I had real problems with $25k preview, and stopped subscribing. It was blatant and nakedly greedy, but at least it was done openly.
This stuff is not, and the publications who practice it, should be outed.
4 Likes
It’s really unfortunate that businesses make these choices. Critical review really helps everyone, but only so long as the situation maintains integrity.
But the critics do deserve compensation, and how to make that happen while maintaining integrity in the system is central to the overall problem.
1 Like
Hoping Vinous chimes in here and provides some sort of response. I know they read the board and these threads, so I’ll keep my fingers crossed.
I’ve always liked Jeb and this transparency pushes him up a few notches.
1 Like
Why?
This doesn’t come across as clear ax grinding? And the shameless “Hey, here’s a good time for you to subscribe to ME” that appears three times in the article?
Ironically, I thought Jason’s reviews in Vinous were useless. Galloni’s “rev-reviews” were far closer to the reality of the quality of the wines.
2 Likes
For you and @Marcus_Goodfellow , I worked somewhere where we had the preview for the last 18 months I worked there. Plenty of a sample size to tell you two things
-
The only time this really “benefitted” us was when they rated something in wholesale from a region like New Zealand, or the Marche. It never helped with the major regions. Why? Vinous was rating the wines months before their release. So it wasn’t like Sassicaia was on the market, and we knew 48 hours ahead it was getting 100. They would rate it, then 2 or 3 months later it came out.
-
The “greed” factor is funny. Please, everyone, put down the torches and pitchforks on this one. It’s a ridiculous argument. I never saw one wine have a significant price change (other than the tariff time, and even then, importers and wholesalers were eating a portion of that) on any wine. Nothing was $25 wholesale one month, and then $35 or $40 the next month. There is a little something called pricing filing. And in places like NY, it’s done by the 6th of the month prior to the month it’s actually posted. So it’s posted up to 25 days prior to sale. And you can’t change the price until the following month. There’s law in place that help prevent this stuff from happening.
I can’t comment on the accusations that Jason is levying, but it sure would have come across as lot less ax grinding if he wasn’t shamelessly plugging to subscribe to his site multiple times while trying to tear down the wine media.
FWIW, when Robert Parker was around, you could get the “First Class” Subscription, and get your Wine Advocate overnighted. And if you lived in the DMV area, you could go to the office and pick it up. So this “48 hour preview” is FAR, FAR, FAR from a new concept.
2 Likes
Since I read the article yesterday, I’ve been giving this some thought, which has still not crystalized entirely. So please bear with me (and with the length of the post).
1. I feel wine critics are essential. And I like scores. I’ve said it before:
2. Part of the deal that PR firms and regions pay for is apparently that “poorly reviewed wines aren’t listed” in critics’ tasting reports."
That publishing criteria is also mostly true of publications like Mosel Fine Wines, a publication whose ethics and independence nobody questions AFAIK. In general, they will publish wines they recommend (relatively good scores). In longer estate reviews they will tell you which wines weren’t ready for tasting. It is up to the reader to do the math. They probably won’t visit producers they believe would be wastes of time. And sure, they might miss some gems, but it’s not rocket science to buy confidently based on their advice.
If publications start slamming wines, pay or not, they will soon be faced with slamming doors. Nobody, except those with consistently good scores, will send them wines to review. And, while some publications will purchase some of the wine they review, they get the majority free (be it shipped or in a tasting visit). No publication comprehensively covering Burgundy or Champagne, for example, could do so buying all the bottles, and they could certainly not publish in a timely fashion (when their readers are making purchase decisions and the good wine is still available).
That timeliness issue cannot be underestimated, if consumers are to pay reasonable prices for the wines. And timeliness requires access.
I think where Vinous and Galloni crossed the line was in systematically publishing higher scores for already-reviewed wines. But the silver lining is that we all now know that Vinous scores and notes aren’t worth the bandwidth it takes to download them. And if I were a producer or distributor I would never enter an agreement with Vinous because of that. And consumers should let retailers know that using shelf talkers with those scores is tantamount to attempting to scam unwary consumers by knowingly misleading them as to the quality of the product. Retailers need to know their reputation will get tarnished by association too, or this problem will never be solved.
3. What about the other part, regions paying to get reviewed?
As others have stated above, such is life. No publication can be expected to review all wines. Some discrimination (in the good sense) is essential. I don’t mind regions paying, but I do mind distributors paying.
Reader expectations are key of course. People expect Bordeaux and Napa coverage. – I think broad-based publications could move on from it and from Napa to wines more relevant to the present and future, especially those hard to find, taste and get opinions on. As a paying customer of WA, in retrospect, I would have appreciated they not have William cover Bordeaux because Burgundy and Champagne coverage has suffered. Sorry William. But I don’t think mine is a majority opinion. –
But once the main reader expectations are met (or once editors think they are), some coverage time still needs to be allocated. And why not make the decision based on a region’s willingness to pay? What the region is expecting is that some day they’ll cross over to the expected region column so they can stop paying, of course. As per the article, this is already going on beyond Vinous and I think WA is one of the places. WA’s decision to have a sake reviewer can only be explained to my satisfaction through money incoming from Japan or sake distributors. Hopefully the latter. The same, mutatis mutandi, applies to Mezcal. And because I haven’t gotten on Sarah’s bad side since yesterday, I’ll say it thus: neither is wine. Why is WA covering sake and Mezcal when Luis Gutiérrez and Monica Larner are clearly overwhelmed, despite their best efforts, by the sheer volume in Spain/Argentina/Chile and Italy, respectively, and when WA barely covers Oregon and other actual wine regions? I have no proof, but I have no doubt, that the answer is money from the Sake and Mezcal groups.
Now, if the reader expectations have not been really met (see above), then one can decide as a reader to walk away or not. I wasn’t a fan of WA adding an Australia reviewer. How much Cab, Syrah/Shiraz and Chardonnay do they imagine their readers can drink? And sure, Australia has Riesling too but all the other coverage is, to this paying reader, useless. I’m not sure if that addition was based on money or merely on language, to grow their Australian customer base, but they are certainly not gaining any points with me. But if they actually think their readers already thought their other coverage fully met expectations, and that Australia is a region of interest for most, then sure.
All that said, I draw the line at distributors paying to get their wines reviewed. I’m sure that has a some to do with my intense dislike of distributors. But I also think it bends the implied assurances of the reviewer/reader relationship too far. If you cover the wines of one area then you should cover those that you think we should look into, not let the decisions of a distributor guide your coverage selections. So that’s another area where I agree that Vinous and Galloni went too far IMO.
4. Marcus’s ideas and Regional specialization
I agree with much of what Marcus said in his first post, though I don’t think pay-by-view is an economically feasible model. Especially given shelf-talkers.
I will say that at least one organization, The Wine Scholar Guild, seems to award the regional specialization certificates he asked for. I have no idea how good they are.
An aside
As an aside, I would love to understand why FOB pricing is so low compared to DTC pricing, especially when consumers buying direct are, many times, buying by the case. But I’m open to a new thread on that.
1 Like
I like them! My brother Brian sent me a six pack so I am sure a point or two higher since it was free. 
1 Like
I think the need for critics has passed and Cellar Tracker for me is the go to source. While there are plenty of worthless notes I have found plenty of wine geeks to follow.
Thanks - that’s really helpful context, and helps me confirm my suspicion that the preview really isn’t intended for producers.
1 Like
Ian,
None of my commentaries are oriented towards retailers.
Regarding greed, IMO, the wine industry is no different than any other industry. It’s filled with all types of people, from starving artists to people responsible for the sales and distribution of, literally, millions of cases of wine. Motivations run the gamut(hey Rudy Kerwanian).
In addition to price filing, few wineries will change pricing structure mid-release due to a score. As I noted, the current market is a wacky one influenced by having more total production than demand balanced out by having a few wines receiving enough recognition to create intense demand. As has been noted in other threads, there has never been a time when so many good wines are veing produced. So retailers can always find excellent wines to put on the shelf, and no crown jewel is so sought after that it can’t be swapped out, other than a few unique wines that 99% of retail doesn’t see anyway(I’ve never once seen Rayas in a Fred Meyer(Kroger) wine set even though there are many excellent, and well reviewed wines in those sets).
Previews, IMO, would ve most helpful to wineries and distributors(especially in the arena of managing your allocations for accounts when something gets a super score), and for any sizable distributor $2000 isn’t a big expenditure.
2 Likes
This misses the point I feel. The point is, again, trust from the consumer vs independent wine critique.
Jason and Jeb are completely correct in their assertions. Your points 1 and 2 are irrelevant and only amount to a sort of move along please, nothing to see here.
Cheers,
Johan
2 Likes
good info!
1 Like
Johan, Ian was answering a question that I asked, which was trying to understand what, if any, benefit there is to the winery for an early look. I thought his answer was highly relevant to the question I was asking.
2 Likes
My guess is that most wholesalers don’t subscribe to it. Smart ones like Skurnik and Polaner likely do, but I doubt that most of them care.
I get what you are saying, and appreciate your addition from your side. I was only looping you in to talk about my experiences since I had first hand experience with the preview.
1 Like
Thanks for shuffling along the fact that I had first hand experience with the preview, and can attest that in no way it screws the consumer, as has been the prevailing sentiment among people on this forum from this thread and another.
Please, let the outrage continue.
Marc,
It’s just that I feel there are obvious reasons. And it is not an issue isolated to having 48hr window. The points made by Ian have been made countless times and serve only to try and deflate legitimate concerns.
If you read the testaments on Twitter you will find differing opinions from ITB and actual producers not in sync with Ian.
Cheers
No problem. But still, and again, the issue is trust in independence. Which your assertion refuses to have anything to do with.
And yes, I do think the annoying waves of reasonable questions will not stop.
The last few posts seem to be focusing on the two-day preview window which, of all the discussed things, is the least problematic.
Edit: I thought Ian sharing his experience was perfectly fine, even if I may not entirely agree with his critique of how Jason harped on the suscription.
2 Likes
Exactly, it is a diversion from the real problem.
Cheers
1 Like
I’m not trying to be combative, in case that’s coming across the wrong way. But isn’t early access the only thing that you get for paying $24k? And isn’t that payment the issue? I honestly may be missing something here, but again, my confusion is, what’s the tangible benefit to anyone of early access? If it’s nothing practical, then why would anyone pay that fee?
2 Likes