Big changes at the Wine Advocate- Parker reportedly cashes out and gives up editorial control

WINE TALK
461

Well, we SHOULD care!

IF Parker sold the majority of TWA - and IF the other writers are (only) employées, there simply is the danger that the new owners can manipulate ratings!
Remember: LPB is “proof-reading” !

Just imagine: the Singapore owners have interest in a high rating for a specific wine (e.g. because they bought - or can buy - a container of bottles en primeur).
RMP or any another writer rates this particular wine “only” 97 points.
LPB insists on a 100-pointer which would increase the value - worldwine but also in Asia - immensly.
She is proof reading the TN … and “corrects” the rating up to 100 points.
Would the “employees” or the minority owner RMP protest? Are they even entitled to protest? They even might be bound by contract to keep their mouth!

[scratch.gif]

The main value of TWA and RMPs scores were so far that HE was responsible for the correctness of the published scores - at least as far the palates of all tasters went.

This seems to have GONE NOW !
There might be a clear conflict of interests - and the major interest always will be profit!

(just as a sidestep: simply compare some high ratings in the WINE SPECTATOr with the number of paid adds in this mag! Only this can explain some unjustified high points for specific wines … or inclusion in the Top 100)

462

Well as far as I am concerned, Caveat Emptor…
If one depends on a single source of judgement (besides one’s own palate) they deserve to get burned.
I always try to get multiple notes if I have to buy blind.
As a Burg Freak, I tend to trust Da Hound, Tanzer, Kolm and RJ more than Bobby’s Crew anyway…
Besides, I refuse to subscribe after that Wine Board debacle…

TTT

463

Well, for subscriptions you have to rely on somebody, if you are not invited to the cask tastings in Bx in spring.
If I have the wine in my glass I don´t need points anyhow.

I refused to subscribe, too, but I can read a copy from a friend …

464

Robert,

Your scenario could happen once or twice, but after that people wise up. That is the way I feel about James Suckling’s reviews in Italy. They lack all credibility. If a wine shop is using JS ratings to sell wine, I just ignore that offer. Similarly, when Jay Miller was overrating Spanish wines and while the prices moved up for awhile, I stopped relying on Jay’s ratings and bought elsewhere. Now with Neal Martin doing the Spanish reviews, the scores have more credibility again. Spanish wine prices have pulled back now and aren’t as ridiculous. My point is that if they are abusing their position in the marketplace, then people can vote with their feet and not subscribe. Then their model implodes. I think they make more money in the long haul by staying true to the mission.

Byron

465

Robert,

A better hypothetical scheme would be to know the scores of wines RP plans to score 100 and buy them in bulk before the scores are released. Parker says he does not buy wine until after he releases his scores, but others may not feel so ethically contrained.

466

Robert - after 15 pages you summed up the problem well. And after 35 years, it seems unfortunate that RP would put himself in a situation where people can speculate exactly as you’ve done. He’s built a reputation on his integrity.

I’m not questioning that, nor do I want to get into that discussion. But if that integrity is what the reputation, and hence the entire value of the WA, is based on, it seems rather careless to put it in a situation where it can be questioned.

The way to do these things is much the way you’d draft a contract - look at it from all possible angles, concoct the most outlandish situations that you might encounter, and then address them in the document. In this case, address them in your first press release. Go over it with your team, each play devil’s advocate, and develop ready-made answers for the inevitable questions. It’s the single biggest announcement of his career.

In the normal course of events, the sale of a business is irrelevant. But in this case, the entire value of the property is the reputation of one man. What other assets are there? The subscriber list? Useless - it’s small and can disappear quickly and there’s no cost to leaving so you have to keep them there voluntarily. What else? Lisa’s comment made it seem like they don’t particularly value the writers. Actually I don’t think that’s really the case, at least with RP, but she really stated things poorly. Unimpressive PR skills for someone who’s increasingly likely to be the face of the publication.

Nor can I understand why they decided to keep the buyers secret. Mystery only generates speculation and rumor. Again, that’s OK in most cases, but here’s a publication that built its rep on being forthright. And they’re missing an outstanding PR opportunity. Singapore is like fifth on Transparency International’s list of least corrupt states. Why let that go? Why not have a joint ethics statement at the ready, and make sure it applies to all parties?

I have zero clue as to what’s ultimately going to happen or what was agreed to between all the parties. So I don’t want to speculate all that much. But the announcements have not been handled deftly at all.

Long term, maybe the Chinese, Indians, and Indonesians are anxious to find out what the WA has to say about their wines, or about European wines, but that’s going to have a limited life. They’re going to want their own critics and their own wines and from what I’ve had, their own wines are so far awful. Eventually they’ll be good but even Roland is having a tough time making something palatable in India. How do you rate those? Do you get the locals PO’d or pull your punches?

467

Using that line of reasoning, why should anyone care about Rudy’s alleged counterfeiting of expensive wines that went to auction? If you’re not buying at auction and you’re not buying wines in that price range, I suppose it’s easy to
say “who cares?”

Love it or hate it, TWA has been one of the most influential wine publications (if not THE most influential) of the modern era. What happens with that publication affects the wine market as a whole, even if you’re aren’t a subscriber or
reader.

Bruce

468

I am a subscriber because of Galloni and Martin, not Parker. I hear that Asia’s love affair is now with Burgundy a region much more appealing for its small producers and rarity (as will be Piedmont and Alsace), the comparative mass production of Parker’s love of Bordeaux and Rhone is not well matched to the region. TWA’s value is the brand association with Parker, not Parker the critic today. I am pretty sure the new owners would have contractually secured Parker’s support, and Parker knows this, thus the blasé nature of the press releases. Parker’s huffing and puffing I expect is just a side show that can only help the TWA brand, I expect it will be short lived though.

1 Like
469

I like what Greg said in Post N. 466… [welldone.gif]

470

Bring back Rovani!

471

Hey, I truly do not mean to bump this thread, but it is the only reasonable place to post Neal Martin’s contribution of today:

“The blogging fraternity had a field day when it was announced that Singaporean investors had bought a stake in The Wine Advocate and the Interweb began creaking under the weight of conspiracy theories, each one more outlandish than the other. So far, nobody has worked out that this was a ruse to disguise the fact that the investor is actually Kim Jong Un, who got bored with trying to launch a washing machine into space and fancied getting into the wine business. Expect the first ream of 101-point North Korean Pinots any day now.”

Cleverness is perhaps not his strong suit, but he is getting into the swing of the WA/other board “us vs. them” mentality, and even indulges in the boss man’s love of swiping at grassy knoll theorists like, well, most of the people on this thread and in the blogosphere in general…

472

As an employee, and not an independent contractor, will Neal need to clear his “humor” with the powers that be, or is he instead given “talking points” and encouraged to use them? After all, he is merely an easily replaceable writer.

473

Oh come on, Neal’s post is pretty funny!

474

+1

475

Very funny, and clever… :slight_smile:

476

+2

477

Wasn’t his father supposed to be a great collector of DRC? More chance of the Taliban being investors…

478

[wink.gif] I don’t follow Neal Martin that much, Bill, but I do see him posting here or
on TWA BB. Hopefully he was able to preface any of his remarks by beginning with…
" Just tearing down stairs, one arm in the sleeve of my jacket, and on my way to
a tasting…" or something similar. I like to give people the benefit of doubt, but
he strikes me as someone who is either a) terribly disorganized;
or b) feels he must get that comment in so that his boss or bosses might appreciate that
he’s on the job 24/7. Whichever, I’ve never cared much for his opinions.

Hank [cheers.gif]

479

Neal brings a lot to the WA, and I would sorely miss his contributions. And the fact that someone in such a dry (pun intended) job has a sense of humor is a plus. It’s ironic that I’ve enjoyed so many laugh filled evenings sharing my cellar and that the world of wine criticism is so joyless. But you really have to take things seriously if you are going to convince people to by thousand dollar wines…especially if they became thousand dollar wines based on your wine criticism.

Fortunately, this board makes up for it. March on, berserkers!

480

To quote one of the great wine critic’s favorite songs and artists:

"My my, hey hey
Rock and roll is here to stay
It’s better to burn out
Than to fade away
My my, hey hey.

Out of the blue and into the black
They give you this, but you pay for that
And once you’re gone, you can never come back
When you’re out of the blue and into the black.

The king is gone but he’s not forgotten
This is the story of a johnny rotten
It’s better to burn out than it is to rust
The king is gone but he’s not forgotten.

Hey hey, my my
Rock and roll can never die
There’s more to the picture
Than meets the eye.
Hey hey, my my."

But all things considered, maybe Natalie MacLean is still looking worse…at the moment…