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.
Exactly, it is a diversion from the real problem.
Cheers
Iām not trying to be combative, in case thatās coming across the wrong way. But isnāt early access the only thing that you get for paying $24k? And isnāt that payment the issue? I honestly may be missing something here, but again, my confusion is, whatās the tangible benefit to anyone of early access? If itās nothing practical, then why would anyone pay that fee?
Per my other post, Iām focused on the preview because itās whatās the $24k is paid for. No?
Maybe but thereās also the $25K to get reviewed and only publish good ones.
And the proof of re-reviewed and up-scored wines for apparent subscribers to the ābespoke options.ā
Well, thatās the allegation. I get that. My point is that I never understood why anyone would pay $24k to get 2-day early access, which is whatās advertised.
Understood. I donāt understand it either. But I think we have enough evidence to presume the other aspects of the article correct unless Galloni has denied any part of it.
The suggestion of $25k to get reviewed with a good score in Vinous in Jasonās piece is innuendo, nothing more, and doubly so given his earlier comments about a publicist claiming āabout $25kā pay to play (without naming names). Oh, and by the way, you should subscribe to his newsletter.
Frankly, that is a grotesque pretense at journalism, grotesque enough that I would never subscribe to his newsletter. You canāt pretend to be the honest broker if thatās the type of thing you write.
-Al
Itās not innuendo that the Polaner wines he had already reviewed in published reviews, were re-reviewed by Galloni personally in Vinous within a couple of months as a āfunā (or whatever equivalent word it was) exercise.
Itās also not innuendo that Vinous offers ācustom, bespoke optionsā for the companies that suscribe.
The screenshots for all of it are right there.
For a board full of people who supposedly donāt care about critics you guys sure spend a lot of time whining about critics.
Itās innuendo that that he re-reviewed Polaner wines to give them a better score because Vinous was paid $25k to do so.
-Al
As per the article, this is already going on beyond Vinous and I think WA is one of the places. WAās 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 havenāt gotten on Sarahās bad side since yesterday, Iāll say it thus: neither is wine. Why is WA covering sake and Mezcal when Luis GutiĆ©rrez 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.
Happy to say this isnāt the case - has more to do with trying to find synergies within the Michelin Group.
If it was nothing practical then they would not pay. All talk about no harm to the customer is sidestepping that.
As usual in these threads there are a few who are more concerned with the person shining light on the issue rather than the issue that light is illuminating. I never get that, being upset by the messenger rather than what is being talked about:
Erosion of consumer trust in independent wine writing.
Because of what the money behind the scenes get up to, it tarnishes the hard working and true journalists which they employ.
I donāt think the behind the scenes stuff is what erodes the critic trust (despite what is talked about on this board). The sheer volume of critics is far too many, with far too many differing views. People lean in to critics that they align with, and lean away from critics they donāt. I talk to a wide array of wine consumers, and the overwhelming sentiment among all of them (include top collectors) is that wine criticism has become white noise. Almost every client I work with asks me the same two questions- 1) do you think I will like it? and 2) whatās the style of this wine? The latter point being a drilled criticism of wine critics, that they can glean nothing of context of what style the wine is from reading the review.
Well, we obviously differ in a meaningful way here in our conclusions.
I will happily agree that there is a multitude of critics and differing opinion. I find that a good thing and hope for ever more voices making their mark. Some will find it noise, sure, but as someone who meets more than my fair share of people invested in the subject and discuss it with consumers on a nearly daily basis, they actually love to read and take in opinions of a vast array. Not saying your personal customers are not how you describe them.
I take from your posts that you think the issue is one which people should simply ignore and just let business do what it wants in peace without being questioned no matter what they claim on the front of the box. You think it is of no consequence to the consumer and the consumer should simply chill.
My guess is that many consumers are not willing to do that seeing as they feel uncomfortable having wool pulled over their eyes. It itches.
Good to know. I donāt mind you guys doing favors for Michelin (with integrity), as long as itās not at the expense of other coverage.
I fully agree that critics need to be better descriptive on the style front, especially those who must taste and rate differing styles.
@Jeb_Dunnuck, kudos to you man! Very well stated.
Obviously there are people on this board saying that integrity is important, so Iām not trying to say itās not an issue, Iām just saying that my experience says itās not the #1 issue that people are expressing to me.
Some time ago I used to joke around that you could find a 90 point score for just about any wine, any where. Now itās more like 98 points. Thatās why itās exhausting. Without getting into debate about whether or not the wine deserves it or how credible the critic is that gave the score, but just the sheer exhaustion of every marketing email (whether it be a retailer or winery) with a subject line that seems to read āOMG, 98 FREAKING Points and itās only $XX.XX!ā dilutes everything.
An even finer point that people have expressed to me is that wine has been reduced to a number. Why? Itās too much 2 dimensional and thatās not wine. Wine has become far too abstract stretching far too many styles that a number canāt truly represent a wine.