Most deceptive wine business practices to watch out for

[Brian_Gilp]

This one was many years ago and the shop has changed ownership and done away with the practice, which is probably why I forgot about it. In downtown Annapolis, there is a wine shop that had a price listed on the bottle that was higher than in their sales catalog. They used to mail out sales catalogs quarterly that highlighted much of the wines. Anything not in the catalog was a standard discount to the bottle price but you had to have the catalog or make sure that you told them that you wanted the sales pricing. Otherwise, one would get charged the price on the bottle.

I asked once about this policy and was told it was aimed at the boaters who would buy just a few bottles while they were in town for the day. So basically, they wanted to up charge those who they felt had the money to spend but wouldn’t be regular customers.

[Joseph_Grassa]

…or this thread gives more profit boosting ideas to all the rapacious out there.

lol. I hope not.

[jordan_whitehead]

How about “Robert Parker gave this wine a 94”?

The review was by Wine Advocate. They are going for the Parker name recognition. And for the newer notes they don’t realize that Parker retired some years ago.

referencing RP for WA was interchangeable for most of us years ago. Then again, no one was differentiating spectator reviewers either

[David_Bu3ker]

The most ridiculous thing I ever saw was when one of my tasting notes was used, and attributed to Parker because I had posted it on the Parker/Squires board.

[Adam_Frisch]

I’ve never used it, but in all fairness, I do think the average CellarTracker score is by far one of he most truthful scores. Sure, you can game the system by having all your aunts and uncles write fake spoof reviews, but if the reviews are from long standing CT contributors/collectors, then they do carry value. But to use them in marketing is another question. Would I ever do it? Maybe. If I feel it has merit and value and the wine has generally been misunderstood elsewhere - why not?

[B_Beachy]

I’ve seen some people puff up CellarTracker scores when only two or three random people have reviewed a wine.

fwiw Eric is happy to take action where there is evidence of someone spamming high scores - just contact CT support

Good to know. In the cases I remember, I think the scores were cherry picked because they were good numbers and one of the only sources of rating. I didn’t get the impression that CT was spammed at all.

[TGigante]

Another one is name dropping even if no connection exists whatsoever: “This Selosse influenced winemaker, …” although they never worked with Selosse, their wines tasting nothing like it, but they do have bubbles in it. Extra points if it’s not even Champagne (e.g. Cremant)

‘Close neighbor to a 100 point vineyard’

Puffery perhaps, but not deceptive.

[Joseph_Grassa]

I’ve never used it, but in all fairness, I do think the average CellarTracker score is by far one of he most truthful scores. Sure, you can game the system by having all your aunts and uncles write fake spoof reviews, but if the reviews are from long standing CT contributors/collectors, then they do carry value. But to use them in marketing is another question. Would I ever do it? Maybe. If I feel it has merit and value and the wine has generally been misunderstood elsewhere - why not?

And that is a statement that shows more considerate intent. Unlike the many who would say “if the rating was high enough.”

[Howard_Cooper]

The owner of a store I used to frequent knew I loved the wines of Jacky Truchot. So, he would consistently describe wines to me as Truchot-like, even though many of the wines were completely different in style.

[Curtis_Chen]

The owner of a store I used to frequent knew I loved the wines of Jacky Truchot. So, he would consistently describe wines to me as Truchot-like, even though many of the wines were completely different in style.

LOL. This wins.

[Aleks_V]

Most of what is being described here I consider marketing fluff and not deceptive or particularly insidious. More underhanded to me are the wine clubs that tout their “unique” or “exclusive” wines, which are really just private label junk.

This is to me about the worst on the list, both because I get spammed with their ads on IG constantly and because I’ve had friends who’ve joined these clubs.

Naked Wines must be one of the worst:
-They accuse other wineries of inflating prices and that they sell the same wine much cheaper (they have a…uh, marketing ad on IG talking about how Napa wines are usually inflated due to marketing costs)
-Have these sob stories about how they have these winemakers making the wines they really want to make
-sell crappy overpriced bulked out wine

These tactics either convince people bad wine is good or make people cynical about buying wine and think it’s too difficult to find good wine.

[Craig_G]

Another one is name dropping even if no connection exists whatsoever: “This Selosse influenced winemaker, …” although they never worked with Selosse, their wines tasting nothing like it, but they do have bubbles in it. Extra points if it’s not even Champagne (e.g. Cremant)

Well, none of the people who apprenticed with Selosse make wines that taste like Selosse either! But they’re all good. And bubbly.

[Albert_H]

Most of what is being described here I consider marketing fluff and not deceptive or particularly insidious. More underhanded to me are the wine clubs that tout their “unique” or “exclusive” wines, which are really just private label junk.

This is to me about the worst on the list, both because I get spammed with their ads on IG constantly and because I’ve had friends who’ve joined these clubs.

Naked Wines must be one of the worst:
-They accuse other wineries of inflating prices and that they sell the same wine much cheaper (they have a…uh, marketing ad on IG talking about how Napa wines are usually inflated due to marketing costs)
-Have these sob stories about how they have these winemakers making the wines they really want to make
-sell crappy overpriced bulked out wine

These tactics either convince people bad wine is good or make people cynical about buying wine and think it’s too difficult to find good wine.

This. Id also throw Dry Farm Wines into the mix as well. Them and Naked Wines are just about as dirty and filthy as they come. The fact that they try to come off as one of those direct to consumer, transparent about everything type of companies while throwing pretty much the entire wine industry under the bus. I can’t stand those guys.

[Ian_Sutton]

Not in the same league, but I’ll add these big corp practices (and all are accusations levelled at TWE/Southcorp/Penfolds over the years)

• Launching a new wine label using a selection of prime fruit from across the group, then once the label is established, directing the better fruit elsewhere (or to the latest new label)
• Redirect the fruit previously taken by a long established brand, replacing with less premium sources of fruit, as it’s likely to still have people buying it thinking it’s as good as it was 10-20 years ago. The brand eventually suffers, but can be milked for many years before people cotton on.
• Use a single vineyard name, when the majority if the fruit (and in the most egregious cases - all the fruit) comes from other locations. Koonunga Hill a prime example of this practice, one that is thankfully illegal in many countries.

[SeanHarding]

The idea that couriers/agents can play the ‘I left it at the front door’ is a lot harder now when everything is tracked and recorded. That being said, I don’t think they’re the main problem – its the porch pirates.

I’m sure this varies by neighborhood, but I’ve had cameras around my front door for many years. In that time, I’ve had at least four cases where the carrier claims a delivery attempt was made, and the camera shows that it wasn’t. I’ve also had packages delivered to the wrong address a couple of times. I’ve had zero instances of porch piracy. For me, the carriers have been a much bigger problem than porch pirates.

[Arv_R]

Not in the same league, but I’ll add these big corp practices (and all are accusations levelled at TWE/Southcorp/Penfolds over the years)

• Launching a new wine label using a selection of prime fruit from across the group, then once the label is established, directing the better fruit elsewhere (or to the latest new label)
• Redirect the fruit previously taken by a long established brand, replacing with less premium sources of fruit, as it’s likely to still have people buying it thinking it’s as good as it was 10-20 years ago. The brand eventually suffers, but can be milked for many years before people cotton on.
• Use a single vineyard name, when the majority if the fruit (and in the most egregious cases - all the fruit) comes from other locations. Koonunga Hill a prime example of this practice, one that is thankfully illegal in many countries.

The really insidious thing about switching out the old vine fruit is that the loyal consumer, who might lay the wines down for a few years, keeps on buying and it will take years until they open up some of the wines and start noticing that the current releases do not taste as older ones do.

But this is not limited to just corporate owned brand families or only Aus/US properties, unfortunately.

WB’s might rage about critics, but this is one case where their tasting and commenting in real time on release, helps keep the industry honest. And it seems to me that the rules driven AOC, DOC, DOCG systems are at least slightly more protective of what’s in the bottle.

[Arv_R]

The idea that couriers/agents can play the ‘I left it at the front door’ is a lot harder now when everything is tracked and recorded. That being said, I don’t think they’re the main problem – its the porch pirates.

I’m sure this varies by neighborhood, but I’ve had cameras around my front door for many years. In that time, I’ve had at least four cases where the carrier claims a delivery attempt was made, and the camera shows that it wasn’t. I’ve also had packages delivered to the wrong address a couple of times. I’ve had zero instances of porch piracy. For me, the carriers have been a much bigger problem than porch pirates.

I suppose this is regional. In our jurisdiction, theft under $950 is a misdemeanor, so is not even usually investigated/charged/prosecuted etc. I use Walgreens p/u for wine, and Amazon lockers for higher value items. And I’m at home all day, with lots of cameras, plus a gigantic guard dog.

[John_Glas]

I’ve seen some people puff up CellarTracker scores when only two or three random people have reviewed a wine.

On a semi-related note, I’ve actually seen couple of places use my CT reviews to advertise wines.

I’ve also seen a picture I took of my Musar vertical lineup used around the internet in multiple unrelated articles.

Better than a James Suckling wine review!

[John_Glas]

Most of what is being described here I consider marketing fluff and not deceptive or particularly insidious. More underhanded to me are the wine clubs that tout their “unique” or “exclusive” wines, which are really just private label junk.

This is to me about the worst on the list, both because I get spammed with their ads on IG constantly and because I’ve had friends who’ve joined these clubs.

Naked Wines must be one of the worst:
-They accuse other wineries of inflating prices and that they sell the same wine much cheaper (they have a…uh, marketing ad on IG talking about how Napa wines are usually inflated due to marketing costs)
-Have these sob stories about how they have these winemakers making the wines they really want to make
-sell crappy overpriced bulked out wine

These tactics either convince people bad wine is good or make people cynical about buying wine and think it’s too difficult to find good wine.

Amazing how many people buy from them! I made a comment on Facebook and a supporter quoted this when I asked about tasting notes (meaning what are your tasting notes on these wines):
“many different wines. You can’t give tasting notes. They ship you different vineyards all the time, you rarely get the same ones unless you specifically order that one.”

[Paul_Miller]

Most of what is being described here I consider marketing fluff and not deceptive or particularly insidious. More underhanded to me are the wine clubs that tout their “unique” or “exclusive” wines, which are really just private label junk.

This is to me about the worst on the list, both because I get spammed with their ads on IG constantly and because I’ve had friends who’ve joined these clubs.

Naked Wines must be one of the worst:
-They accuse other wineries of inflating prices and that they sell the same wine much cheaper (they have a…uh, marketing ad on IG talking about how Napa wines are usually inflated due to marketing costs)
-Have these sob stories about how they have these winemakers making the wines they really want to make
-sell crappy overpriced bulked out wine

These tactics either convince people bad wine is good or make people cynical about buying wine and think it’s too difficult to find good wine.

At some event, I got a “free gift card” from Naked Wines for 6 or 12 bottles of wine. Didn’t do anything with it. Then a high school friend of my wife fell on hard times. So I took advantage of the offer, and had the “free” wines sent to her. As I went through the order process, I VERY carefully kept looking for the gotcha. I knew there had to be a catch. Anyway, I still missed it. Sure enough, I had joined the club, and every month they hit my credit card for a monthly draw that I could apply to future purchases. Took a couple of months, but they closed my membership and refunded my money.