Clearly not going to agree on this one. Moving on, dead horse, and all that.

Probably the only thing we can agree on is that IKEA meatballs have some of that dead horse in them... newhere
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
User avatar
Peter Kleban
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 11537
Joined: February 14th 2010, 9:21pm
Location: Vacationland (AKA Maine, USA)

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #41  Postby Peter Kleban » March 5th 2013, 7:18pm

Eric LeVine wrote:
Jim Brennan wrote:Clearly not going to agree on this one. Moving on, dead horse, and all that.

Probably the only thing we can agree on is that IKEA meatballs have some of that dead horse in them... newhere


And the horse was called Bob? [snort.gif]
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #42  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 7:19pm

Larry P wrote:How about...

-Part way through, his employer changed ownership, and the new owner notified him the terms of his employment would be changed if he was to continue with his project.


Larry:

That's a good point, and one I tried to address when I wrote that the agreed upon work should be finished up "in a manner suitable to his employers, consistent with the terms that existed when he initially agreed to take on the work".

It is possible, for instance, that the new owners told AG that (from now on) everything that appears in the WA is the sole property of WA, and Antonio would have to reliquish any claims of ownership to the material. If that were the case, and if those terms were different from the terms in place when Antonio originally agreed to do the piece, then all bets are off. He is under no obligation, neither legal nor ethical nor professional, to provide anything to WA.
Or so I would think.
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bacchus and Vesuvius
 
Posts: 6387
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #43  Postby Larry P » March 5th 2013, 7:38pm

Bruce, I'm trying to not form a negative opinion based on anything that requires speculation on my part. This is a quote from the original WSJ article where Lisa Perrotti-Brown announced the changes at TWA:

Ms. Perrotti-Brown said the company is discussing terms with its correspondents, who include lead critic Antonio Galloni, as well as David Schildknecht, Mark Squires and Neal Martin, whom she and Mr. Parker hope will sign on as employees. If they decline? "There is a plethora of good wine writers out there. It's a buyer's market," she said.


That's a matter of public record, and not only states outright that they intended to change the terms of Antonio's employment, but includes a threat directed at him if he doesn't comply.

It sounds like you agree with my take on this, given you tried to address this issue earlier. However, I just don't see how one can jump from there, to later calling Antonio "unprofessional" and saying he screwed TWA subscribers. To do so requires a number of specific assumptions about Antonio's agreements with TWA which we're not party to, as well as ignoring these public statements by Perrotti-Brown.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
User avatar
Daniel H
 
Posts: 374
Joined: February 3rd 2010, 10:01pm

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #44  Postby Daniel H » March 5th 2013, 8:33pm

Bruce G wrote:
Daniel Hennessy wrote:I don't understand your extreme reaction.


And I don't understand why you view my reaction as extreme.

-He agreed to take on a project for an employer.
-Part way through he decided that he no longer wanted to work for the employer.
This is my understanding of the facts. I may be wrong here, and would welcome anyone showing me where I'm in error.
If the two statements above are correct, though, then I think that a sense of professionalism requires that he tie things up in a manner suitable to his employers, consistent with the terms that existed when he initially agreed to take on the work.


1) you don't know "the terms that existed", but persist in acting like you do
2) he offered the work product to WA and it was turned down
3) despite the WA refusal, his work product will still be available to WA subscribers at not cost
4) you continued accusations, based on zero evidence, are base and irresponsible

You seem to be deriving a perverse pleasure in proclaiming Galloni guilty of, something. You have written several times that you don't know the facts at hand - why don't you just leave it at that?
H.e n.n e.s s.e.y
User avatar
Mel Hill
 
Posts: 5565
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:56pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #45  Postby Mel Hill » March 5th 2013, 8:39pm

Daniel Hennessy wrote:You seem to be deriving a perverse pleasure in proclaiming Galloni guilty of, something. You have written several times that you don't know the facts at hand - why don't you just leave it at that?


What do facts have to do with opinion? newhere
Scott Zimmermann
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 35
Joined: April 29th 2010, 6:28pm

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #46  Postby Scott Zimmermann » March 5th 2013, 8:43pm

No offense to any particular poster. But reading the posts on this thread reinforces my belief that (1) it is very difficult to have a nuanced "conversation" via post/email and (2) one shouldn't jump to conclusions before all material facts are known. Just my two cents.
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #47  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 8:49pm

Larry P wrote:Bruce, I'm trying to not form a negative opinion based on anything that requires speculation on my part. This is a quote from the original WSJ article where Lisa Perrotti-Brown announced the changes at TWA:

Ms. Perrotti-Brown said the company is discussing terms with its correspondents, who include lead critic Antonio Galloni, as well as David Schildknecht, Mark Squires and Neal Martin, whom she and Mr. Parker hope will sign on as employees. If they decline? "There is a plethora of good wine writers out there. It's a buyer's market," she said.


That's a matter of public record, and not only states outright that they intended to change the terms of Antonio's employment, but includes a threat directed at him if he doesn't comply.

It sounds like you agree with my take on this, given you tried to address this issue earlier. However, I just don't see how one can jump from there, to later calling Antonio "unprofessional" and saying he screwed TWA subscribers. To do so requires a number of specific assumptions about Antonio's agreements with TWA which we're not party to, as well as ignoring these public statements by Perrotti-Brown.



Larry:

Your take on this may be true, but it relies on as many suppositions as mine.
You assume that the sale of WA triggered an immediate voiding of previous contractual agreements as prelude to negotiating new terms.
You assume further that the new management demanded total capitulation, and wouldn't even allow existing employment agreements to expire gracefully.
This could all be true. But if that is what transpired it seems odd that Antonio wouldn't make note of that in his blog post about the matter. I know... again, a supposition on my part that he would include comments to that effect if they had played out this way.
Free Klapp!
User avatar
Daniel H
 
Posts: 374
Joined: February 3rd 2010, 10:01pm

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #48  Postby Daniel H » March 5th 2013, 8:58pm

Mel Hill wrote:
What do facts have to do with opinion? newhere


In this case, apparently nothing.
H.e n.n e.s s.e.y
Bruce G
 
Posts: 675
Joined: June 19th 2009, 5:32am

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #49  Postby Bruce G » March 5th 2013, 9:04pm

Daniel Hennessy wrote:1) you don't know "the terms that existed", but persist in acting like you do

I'm pretty confident that those terms didn't include "releasing the info exclusively through a competing website". That's the only part that's germane here.

2) he offered the work product to WA and it was turned down

This is news to me. My understand is that he "offered to make the Sonoma reviews available to TWA readers for free, on my [his] new platform, once the article had been written and posted". But maybe there is more info out there on this matter, and I just haven't seen it.

3) despite the WA refusal, his work product will still be available to WA subscribers at not cost

But not as per usual. Almost undoubtedly not as per the terms originally discussed with WA.

4) you continued accusations, based on zero evidence, are base and irresponsible

There is a lot of evidence out there, very little of it conclusive. There is a lot of supposition as well.
I freely admit this.
If facts should come to light that I was in error in calling Galloni's conduct (horror of horrors) unprofessional then I will be among the first to apologize.
Live with it.
Free Klapp!
Vincent Fritzsche
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 1577
Joined: February 11th 2009, 12:40pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Galloni backhands Parker

Post #50  Postby Vincent Fritzsche » March 5th 2013, 9:07pm

People need to understand the difference between being an employee and being an independent contractor. It's not a technicality. It's everything, down to who owns any work produced and who is liable if and when something goes wrong. There are even differences in the notion of professionalism with respect to these situations.

You cannot say Galloni was an employee of TWA. He was not employed by TWA (nor it's readers). Using the word employ confuses the situation, as if you we're calling your husband or wife a boyfriend or girlfriend. You're either one or the other. It's not a trivial distinction. Using husband or boyfriend, employee or contractor, interchangeably is ignorant.

It is especially important here given that RP deflected claims about his writers' alleged unprofessionalism a few years ago by claiming they were contractors, not employees, when there were questions about ethics of one writer taking gifts from a significant importer of wines from a region the writer covered. The chickens are coming home to roost now, no?

What we don't know is the exact nature of the contractural arrangement between Galloni and TWA. I suspect it was either a handshake or, if more formal, something pretty standard. Meaning, Galloni owes th nothing, not even professionally (much less contractually), for unfinished work that he apparently would retain copyright on we're it finished and published in TWA as originally planned.

One might still feel like Galloni's post linked here is sour grapes and not professional. Based on what I've read from LPB and RP, I think it is perfectly fair for Galloni to post what he did to set the facts straight. LPB has appeared to publicly denigrate him. RP has falsely stated things about the editorial calendar for 2013. And things like Galloni still being listed on the calendar to this day only further show how sloppy things are at TWA.

Based on my reading of things, Galloni has been hung out to dry and I'd have done the same thing as he has in response, I hope in as measured and professional a manner. People are fine to disagree, but this seems pretty easy to call. And things are especially rich given RP's own distinction between employee and contractor in the past.

Return to Wine Talk

logo
Food Advertising by