Not Larry but…
No one has ever asked me to give them money to review my wines. That’s because financially Goodfellow Family Cellars is a dust mote on an amoeba on a fly’s behind on a small dog that is the Oregon wine industry.
A-Z/Rex Hill just sold to the mega-corporation that owns Chateau St. Michelle, and they probably are who we should be asking. Except that as the article noted, the pay to the publication came from a public relations firm so that wineries employing them can state with a straight face that they don’t give money to publications for reviews…
WHY IS THIS HAPPENING NOW?
Well beyond the idea that it’s always been happening, there have been some major shifts in the market for wine itself and also the market for critical review of wine.
For many years, critical review was primarily for the relatively tiny group of people who KNEW AHEAD OF TIME that they were going to be buying wines from regions of their preference. People who mostly would fit in well on this board whether as a poster or reader. And most critics reviewed wines for little money, but regularly published books(Clive Coates, Hugh Johnson, Spurrier, et al) and scraped by, often selling wines themselves. They reviewed a few regions, dominated by the classics, where the wineries were semi-familiar to readers. And while the crown jewels of the wine world were reasonably rewarded fiscally, things like Chateau Latour cost $35-65, and wines like Dujac Clos de la Roche were $65-75(or less).
Then came RP. And that Shanken guy…
They popularized wine for the masses(including myself). Suddenly their reviewed wineries prices sky-rocketed and cult wines were born. But for the situation at hand, those financial shifts are small, tiny, tiny, tiny potatoes.
As the masses, especially in the US and then Asia, suddenly discovered we all loved wine, suddenly new regions appeared as if overnight: Australian wine boomed, Chilean wine appeared almost overnight(in comparison to historical regional growth it was more like the blink of an eye), Oregon has been doubling size every 6-7 years for awhile now, Wahington appeared, California exploded in size, Spanish regions across the country magically appeared(whether actually appeared as in Priorat or suddenly appeared on the world stage like Bierzo), etc, etc.
And suddenly we have over production merged with a total lack of price connection to production costs…proving that the old chestnut of price control through competition is 100% FOMO’s bitch.
Add in the reality that making any reasonable kind of living as a wine critic in cacophonous world of the internet is almost impossible.
And what happens is that the voice of the critic as the “cult wine”-maker is still sort of powerful but mostly as fantasy for the people delusional enough to think founding a winery is a good idea(ouch, but true), but financially worthwhile for those producers in certified 100 point areas(Napa) or historically FOMO based wines(Burgundy).
Where the critics voices become even more powerful is in the grocery store. If a 100 point score is a geyser shooting water 200 feet in the air, then the +90 point affirmation on shelf talkers is the Mississippi river. A-Z/Rex Hill makes 700,000 cases. If a 91 score allows them to price at $144/case FOB instead of $132/case, that’s $8,400,000 for a single producer. If they make that 700,000 cases in a region that gets routine coverage and high levels of critical enthusiasm that can be the difference between $12.99 on the shelf and $19.99 on the shelf, it’s easy to see why there is so much leverage these days. Or perhaps consider the revenue involved when a region like Napa shifts from averaging around $29.99/bottle to averaging around $70/bottle. I would love to see the financials on Silver Oak between 1991 and 2000(guessing shifting from $35 to $80/bottle on say 25,000 cases, maybe more.
It won’t change unless some things happen:
-
consumers have to be willing to pay real money for real advice. Just like Facebook, if you get the product for free(shelf talkers) you are the product.
-
individual critics need to find an open source option for publishing critical reviews, like say something Todd French would/could do…, that can be a fiscal opt in for readers that reaches also a wide enough audience to make the cost reasonable. Individual critics, like say WK, would post their writing directly and be compensated based upon views or subscription. (I would suggest some form of requirement for expertise from the critics, so the source doesn’t immediately dissolve into a blog based site).
-
the site and the critics would need to sign contractual agreements not to take anything from wineries, PR firms, etc. beyond samples.
-
just my opinion, but avoiding the 100pt system would be helpful. Consumers can use points, but “90 points” is every bit as powerful a syntax as “natural” is currently. As much credit as RP deserves for his prominence, the attraction we have to a numerical system that mirrors the grading systems we all grew up with was a powerful current moving them to success. With scores it is too easy to move readers away from a more in depth review. Out brains are hardwired to equate 90+ with an A grade. And the more twitterfied or shelf-talkerish the media is the more it will become paid for by producers.
Food for thought: Critical wine review is also being killed by the outdated and outrageous practice of bestowing certifications that imply expertise in wine world wide. “Master of Wine” and “Master Sommelier” are both certifications of extraordinarily high levels of study, but both are also as foolishly non-sensical as a “Master of Medicine” would be. Wine certification should move to certifying a “General Practitioner” which would require broad based knowledge. Then certify individuals based upon regional of specialization(s). i.e. one could ve a Master of Piedmont, Master of Rioja, etc.
I enjoy everyone who I submit samples to, and respect their integrity. But they all have an utterly insane workload and cover an extraordinary amount of ground. So at some point intelligent change should benefit just about everyone.
This isn’t a researched opinion at all, and this post is just off the cuff, so I am sure there are some holes in the theory but it makes no sense not to look at how to solve some of the issues.