I sympathize with those who are exhausted by the sales hype and sloppy use of any random score that a seller slings around. And I sympathize with those who are exhausted/overwhelmed/intimidated by wine lists, wine prices, wine lingo, etc.
The amazing volume of scores and scorers probably makes these problems worse, but my guess is that they also work in that they sell wine.
Since Iām really into wine, Iāve invested the time and energy to learn which wines, which critics, which sites, which sellers provide information to me that is useful. Theyāre not all scammers, though they are all human and donāt always make great choices.
For the āall critics suck, all scores are stupidā crowd here on WB, at least you have WB! But when I find myself leaning too hard into a really negative world view about any group of people it really depresses me, so I try to find balance.
Look at that, we are in agreement! This is something I also deal with communicating more than just a little in our messaging here. Wine score compression is a real problem. But yeah, thatās a different thread once again from the issues raised at the start of this one. Not the same topic so we can leave that for this discussion.
Yes. Iām aware. Thatās why I said what I said.
Are you doing āfavorsā for your boss?
I also said earlier that I didnāt have problems with regions paying for broad coverage (if there is bandwidth). Not everything your boss says is an order. He didnāt say it was an order just trying to find synergies. So I donāt want to mischaracterize it. My issue with it is the bandwidth not if itās an order or a favor.
Ian,
I was around in 1983-4 and saw with my vision corrected 20/20 eyes that Parker Bordeaux scores had an IMMEDIATE impact on pricing. Those who paid for express mail (open to everyone for the increased cost of postage; a few dollars annually) were able to take advantage of the 2 days-1 week arbitrage period to load up on highly scored wines before prices were adjusted upward based solely on Parkerās points. I did it myself. Happily.
Prices were adjusted all up and down the chain of commerce accordingly. It was immediate and consequential.
@Ian_Dorin I really appreciate your real world experience and nothing you wrote surprises me. Readers need to have a dose of reality on articles like this, do you really think Vinous was paid to write reviews on Loire wines??? Come onā¦the market for Loire wines is miniscule.
BUT one serious question I have for you. The Pro subscription is VERY expensive, why do retailers buy it if it is not worth it. Is it just a small expense or is there some value? And do you think they will continue to pay for it? I guess given the price of some high end wines getting a small jump on any wine is worth it and probably necessary competitively. No different than going to a region like Burgundy and tasting the wines before the average consumer.
Just curious.
This article was truly one to relish and take in all the aromas like a fine old wine.
Vinous has taken the foulest craps all over our collective hobby since the day they put up their shingle with their utter disrespect for their audience, wincingly bad writing, the founderās consistent assholery in response to even mild criticism, and what continues to emerge as the shadiest ethics in the business. Chapeau to Jason Wilson for blowing the whistle and to Jeb Dunnuck (with whom I have had other differences that mean nothing in comparison to the mountain of stink on display here) for not mincing words, particularly with his third tweet:
āI believe what Vinous is doing is the most significant threat to independent wine criticism Iāve seen in my career. It tarnishes all critics and degrades wine criticism.ā
Endorsed. Chapeau Jeb.
Whatās the word for when you threaten to publish something negative about somebody unless they give you money? It might start with a ābā but it aināt ābespoke.ā
I do wish the bad writing police had got him before the ethics police, but tax evasion is how they got Capone.
Incidentally, to any wineries, importers, distributors, retailers, whatever who are funding this racket - DONāT BOTHER. YOU ARE WASTING YOUR MONEY. Vinous is one among at least a half dozen TN purveyors you will see on literally every wine listing on the Internet now. They are almost all interchangeable. Nobody cares what Vinous says, even if they can somehow manage to get through one of the illiterate notes without dying of cringe. The pecuniary benefit to you of silencing one 87 point note is absolute zero. The pecuniary benefit of a sneak preview of one 97 point note on a wine where 8 or 9 other critics are dropping their own predictable 97s is even less. Someone needs to yell at you in Vinceās voice from Pulp Fiction, āJules, you give that fānā nimrod $24.000 and Iāll shoot him on general principle.ā
Which brings me to the most important thing, STOP ENABLING THIS. Vinous is a non-entity without people doing their marketing for them by using their illiterate cringefest TNs to sell wines. Stop. Just stop. Donāt give them the publicity. If you really have the stones for it, announce you will never use any Vinous note in your emails and web site. Or donāt announce it but do it anyway. It wonāt just save you money. It will save your dignity. You will feel good about yourself. You will be able to tell your children that there was a clown crapping all over the things you love and you helped take him down. Customers will flock to you as a matter of general principle. Just do it. Be a legend.
Postscript: I received an automated message that this post has been flagged as āoffensiveā and that it will only be restored if I edit it. I will not edit it.
The article cites more than one publication. As I said earlier, the villains need to be outed, as it does a major disservice to those who are honest being grouped with those who are not.
Beautifully stated. I wish this could get blasted out to all wine forums.
I totally agree. And so weāll said Keith!!!
To play devilās advocate ā regardless of whether there are conflicts of interest (e.g., a region sponsoring a criticās trip to the region), isnāt the proof in the pudding regardless? If a criticās scores are always 5 points higher and notes much more glowing than what youād ever consider, does it matter if he or she has a conflict? If a critic takes money and has a big conflict of interest, but you always find the notes reliable and spot on, does it matter (to you as the consumer)?
High points drive high prices, no?
As an example, look what happened to the 2016 Produttori lineup after Galloniās glowing scores.
I knew we would eventually 
Iāve enjoyed our banter, and want you to understand that. You make excellent points that got me in to deeper thinking here.
Great questions. The internal discussion that came about was that essentially one buy per month would cover the cost, so theoretically it kind of paid for itself? Had to sell a not of Verdiccho and NZ Sauvignon Blanc to get there though.
The other part of it (and I kid you not) in the justification is that our competitors were paying for it too. So if we didnāt, what could we be missing out on?
Was it a sunk cost? Not really. Was it a huge boost? No. There was an original plan of KPIās, but the net-net of missing out on something to a competitor was a fear factor.
Not sure I agree with your example. When those came out, the price was table for a few months. Literally maybe a couple of Euros more, but nothing significant. Maybe now, but not when they came out.
Would the coward who flagged my post as āoffensive contentā please identify yourself. And would the moderators please put my message back up. I will not edit it. I stand by every word.
Itās there. Well said Keith.
I fart in the specific direction of anonymous cowards. This is a real name bulletin board; everyone must post under their real name; only cowards or those sufficiently inarticulate to formulate an intelligent response whinge anonymously to teacher.