LaPresse: SAQ paid Suckling $24,000 for reviews

WINE TALK
81

Ok - now someone needs to auto tune this…

\

82

Man I would love to see Phillip Seymour Hoffman acting as Suckling, thick fake accent and all.

83

I tell you what, if I paid James to come to my winery and taste my wines, and he now gave me less than 99 points on them, he would never leave alive. [basic-smile.gif]

Just kidding. I would be angry as hell, though. [basic-smile.gif]

84

fixed

85

Per Decanter, Suckling concedes that he did get paid, but he got paid because… he’s a filmmaker! The payment was to make films, not to review wines. Also, when he claimed last year that there was no financial relationship, it was true… at the time. It was only LATER that he signed the financial deal, and just decided not to tell his readers.

Nice of Decanter to ask some tough questions.

86

Does anyone else find it interesting that the three folks who jump to defend Suckling are all winery guys?

87

James,

I think (from a quick catch-up on the thread) that I am one of the “three folks who jump to defend Suckling” that is a “winery guy.” If sharing my experience, honestly, after someone wrote that he “solicits his services to wineries” is jumping to defend Suckling then I supposed I am guilty. Personally, I thought it was simply saying what happened and what my experience was (without commenting on anyone else’s experience).

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

88

Not sure I defended him, but if you read my first post I have zero issues with his fee. I imply the same as the above decanter piece - he isn’t a critic to me, so his pay is for “marketing” or buzz, nothing more. I’m not ITB.

89

That’s fair. And I don’t doubt you all have good motives. But as someone with wine to sell, you have motive to defend him, too. Even if that’s not first in your mind. I tend to think people act out of multiple motives and a part of that is to act in our interest, even if not consciously. Everyone does that. That’s all I was commenting on.