How do wine critics get their wines?

WINE TALK
61

Agendas are usually presented as editorial. Like Allen Meadow’s Open Letter to US Pinot Producers. I don’t infer an agenda from tasting notes or scores - I just assume differences are due to personal taste.

Please don’t misunderstand, while I may disagree with anyone’s tastes or agenda, it doesn’t make them wrong. And it also doesn’t mean that they aren’t the best and most effective critic for another winery or style of wine. I’m just commenting on the fact that some critics don’t seem to match well with what we do, or provide a reasonable cost/reward value for us. I actually like Allen Meadows, and think he’s a good guy. And I know many consumers and producers who find his reviews extremely valuable. It’s just not a one-size-fits-all world.

62

I just want to say that I find this thread very interesting (heck, I started it). Seriously, I would hop more winemakers would come forward and be so willing to talk about this stuff, like Brian has for years.

Where are the winemakers of this board?

In addition, it is greato see people like Claude and Jeb also report on how they go about getting their juice. I can assume that Gilman will be chiming in soon as well!

63

[rofl.gif] [rofl.gif] [rofl.gif]

64

I think Keith did an excellent well thought out response on this discussion! [dance-clap.gif]

So we’re back to my acknowledgment to Loring several posts ago. Winemakers search out critics that like their styles, Duh!

Stylistic endeavors are merely that stylistic endeavors. If the critics don’t like your experimentations, the wine makers don’t send them the wines to be judged.
No fault, NO foul, anyone trying to make something other than that out of it is just bored and grasping at straws.

Thanks to Brian Loring and his really great commentary on this subject. I hope to see him again this year in the Pinot Posse Dinners!

65

So we’re back to my acknowledgment to Loring several posts ago. Winemakers search out critics that like their styles, Duh!

That’s not exactly true. It can only be true in the cases where the critic gets the wines from the wineries directly. As I posted, many, and in fact most, wines are not obtained directly from wineries. If Brian were making wine in South Africa or South America or Europe and he wanted his wine reviewed by one of the US publications, he’d end up going thru an importer. Some reviewers will take anything they can get but the big ones want to see things that their readers will actually be able to find, so no importer = no review.

66

It really should come as no surprise that wineries ‘search out’ critics who might be inclined to rate their wines more favorably than others . . . seems quite logical,eh?!?!?

This does not mean that there is any guarantee this will happen, but their is a higher likelihood of it happening.

In Brian’s case, it certainly does not hurt that he has a great relationship with WS, not only receiving favorable scores but also being invited to be a guest blogger on their site ta boot. And I will be the first to say that he truly EARNED this - by not only being outright and upfront about his winemaking style, but by being omnipresent on many wine boards! As we all know, most winemakers could care less about boards like this, thinking it is a ‘waste of their time’ as I’ve been told by others . . .

It may take quite awhile to figure out who to submit your wines to. Part of this will be based on hubris - the “my wines are AWESOME and EVERYONE should think so!!!” attitude that many newer folks in our industry seem to have. Part will be based on economics - it gets expensive to send those samples off, especially when doing multiple bottlings! And part will be based on building up relationships with the reviewers directly or indirectly (and No, Daniel, this does NOT mean taking junkets with them around the world!!!) [truce.gif]

One other factor to take into mind these days - which reviewers will have the ‘pull’ with your winery’s specific target audience?

Something to think about . . .

Cheers!

67

+1

68

Did somebody say Junkets?

69

Major thread drift but the “get what you pay for” THWR includes the following on the 2007 Beringer Private Reserve Chard:

It’s not horrible but it can seem desperate at times. 85

[rofl.gif] [rofl.gif] [welldone.gif]

70

Without getting to quote happy, I’d like to say that this is a great conversation and to thank everyone for weighing in, especially those who are or have been involved in actually getting the samples to critics.

As far as critics having “agendas”, I am not sure that it matters whether or not they are consciously trying to promote their beliefs. If they don’t taste blind, they are allowing their beliefs to influence their reviews. I don’t care what they say against this point; there’s no way preconceptions don’t enter into the equation at all.

I completely understand the critics/publications that review so many wines not buying the bulk of the wines they review. I would, however, like to know where Parker gets his %'s and what wines from what regions he is buying at retail. I do have trouble believing the 75%, and even the new 60%, number, but I don’t work for him or see his finances. If these numbers are exaggerated I would rather not know the figure than be told he buys over half of the wine. I wouldn’t care if he didn’t offer a figure. I have talked to an importer who organizes a personal tasting with Parker once a year (or used to; I think now he has this meetings with one of the other WA writers), and he says that Parker spends a good part of the day tasting HUNDREDS of his wines. I know the man has a lot of practice, but I don’t think anyone can fairly evaluate that many wines in one day. The importer did tell me that Parker’s palate seems fatigued after a while, but he does use his tasting notes and scores from that meeting in his publication.

I have usually tried not to take part in the bashing, but that comment about swill is absurd.

71

I think it’s important to keep WA in context, in terms of its circulation I believe it’s battling for a distant third with Wine & Spirits (WS and WE), so while it’s influence may be much higher than the number of people who pay for it, influence and people saying nice things about you doesn’t pay the bills (believe me, I wish it did). Now his publication costs are much lower than everyone else, and his subscription prices are higher, but I’m not sure he’s rolling in the money. Successful, sure. But so successful he can buy a ton of wine at retail? I doubt it.

72

Someone pointed out (probably Serge, as he loves to put up the numbers) that WA is pulling in about $6million a year. His staff is rather small, so that seems to cover quite a few bottles of wine, no?

73

I think it is unreasonable to expect any reviewer to buy all his or her wines. It is not unreasonable to expect a reviewer to be transparent about methods and to be accurate in his or her descriptions of those methods and policies.

74

I want to be in the vacuum cleaning team. The guys whose job it is to dispose of the 100s of tasted bottles that are still almost full after Parker is done.

75

Now that’s an interesting topic as well. What happens to the leftovers, as well as the unopened second bottles that get sent in. Reviewers?

I know Wine Spectator uses a lot of the second bottles as calibration tools for subsequent tastings - ie they include one or more previously rated wines in all reviewer tastings as a double check. They also use some of the bottles for charity. And there’s a rumor that a couple of local Napa senior citizen assisted living facilities have a nice happy hour now and then with some nearly full bottles.

Personally, I’d hope that the wines do get consumed. I’d have no problem if the reviewers themselves or their staff take all the leftovers or unopened bottles home. I’d be sad to think all that wine is going to waste.

76

I’d be surprised if they made that much…a 1 year subscription is $75, while an online sub is $99. The estimates I’ve seen recently on the WA’s circ is 40,000, so that’s a little north of $3 million in revenue (the non-US subscribers will kick the number up higher). Now, unless they also have somewhere around 27,000 online subscribers, they aren’t making it to $6 million. My guess is that they’re somewhere around $4 million. Who knows how much he pays his freelancers, so estimating his costs is probably not useful, but I still think buying most of the wine at retail would turn it into a marginal business.

77

50k+ accoring to this:
Wine Advocate Writers Spark Ethics Debate - WSJ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

78

Then why tell us for 20 years ++ that you have been buying your wines at retail?

Have you ever seen the excerpt in his last BDX book that was published?

79

Interesting, the recent Journal of Wine Economics article on WS’s advertising effect on ratings said 40,000, but I see now that this is an older number it’s referencing (data at the time of the study). I had seen 40,000 elsewhere from less reputable sources. So I’ll revise my statement to around $4.5 million in earnings. I also wonder if the 50k number is achieved by adding the print circulation and online subscriber numbers together, but who knows.

80

I have no idea, you’d have to ask him. I was merely pointing out that there’s a reason reviewers, particularly those that try to cover the entire world, don’t buy their samples at retail.

I’d also note that he’d probably consider the wines he “charged” Brian for to be purchased, despite the fact that buying directly from the winery doesn’t solve any of the problems buying at retail is supposed to.

EDIT
I want to be clear here that this is just my opinion, maybe he really can buy 60% of his tasted wines (and again by “buy” I’m not sure if he counts asking the winery to be charged and getting a nominal fee), pay all of his expenses and still have a tidy profit to live on. It would just surprise me.