How do wine critics get their wines?

WINE TALK
41

That’s basically what I would say, but then he’d say that if I didn’t send the wine, he’d just buy it at retail…, which meant he’d have a retail shop ship it to him. The last time I agreed, I shipped overnight FedEx, but the wines got mis-routed, and it took 4 days for them to get to Parker’s office. It was 100 degrees everywhere in the country that week. I asked them not to review those wines and promised to send more samples when it got cooler, or better yet he could stop by and taste with us at the winery when he made his annual visit to Lompoc. No reply - and those bottles got reviewed (our 2005s). After that, I sent the wines in November - both our 2006s and 2007s. No reviews. I guess I pissed him off. So no more wines to Parker.

42

I’m not a Parker basher, but I can’t ignore this – “anyone making great wines has always wanted me to taste their wines…the producers that produce swill are the ones trying to market and sell the wines before I can taste them…” Perhaps Parker has a right to be arrogant, but what extraordinary pomposity.

43

+1

44

So Parker went ahead and reviewed heat-damaged wines even after being told so? I looked up his reviews and they’re completely at odds with the quality of the wine I drank (I gave the 2005 Gary’s a 92 personally). Is it any reason nobody pays any attention to Parker’s Pinot Noir coverage? He doesn’t seem to give a crap about the varietal anywhere.

45

Here’s how I get wines to review:

  1. Purchase at retail. I routinely visit local shops and order wines online.
    Pros: I decide what wines to review and I can spend as much time as I like with the wine.
    Cons: Cost per note is high and customers don’t have a review for a wine on the shelf.

  2. Regional tasting trips. If possible, I visit the region and taste just like everyone else. I call each winery, schedule an appointment, show up and taste. Some visits are better than others. These trips are not vacations.
    Pros: I can get lots of tasting notes and (hopefully) the total cost per note is lower than purchasing individual bottles. In the case of imports, I can also get reviews prior to the wine being readily available.
    Cons: I don’t get to spend as much time as I’d like with each wine. I’m comfortable with this to a degree (if not, I don’t include the review) but there’s no doubt I’d rather have a bottle to taste over multiple days.

  3. Samples. While I do get unsolicited bottles, I ask for samples from both wineries and importers.
    Pros: Low cost per note and I get to spend as much time as I need on each bottle.
    Cons: Time intensive and I don’t control what wines are sent.

There’s no magic involved and at the end of the day, there’s a cost for every wine reviewed.

46

I am wondering how can a winery owner objectively measure this aside from the small bump of emails/phonecalls the day of score release?

47

Well the statement on its face is arrogant and pompous. He has made a lot of these type gaffs and one can only conclude he is arrogant and pompous by observation of a trend in statements that are pompous. Perhaps the French pinned too many medals on him and the blood loss has caused a brain dysfunction. Parker has EARNED the right to be arrogant via accomplishment, but I do prefer an accomplished individual who keeps perspective and has some humility.

48

+1

49

You’re right, you never know for sure what happens later, or in the aisle of every retail shop. But you do get a feel for the “buzz” that a good review generates. You get good scores from Wine Spectator and people sign up for your mailing list, your mailing list buys more and quicker, and distributors/retailers/restaurants start calling. You get good reviews from other sources and you hear the sound of crickets chirping. The disparity is amazing.

But I get your point… a hard analysis of the cost of the review (wine + shipping) vs the benefit is almost impossible. That’s why we still submit to Pinot Report even though we don’t usually see big bumps in sales, because Greg usually likes our wines and he has no agenda that runs counter to what we do and believe. In that case, we feel we’re at least not losing anything, and we do get some localized good sized bumps when the scores are REALLY good [berserker.gif] . And even if Greg is often preaching to the choir, it definitely helps our fans figure out which of our wines to buy [worship.gif]. But in marginal cases like Burghound, where Allen Meadows has publically stated opinions that run contrary to what we believe (most recently about clones), we feel the risk side is too high to warrant sending wines in.

But I freely admit none of this is scientific - and not applicable to all wineries or situations.

50

CWun wrote:
I am wondering how can a winery owner objectively measure this aside from the small bump of emails/phonecalls the day of score release?

As Brian noted, it’s hard, but you can tell the effects of different reviews.

It depends on the kind of wine.

For many customers, one review is the same as another. The customer who walks into a store and sees a note that says 90 points often doesn’t know or care where that came from. Those wines move because of “90”. If you have a $18 wine with 92 points, it will sell.

Many retailers who sell on points want something more specific however. They want points by WS or Parker, or on occasion, NYT. The calls from distributors and/or retailers start coming on the day those reviews come out. With the NYT, they die after a week. With the WA or WS, they fade much slower. It’s why I believe the market for the WA is the trade. It’s the most widely red reviewing journal in the trade. The WS gets a second boost when they do their year end top 100. With other magazines, you don’t see much activity but you can help generate some by trumpeting the scores.

With wines like Brians, which aren’t in wide distribution, and which are more costly than the $19 wines, you have a different dynamic. People who buy wines directly from wineries or have wines with some kind of “cult” aura, look for something else. Maybe they’re going to buy a wine anyway. Bordeaux, Burgundy, and wineries like Ridge have such customers.

But there’s something else. This is NOT a bash to him, but there is most definitely a Parker cult. There is simply nobody else in the business who commands that kind of following. And “command” is in fact the correct word. People are willing to drop big money because he pronounces something good. Then they want to gloat about it. Something like the Davenport Daily or some regional paper can pronounce a wine the best one ever made in history. It might move a few cases in the local area.

You look at your sales trends and then look at publication dates of various reviews.

51

Brian;

I fully understand the marketing perspective of only sending your wines to people you believe will give you good scores. Logical.

So if Laube wakes up one day and decides he doesn’t like your super ripe style anymore, that perhaps it goes to far over the line, and starts hammering you with mid 80s, may we assume that you will stop submitting to WS at that point? That becomes a vicious circle.

Laube is hearing a lot of complaints/comments about his “sweet tooth” in wine ratings, and appears he may be backing away from style slowly. [stirthepothal.gif]

52

I know WA wineries who see the same thing as Brian. And, really, if you can’t measure the effect it means the effect is so small it’s swallowed up in the natural variation of orders.

53

I think it’s somewhat a myth that reviewers change their preferences - at least drastically or suddenly. Jim didn’t stop liking less ripe, more elegant wines because the newer riper style came along. I think you’d see that his scores stayed consistant for the older style, but sometimes he did seem to like many of the new, riper style wines more. Not a shift, but a recoginition of something new that worked. Of course, that probably spawned a few folk to try to make bigger style wines - because “that’s what Jim likes best”. But the truth is, Jim likes well made wines. And the more important thing - he doesn’t discriminate against one style or the other from a “right” and “wrong” perspective, as I think other reviewers sometimes do.

And it’s not like we’ve always gotten great scores from Jim. Nor do I always agree with his relative scoring of our wines within a vintage. But I feel he doesn’t have an agenda. And a Spectator score still carries so much weight that you’d have to think long and hard before you gave up submitting to both Parker and WS. That being said, if Jim’s started a campaign against wines over 13% alcohol, we’d probably stop submitting wines to Spectator until someone else took over reviewing Cali Pinot.

54

Brian;

What about a Laube campaign of wines over 15% alcohol instead of the fairly safe 13% number you listed? Would that grab your attention?

55

Name the Monastrel the Pugilist… [berserker.gif]

56

I owe Josh at IWC (Tanzer) an apology because I said early that all the reviewers I listed still asked for our wines - and Josh hasn’t since he’s taken over reviewing our regions a couple of years ago.

57

Before we go down a long path of examples and counter examples… [berserker.gif]

My personal belief is that a critic should review each wine on the basis of how it tastes. Not on how it was produced. Not on what the “numbers” are. Not on its history, pedigree, or “importance”. Simply a review of its quality along with a description of how it looks, smells, and tastes. Once a critic becomes an advocate for certain processes, styles, alcohol levels, etc, I think it limits their ability to be fair and impartial. It also can limit or penalize creativity and innovation.

Of course, if your palate and belief system align with a critic, then that person can be a valuable guide for you no matter the agenda/crusade. But I still think wines that are great despite being somewhat outside the accepted parameters will get overlooked. Probably not a big iussue for the consumer - but definitely an issue for the producer.

58

I’m curious how anyone can draw the line between an “agenda” and taste. I don’t believe James Laube has an “agenda” to promote overripe, cartoonish wines with excessive alcohol and nauseatingly sweet sucking-candy-style fruit. But he has a taste for them and gives them higher scores than elegant, balanced wines that taste like wine rather than fruit concentrate. While his subjective intent may be different from that of a reviewer with an “agenda” for promoting those wines, the functional effect is indistinguishable. Perhaps Eric Asimov has the “agenda” of promoting the latter kind of wine – or perhaps he just recommends whatever he likes, just like James Laube does. I can’t speak to the subjective intent of either man.

59

And the reason why wines should be tasted blind. There is no way to completely eliminate subjectivity otherwise.

60

I agree with Brian (even though I don’t general like high alcohol Pinot :stuck_out_tongue: ). The problem is also a slippery slope one - if 15% is bad… what’s 14.7%? What if it’s not Pinot, but Zin or Cab or a Bordeaux blend or…

it’s like the Riesling argument elsewhere that I bailed from - if you argue that only the German interpretation can be outstanding because of the low alcohol then you can’t really then evaluate Alsatian or Austrian examples fairly.

It’s hard, though, because we all DO have preferences and how a critic sets those aside or not to try to evaluate a wine is problematic.That’s one reason Scores Are Evil® - it’s one thing to write a note praising one wine more than another since you can, in part at least, explain why you feel that way. But if Laube scores a wine 95 and another 91 that gets lost. Yes, I know, read the note… but we all know that the scores are what sell wines and so the scores have a huge commercial impact.