LaPresse: SAQ paid Suckling $24,000 for reviews

WINE TALK
21

They way he says that is AWESOME. Sounds like a valley girl, fersure fersure.

22

I wonder if he was paid to say those things about Mexican wine … pretty big words. [wow.gif]

23

The way I read it is that James meant that he has no financial interest in the SAQ - i.e. he doesn’t benefit from any reviews he does. So there’s no conflict of interest. No different than if he’d done them for his site - except in this case he was asked to review a set of wines that he might not normally have reviewed, or in the time frame the SAQ needed. I wouldn’t do that for free, and neither should James. I really don’t see any smoking gun here.

24

That’s some fancy footwork, Brian.

When someone says they have “no financial interest” most people take it as it sounds. I don’t think anyone thought he was an investor or part owner.

25

Are you being serious?

Paid a lot of money to review a set of wines that he would not have ordinarily reviewed, and you think he has no incentive to be lenient on scoring, or perhaps even glowing, so that he gets asked back again for another easy $24,000? Or, he gives nice scores so as not to bite the hand that feeds him? This is a classic example of a conflict of interest. At the very least, it creates an appearance of bias, interest and conflict.

26

I don’t think so. I was paid by CrushPad to create a winemaking program for them to give to clients who wanted to make Pinot Noir. Did that mean I had a financial interest in CrushPad? Nope. I got paid to provide something - just as did James. But that didn’t tie me to them financially. Nor did James’ reviews create a financial interest in SAQ for him. If he’d been paid based upon how well the wines sold based on his reviews, then I’d agree. But that wasn’t the case.

27

Right. He got paid to RATE WINES. That’s a financial interest in the outcome.

By your logic, the New York Times restaurant critic should be paid by the restaurant to review them because there would be no conflict of interest. I mean, they’d just be paying the critic for his/her time and inconvenience, right?

[soap.gif]

28

Tyler links to his blog (My Article: A Day in Montreal - JamesSuckling.com) “There is no financial relationship. It’s a sharing of information and contacts"

Really hard to read that in the contrived way you are putting it (I mean, no one thought he had an ownership interest in a state monopoly).

29

How much extra do you think the 95+ point package would have gone for? Or do you think $24,000 was enough for the platinum service?

30

It’s a good question but I’d put together a price sheet so all parties knew where they stood. Makes for better business after all.

$25K = 90 on that.
$35K = 92 on that.
$50K = 95 on that.
$100K = 98 on that.
$100K and a hot hooker = 100!!!

31

Get real. With score inflation, that’s 2 hookers and a limo with a jacuzzi in the back, easy.

32

Suckling is a Boob!

[rofl.gif]

33

Totally agree… [thumbs-up.gif]

34

SAQ must really like suckling to buy 119 subscriptions to his site !

35

I truly fail to comprehend this guy’s relevance. He was one of the main reasons I swore off Wine Spectator and ended my subscription back in the '90s (in addition to the overall publication’s growing pretentiousness).

36

He quite as the editor of WS to start a website…
his website is videos of him visiting winery owners/wine makers…

Is ANYONE surprised he is getting paid by the winemakers/owners to appear?
Does anyone actually believe there is no corruption in this business?

37

Bruce, it seems to me that, in the wake of the WA shenanigans (and I refer not just to whatever went on in Spain, or didn’t, but also to the Galloni-run tasting events which seem innocent enough but are still in violation of Parker’s written standards), the Spectator selling restaurant wine awards and now this, not to mention the endless boondoggles of the Jamie Goode, Neal Martin, Jeff “I Am Not A Critic, But Here Are My Latest Bordeaux Scores” Leve and so many others, it no longer matters if one has written standards or not. The answer is simply that you pays your money (or not), and you takes your chances. Shame on us (or at least most of us) of ever paying attention to these self-appointed arbiters of taste in wine…

38

You have to be Suckling’s mother to buy ONE. And she probably asked for a 75% discount…

39

That’s fine. The problem is his blatant attempt to hide his business association. There’s nothing wrong with him reviewing wines for a business as a contractor. That’s technically what all WA contractors do, for example. But if your credibility hinges on being trusted, it’s a huge mistake to lie about your business relationships.

Aside from that, I doubt Suckling is going hungry given his regular his PR junkets to various estates. Like most who aspire to be high class, he probably can’t ever have enough. 24k is a nice windfall. He doesn’t look like he’s starving, so I’m guessing this goes into his Cuban cigar and Tuscan villa accounts.

40

Most winery owners will do whatever it takes to get the exposure. There is a good reason why some of us Americans get treated like kings in Bordeaux.