Ummm…if this is true, then none of this is earth shattering, right? I mean, we all know the Wine Spectator Experience, all the stuff Suckling does, and Galloni’s Festa del Barolo, and there is a huge thread on here about the special Vinous subscription.
This is funny because I know a producer that helped with the Barolo maps, and participated in Festa del Barolo, and get’s so-so ratings with middling reviews (and happens to make awesome wines). So I can actually point to a clear cut counter argument about her “shenanigans.”
God, I really hate speculation. Apparently in the wine business you are guilty until proven innocent.
I think the issue is that in reality, the events would end up looking like Wine Spectator style events where producers have to contribute their time, expertise, and wines – all gratis – and the attendees pay a fee, while the promoter collects most of the monies from the event. So it morphs into a tradeshow.
Is this a game the small artisanal farmer can play? or is this something that the big brands and their publicists will be better at?
========
I do think having even more reviewers, especially “newer” ones desperate for media/retailer attention, just leads to further score inflation. Slapping a high score on something pretty much means some retailers will start using those to sell their wares, and licensing fees will start to flow in. If LPB’s scores are more tempered, the reviews won’t move merchandise, and the new venture will not get any trade subscribers.
In any case, as Keith mentions upthread, I look forward to the 9th set of reviews on Latour en barrel, a worthless exercise for the reviewers, and the readers. Maybe we’ll get a few more citations of ‘singed alder’; I’ve been missing that.
The industry drives these subscriptions in an overwhelming way. Critique all you want about Vinous’ super premium subscription, but Suckling, Meadows and RP ALL have a “corporate rate” that they overcharge retailers for. They say it’s for the use of “sharing the content”, but what’s funny is that if retailers don’t share the content, then the publications won’t pick up other subscribers!!!
The value of a score just went down some more. Every time you add a critic, it just exhausts people even more.
Not really. She’s identified a problem (which many consumers, including the ones on WB, have also identified) and is marketing her new business as a way to avoid that problem. She’s just trying to differentiate her business, similar to how another business might say how most of the industry is very wasteful, but we’re committed to sustainability. Does everyone think it’s a better strategy to say something like “Have you been thinking there aren’t enough pay-to-read wine publications available? Well, have no fear, I’m starting another one!”
I don’t think that’s correct. She quite conspicuously didn’t identify either the problem or the source. To the contrary, she reportedly said that "people don’t know what’s happening behind the scenes of so many wine criticism publications, unless you’re in the business, and then you are like, ‘oh my God’.”
So she really saying “I know something scandalous about some unstated actors is the system and it’s outrageous and I am going to tell you neither who or what I am talking about but you shouldn’t trust any of my competitors. This behind the scenes stuff I know that you don’t know is really awful.” Sounds pretty dramatic to me.
It’s hard to ask the producers to participate and contribute wines if you don’t give them good scores.
The incentive to inflate scores also works indirectly: The more your publication is used in shelf-talkers and quoted in retailers’ emails (because you gave an astronomical score and gushed about the wine), the better known your critic’s brand becomes with consumers. That, in turn, allows you to monetize it through events or advertising or whatever.
You need to distinguish between publications whose only source of income is subscriptions (as Parker was historically), and publications like Wine Spectator and Decanter that always ran ads.
In the gray area are free samples. In the early years, I believe that Parker said he bought all the wines he reviewed. I think that policy was abandoned long, long ago, though.
I’m quoting my corrected earlier post, because originally I misstated when and by whom she was named editor in chief. It was the new Singapore owners who promoted her. It’s a bit odd for her to be complaining about conflicts when she was put in charge by the most problematic owners.
The intersection of Parker and Japan was troubled by a couple of ethical mis-steps.
I don’t know how integral Lisa was in bringing those about, but she certainly had a front row seat for it all.
Short of hiring an independent ombudsman to audit all that goes on at a critic’s “house” I think it just safer to assume that there’s always some level of conflict of interest.
The critics who should be followed (if you’re into that) are those who:
-strive for maximum transparency
-invite serious, critical questions
-have good palates that seem to more or less mirror your own
-are talented writers who bring new ideas and info to the fore
(responding to Neal) Yes, but there were certainly wines Parker purchased (in bottle) and would review, long after he had been PNG’d by the estate themselves. Old school St Emilion Soutard is one where this played out over many years, even though the wine would actually receive good reviews.
=======
Every business model is going to come with attendant risks anyone who is interacting with them should be aware of. Just to be Devil’s Advocate, another way of thinking of independent reviews is that they are unaccountable, with limited stake in their views. An importer who has to commit to a pallet or a shipping container of wine may have a more gimlet eye on the quality / value of what they are sending 3000-6000 miles. Are the views independent, disinterested any more? No, but are they careless, ill thought out? unlikely. If I see KLWM back strips on a Rhone or Laguedoc/Roussillon that’s a pretty strong endorsement: a review backed with money per se.
All the craziness going among paid critics basically means that nowadays, that I don’t pay for any of them. I pay for WB, underground storage, and recieve a free sub to WS (so I can keep up with Jon Bon Jovi’s newest Hampton Water branded sneaker side gig along with what pro atheletes are drinking e.g. Opus One by the case for one NFL’er). There’s enough wine books by my armchair to keep me occupied for another six months; although I suppose to be fair I likely spend $100-200 a year on books in that niche.
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}