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.