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

[Ron_Kramer]

@Peter Chiu

For sure.

[Peter_Chiu]

Ron…just would like to have some fun. Guess sometimes as a burgundy-nut I am too passionate…

I remember in the good old days when Parker was still reviewing Burgundy, I always bought the wines which he rated 88-89 points.

[Jim_Brennan]

I don’t understand what is so contentious about expecting more disclosure from Parker. A significant portion of his reputation and influence are based upon his marketing himself and TWA as a Ralph Nadler styled independent consumer’s guide (meaning independent from the influence of the wine industry).

If he intends to continue to cloak himself and TWA in that mantle, then consumers have a reasonable expectation to disclosure regarding who the new owners/investors are and the extent of their ownership (majority?).

[Mike_During]

I watched the video. Parker seemed to lack warmth, particularly when Lisa Perrotti Brown’s name came up. I got the impression of “I am in charge of” rather than “all is well…” with the TWA.

[todd_waldmann]

@Mike During

I watched the video. Parker seemed to lack warmth, particularly when Lisa Perrotti Brown’s name came up. I got the impression of “I am in charge of” rather than “all is well…” with the TWA.

Where’s the video?

[John_Ammons]

@todd waldmann

@Mike During

I watched the video. Parker seemed to lack warmth, particularly when Lisa Perrotti Brown’s name came up. I got the impression of “I am in charge of” rather than “all is well…” with the TWA.

Where’s the video?

On eRP.

[Brian_Lynch]

@Bill Klapp

Hey, Brian: before Parker sold, those bankrolling him at $100 a pop were the equivalent of all of the shareholders and the board of directors, since Parker’s business sans Parker may not have any value, and since there would be no Wine Advocate if the steady stream of c-notes ceased…

My point was directed at the former TWA members clucking tongues here. WB is the promised land for them, and those folks won’t return to Parkerland. They are more like wannabe dissenters who have no standing to bring a dissenter’s case. They have little or no value in the valuation analysis and payday.

As to the rest of your post above, I respectfully disagree on two points. (1) Even the best $100 bankroller is not equivalent to a board member and has no equivalent of a board member’s rights . (2) The subscribers are more like stakeholders, not stockholders, and as a result their say is far more limited … and incredibly unlikely to get in the way of a 10M payaday. As to the rest of your points, I get your drift.

[Peter_Kleban]

@Bill Klapp

… I, for one, live a far better and healthier life than Parker apparently does, and I do not need $10 million to do it, because, well, I am smarter and have better taste than Parker. …

Good grief!

[WvanGorp]

Am I the only one offended by the ageism and sexist stereotypes in some of the posts above?

[John_Morris]

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Undoubtedly there will be some who wish to diminish my thoughts on this by crying foul, or worse, by insisting
they have a right to information, etc., but if the shoe fits around the ladies table… well, perhaps they
will have to continue to wear it.

Hank

This is a wine board. Parker has been by far the most influential force in the wine industry for at least 20 years now. He’s a self-described consumer advocate who says he was inspired by Ralph Nader. He’s got every right to sell his business however he likes. But if he sells out to people with financial interests in the wine industry, then that’s interesting to anyone who follows wine because of his force in the marketplace. If he isn’t forthcoming about the potential conflicts – or wasn’t aware of some of them – that’s doubly interesting. (And don’t judge the rest of us by Bill Klapp’s postings.)

[C_R_a_s_k_i_n]

@Brian Lynch

My point was directed at the former TWA members clucking tongues here. WB is the promised land for them, and those folks won’t return to Parkerland. They are more like wannabe dissenters who have no standing to bring a dissenter’s case. They have little or no value in the valuation analysis and payday.

.

I am a former subscriber. I dropped eRP as much over Parker’s repeated ethical fiascos as over the fact that I do not really need him anymore to make purchasing decisions. My interest in this latest ridiculous episode in the train wreck that has become TWA is primarily because I find it fascinating that someone like Parker can continue to claim moral superiority in the wine criticism market. He cashed out for a quick buck without doing proper due diligence or taking the time to understand the ramifications of his decision. If he wasn’t so adamant that he has done nothing wrong (something he has had to insist on again and again and again over the years) and that his ethics are unimpeachable then I would agree with you there would be no story here. I follow this story not because my voice matters. I follow this story because of the entertainment it provides. I don’t read the National Enquirer, or watch soap operas, but the drama that has become TWA fills that void in my entertainment folio.

I don’t wish the man I’ll will. I just wish he would stop attacking those who raise legitimate questions about the actions of his employees, his company and himself. More than anything else, his attack on those who questioned the way he runs his business, and his request that anyone who does not like the way he does things take their money elsewhere, is the primary reason I left that other board. He has brought threads like this on himself by burning many, many, many bridges. I would still be a subscriber were it not for this, even though I don’t need his reviews. I would have stayed a subscriber out of loyalty.

If he would simply say, “I made a mistake” he would find lots of forgiveness. But he either can’t or won’t, or just doesn’t care. As such, the story remains entertaining.

[Brad_Kane]

@John Morris

@Hank Gillespie

I’m more than a little amused that, with over 500 posts thus far, there appears to be a continuing
annoyance at the meager release of information regarding the sale of Robert Parker’s business.
Surely anyone involved in the sale of a privately owned business has the right to some privacy
concerning the details of the sale. Parker did announce the sale, albeit after the dancing lady in
Singapore ( supposedly an employee )jumped the gun to get her story out first. To be sure the
subscribers to TWA have an interest in this transaction, but I suspect there are only a few such subscribers
who post on Wineberserkers. Instead this preoccupation by some posters on this forum resembles an elder ladies
quilting get-together, where local gossip is the primary subject of conversation, filled with partial facts,
innuendo, and a delight at someone else’s possible folly.

Undoubtedly there will be some who wish to diminish my thoughts on this by crying foul, or worse, by insisting
they have a right to information, etc., but if the shoe fits around the ladies table… well, perhaps they
will have to continue to wear it.

Hank

This is a wine board. Parker has been by far the most influential force in the wine industry for at least 20 years now. He’s a self-described consumer advocate who says he was inspired by Ralph Nader. He’s got every right to sell his business however he likes. But if he sells out to people with financial interests in the wine industry, then that’s interesting to anyone who follows wine because of his force in the marketplace. If he isn’t forthcoming about the potential conflicts – or wasn’t aware of some of them – that’s doubly interesting. (And don’t judge the rest of us by Bill Klapp’s postings.)

+1

[John_Morris]

@Ron Kramer

I have dined with him five times and met him at events as many times. A finer gentleman you could not find.

To those who fawn over him at dinner, I’m sure.

@Ron Kramer

Nary a one of you has achieved a modicum of what he has so maybe it is just jealousy that drives you guys.

Oh, please!

[Rick_Gregory]

Why are you surprised John? Parker’s acolytes are just using the same tactics as RP himself. Don’t acknowledge any valid criticism, just attack the people raising questions and assert that they have ulterior motives, preferably some kind of character flaw.

[John_Morris]

Did I sound surprised?

[Eric_LeVine]

I have dined with the man. He is very charismatic and gregarious and down to earth. And man does he love wine to an infectious degree. A real world Bacchus.

I have grown up in wine reading his words over the fairly recent 13 years. I have tremendous respect for his palate. Even if I have found over time that mine differs with his, so be it. He still helped me cut my teeth.

I am so happy for the man that after 35 years he can cash out and profit from all of his hard work. Even if that is not the path I would not choose for myself, Mazel Tov. Seriously, how can you not applaud him???

What makes me sad in all of this is the inference that the people he sold to are deeply in the trade. That he was taken. That he perhaps managed to sell out every single thing that he ever stood for, perhaps without realizing.

I for one find myself hoping that the Decanter articles are wrong. That Bob didn’t actually sell out to a couple that owns 73% of a wine importing and investment fund business and who seem to allegedly have little interest in divesting such. Why would anyone work for 35 years, build such a reputation, and then spoil it at the end? Can this really be true? How could it be true???

The whole episode makes me sad. I keep waiting for someone to refute this. Hoping. Please?!?

[David_Glasser]

My sentiments exactly, Eric. Well stated.

[Marc_Breitenmoser]

Eric nailed it.

[Andrew_Kaufman]

Eric without the influence of Parker the WA will be a very different instrument. I doubt anyone will confuse the two. While the name will stick the actual publication will be quite different. So it really will not sadden me all that much because in reality it will cease to exist (all good? Things must come to end and this had a long run).

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Brian Lynch

@Bill Klapp

Hey, Brian: before Parker sold, those bankrolling him at $100 a pop were the equivalent of all of the shareholders and the board of directors, since Parker’s business sans Parker may not have any value, and since there would be no Wine Advocate if the steady stream of c-notes ceased…

My point was directed at the former TWA members clucking tongues here. WB is the promised land for them, and those folks won’t return to Parkerland. They are more like wannabe dissenters who have no standing to bring a dissenter’s case. They have little or no value in the valuation analysis and payday.

As to the rest of your post above, I respectfully disagree on two points. (1) Even the best $100 bankroller is not equivalent to a board member and has no equivalent of a board member’s rights . (2) The subscribers are more like stakeholders, not stockholders, and as a result their say is far more limited … and incredibly unlikely to get in the way of a 10M payaday. As to the rest of your points, I get your drift.

Brian, your points taken. I did not mean what I said as literal corporate legal analysis. Pre-sale, it was Parker and a couple of independent contractors. Had the subscribers walked, the WA would have been no more, unless as a trade publication or house organ of the Bordeaux wine industry. The end-users of whatever the WA’s new products become still have that power, which is ultimate and absolute. At this point, yes, subscribers do not vote and will not get in the way of the payday (although Parker may well do so before the dust settles if he damages the brand with internecine warfare). But they also played a central role in making the payday possible.