"Robert Parker" Wine Advocate

[CFu]

I don’t see the problem, the company bought the name and they’ll use the name.

[Neal.Mollen]

I don’t see the problem, the company bought the name and they’ll use the name.

I agree if they are simply referring to the pub as Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate. If, as suggested above, they are claiming that Parker actually reviewed the wines when he didn’t, that is something else altogether. Like, fraud.

[William_Gladstone]

I hope that someone from TWA will jump in on this. I know they come on here from time to time, so would be good to get their perspective.

Tangent- Was having a similar discussion with someone in the industry on Saturday about ratings, and how diluted the market is. We joked that 96 is the new 90 since basically any wine on the planet you can easily find some type of 90 point rating from someone to stick on any bottle of wine. It’s a shame really, as I feel like there are some really good wine critics today, and they are all basically shouting in the same snowstorm.

why don’t you write directly to Wine Advocate?
They are very proactive in responding to comments and you might get a direct answer.

why do you have ZACHY’S below your name?

[Paul_Jaouen]

It’s pretty unbelievable. I just saw the 2017 Felsina CC, which is a nice wine and something i drink often, got a 95 or 96 from james suckling. I know he’s the king of elevated scores but even that one got a chuckle from me.

He must not have liked it very much

[Steve_L_Gellman]

For those of us old enough to remember it was always “The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” no matter who the guest host was

[GregT]

The WA doesn’t control what retailers do. It’s long been practice for retailers to bill the scores as Robert Parker’s, even after he hired multiple reviewers and stopped reviewing many of the wines. Be glad that they at least reference the Wine Advocate because many of them simply use the Parker name.

As to whether it still has any cachet, I suppose to people who remember when he reviewed Bordeaux, the Rhone, and CA it does. But those people also know that he’s not reviewing any more.

Still, any score from anyone can help if you’re sending out email or using shelf talkers. Most people don’t know one critic from another and couldn’t care less. They just want some independent validation that a wine is at least OK.

[Neal.Mollen]

I hope that someone from TWA will jump in on this. I know they come on here from time to time, so would be good to get their perspective.

Tangent- Was having a similar discussion with someone in the industry on Saturday about ratings, and how diluted the market is. We joked that 96 is the new 90 since basically any wine on the planet you can easily find some type of 90 point rating from someone to stick on any bottle of wine. It’s a shame really, as I feel like there are some really good wine critics today, and they are all basically shouting in the same snowstorm.

why don’t you write directly to Wine Advocate?
They are very proactive in responding to comments and you might get a direct answer.

Wow! Things must have changed dramatically.

[Scott_Brunson]

I hope that someone from TWA will jump in on this. I know they come on here from time to time, so would be good to get their perspective.

Tangent- Was having a similar discussion with someone in the industry on Saturday about ratings, and how diluted the market is. We joked that 96 is the new 90 since basically any wine on the planet you can easily find some type of 90 point rating from someone to stick on any bottle of wine. It’s a shame really, as I feel like there are some really good wine critics today, and they are all basically shouting in the same snowstorm.

why don’t you write directly to Wine Advocate?
They are very proactive in responding to comments and you might get a direct answer.

Wow! Things must have changed dramatically.

Ba-ZING

[larry_schaffer]

I hope that someone from TWA will jump in on this. I know they come on here from time to time, so would be good to get their perspective.

Tangent- Was having a similar discussion with someone in the industry on Saturday about ratings, and how diluted the market is. We joked that 96 is the new 90 since basically any wine on the planet you can easily find some type of 90 point rating from someone to stick on any bottle of wine. It’s a shame really, as I feel like there are some really good wine critics today, and they are all basically shouting in the same snowstorm.

why don’t you write directly to Wine Advocate?
They are very proactive in responding to comments and you might get a direct answer.

why do you have ZACHY’S below your name?

Because he works for Zachys . . .

[Barry_P]

For those of us old enough to remember it was always “The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” no matter who the guest host was

Yeah, but that’s not the right analogy. Question is, once Johnny left the show, whether his name should still have been on it. In other words, should it have been “Jay Leno’s The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” or “The Tonight Show starring Jay Leno.” NBC sensibly chose the latter and continued the same with O’Brien (albeit briefly) and Fallon.

[John_Morris]

For those of us old enough to remember it was always “The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson” no matter who the guest host was

What about Jack Parr?

[Monica_Larner]

Hey guys, to clarify, the company I work for is called Robert Parker Wine Advocate (four words, no apostrophe). Bob happily and deservedly retired a few months back, but continues as a supportive mentor to me and the others.

[MattBerto]

Henry Ford is dead but they didn’t change the name of the company. Ditto Walt Disney. Seems to have worked out OK.

[Barry_P]

Hey guys, to clarify, the company I work for is called Robert Parker Wine Advocate (four words, no apostrophe). Bob happily and deservedly retired a few months back, but continues as a supportive mentor to me and the others.

Thanks Monica. Please don’t take this at all as snarky…totally not intended to be…but I think we knew that. My question more was about whether it wouldn’t be more appropriate and possibly less misleading, notwithstanding that people by and sell “names” and “names in brands” all the time, to just call it “The Wine Advocate” or, if the group wants to reflect ownership, then “Michellin’s The Wine Advocate.” But having Bob’s name in there I think gives a fair number of less tuned in folks the notion he’s still reviewing wines. Also, you may want to ask the powers that be to remove from Bob’s bio the statement (which is probably just a simple oversight) that he is, in fact, reviewing Bordeaux and California.

[Barry_P]

Henry Ford is dead but they didn’t change the name of the company. Ditto Walt Disney. Seems to have worked out OK.

I’ve been thinking about this. I think you are right, and there are loads of examples, but I’m just wondering whether there is any difference between a company that manufactures things and TWA, where Bob, largely in his individual capacity, personally provided a service. That’s where I’m getting hung up. I keep coming back to the Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson example as the more valid one.

[Ian_S]

Wine Advocate featuring Monica Larner

Has a ring to it, no?

[Alan_Rath]

Henry Ford is dead but they didn’t change the name of the company. Ditto Walt Disney. Seems to have worked out OK.

I’ve been thinking about this. I think you are right, and there are loads of examples, but I’m just wondering whether there is any difference between a company that manufactures things and TWA, where Bob, largely in his individual capacity, personally provided a service. That’s where I’m getting hung up. I keep coming back to the Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson example as the more valid one.

Yep. Once Johnny was gone, so was his name. No one thought Henry Ford was actually designing and assembling the cars himself, and he wasn’t doing car reviews either. So retaining the “Ford” name isn’t at all confusing. Retaining the Robert Parker name is definitely confusing, particularly if they don’t make it very clear who writes each current review.

[GregT]

Henry Ford is dead but they didn’t change the name of the company. Ditto Walt Disney. Seems to have worked out OK.

Different story. “The Ford Motor Company” was the name of it and there are still a couple of Fords involved. “The Walt Disney Company” was the name of that company.

“The Wine Advocate” was Robert Parker’s publication. Because his name was better known, it was often called Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate. I suppose one might call another company “Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook” but in that case, the company name is better known than the founder’s.

If the name has been changed to the “Robert Parker Wine Advocate” as Monica says, that’s an interesting move and pretty short-sighted IMO, as his influence will continue to decline and the future of the publication is the new writers like Monica. But it doesn’t really bode well if they’re still using the name of the guy who no longer writes for it. For a lot of new drinkers, he’s history.

[Ken_V]

I’m just glad we can have this open discussion here on Todd French’s Wine Berserkers.

[Cris_Whetstone]

As Alan alludes to many of the comparisons given in this thread don’t work at all. Ford or Disney created products. The companies they founded continue to create products.

The Wine Advocate was a place where Robert Parker reviewed wines. You can argue his opinion was his product but that’s kind of the point. It is no longer a place that produces the opinions of Robert Parker. Therefore having the output of the current writers being presented as the work of ‘RP’ is misleading at best because they are opining about products of others. They are not making a product that should be assigned a brand name.

Retailers still selling this way are doing their clientele a disservice of course. It’s not a huge thing but definitely not cool.

The other thing is that it discounts the work of the current writers. They should be given some credit and more importantly some introduction to current buyers. For better or worse.