Comps and Freebies for Wine Critics

[Daniel Rogov]

We've been well into the subject of complementary meals for restaurant critics, so perhaps the time has come to look at the question of free wines, wine trips and other "freebies" that wine critics receive. Apologies in advance for wordiness.....

In general, there are several ways in which a wine critic can receive the wines that he/she is going to review

1. Individual visits by the critic to and tastings at wineries

2. Invitations to visit a winery as part of a group of journalists

3. Invitations to tastings held not at the winery but elsewhere

4. Tastings at professional or non-professional wine exhibitions

5. Tastings sponsored by importers, distributors and wine stores

6. Bottles sent from wineries for tasting

7. Purchasing wines for tasting

My take on each of these, and even though I feel strongly about each of these issues, am most certainly open to discussion and debate.

1. Individual visits to and tastings at wineries

One of the few ways in which a critic can do both barrel tastings, advance tastings and re-tastings (including vertical and horizontal tastings) is by visiting wineries. If visiting a winery in one's own area and the critic is offered a ride by someone from the winery, I see no problem in that. If a bit out of one's area the train or plane fair should be paid by the critic (and note that unless otherwise mentioned that I am talking about critics with a travel budget) If the winery picks you up at the train station or airport, no problem. Those are little more than common courtesies and should in no way be misconstrued. Such visits are critical, not only if you write a book about the wines of your area but if writing even about international wines is part of your work. If after the tasting the winery invites you to lunch, also no problem but only on the condition that you keep close track and the next time you meet someone from the winery for coffee or lunch you (your publication) picks up the bill. Reciprocation whenever possibleis the key here. It should also be noted that at such lunches the people from the winery tend to be more relaxed and you can learn a good deal about what is and what is about to be happening in their vineyards, with their staffing and with regard to future plans.

2. Invitations to visit a winery as part of a group of journalists

Many wineries unveil their about to be released wines at a press party at the winery and in so doing invite those journalists they consider either important or those who will write a positive kind of puff piece for them. It is clear that critics should never write puff pieces. My feeling is that one can and should attend such functions, even though they are largely at the expense of the winery because such events offer the chance to taste for the first time or to re-taste the wines that are about to be released, to talk with the winemaker and perhaps others at the winery and (being perfectly honest) to find out where your colleagues "are at". On some occasions one attends such events in order to be a lady or gentleman – that is to say especially in the case of wineries that have opened their doors to you before and at which you have already done extensive tastings. As they have showed you the courtesy of devoting an entire day, sometimes of the entire staff of winemakers, to hold a tasting entirely for you it is only courteous that you show up at events they consider important.

3. Invitations to group tastings held not at the winery but elsewhere. To me, the ideal tasting takes place in a tasting room with minimal odors, good lighting and a temperature that you can live with. They also take place with a group that, other than the winemaker who is presenting his/her wines, knows how to keep their mouths firmly shut during the tasting. I frankly don't give a flying fig for what anyone other than myself thinks of the wines and certainly am not about to share my opinion before my tasting notes are written and, in most cases, not until they have been published. If the tasting takes place at a restaurant and is accompanied by a meal, I am unhappy because I do not believe wine should be tasted with food (the aromas, flavors, texture, etc) of the food interfering with one's tasting abilities. (I'm for nothing but salt and sugar free bread and water on the table kind of taster in my own tasting room). If the person in question is both a wine and restaurant critic (as am I), such meals should never be written about unless you are seated on your own, perhaps with one or two colleagues and can order a la carte. In such cases, even though the winery pays for your meal, the critic should leave a staff tip equivalent to the amount that his/her meal would have cost.

4. Tastings at professional or non-professional wine exhibitions

Professional wine exhibitions (e.g. WineExpo, VinItaly, ViniSud, ProWein, London International Wine and Spirits, etc) are excellent places to do tastings. At the very best of these exhibitions you can taste 125 or more wines every day and can even arrange to taste many of those blind and quite often even in excellent tasting circumstances. If the exposition is funded at least in part by governmental bodies I see no harm whatsoever in accepting air fare and hotel arrangements from them (again, so long as the invitations come from a governmental or government-related agency). Critics should not accept airfaire and hotels from wineries but of course may have budget for this from their publications Among such events I also include annual barrel tastings or "on-release tastings" that are held for large numbers of people in the trade, including critics (e.g. Bordeaux, parts of the Rhone, etc) Attending a certain number of such events is absolutely critical for the wine critic who is to keep his/her repertoire of tastings au curent.

5. Tastings sponsored by importers, distributors and wine stores

In a way, as much as dealers may set out to impress critics at such events, they are quite impersonal and offer little "threat" to integrity. Often a good way to preview and crit wines that are about to appear on the local market.

6. Bottles sent from wineries for tasting

It is generally acceptable for critics to accept one bottle (occasionally two) for tasting but that on the condition that the critic does his/her tastings blind or double blind, that is to say with no way of knowing at the moment other than a general category what specific wines are being tasted. It is not in general acceptable to accept more than that, for then the wines are for your drinking pleasure and not merely for tasting. The only possible exception to that is the winery that knows the critic well enough to realize that a second and possibly third bottle will be set aside for future tasting (one, two or more years in the future). Critics should not "hold it against" any winery that does not send wines for tasting. It is the privilege of any winery to send or not send wines to whomever they want. In that case there are the above (that is to say methods 1-5) to fall back on or worst comes to worst, to purchase the bottles.

7. Purchasing wines for tasting. Critics taste anywhere from 100-1500 wines monthly. (Please note that I said "taste" and not "drink. Even critics have to guard their livers and other parts of their anatomy) There is no critic on the planet and no publication on the planet that can afford to purchase all of those wines. Legitimate publications do, however, give their wine critics budgets for those purchases that are absolutely necessary.

As to what is forbidden to the critic: Freebie trips at the expense of wineries, distributors, stores, importers, etc; accepting additional bottles of wine as a "thank you" before or after the wine has been reviewed and accepting wines to add to one's personal cellar rather than to taste. And more, but after this many words the mind grows weary (as is probably the reader who has come this far).

Considering the serious objections I have stated towards accepting complementary meals, the major question I expect to arise is: "Why is it acceptable to sometimes accept wines or attend wine-tasting events sponsored by commercial sources when it is forbidden (in my opinion) to accept such meals?"

Simple enough – of the thousands of wines that one receives as samples or tastes at events, 99% is tasted and spit and only 1% actually goes into the body. True, one might save the best wine tasted in a given day for dinner but that hardly comprises a bribe or tempts one to change one's impression or tasting notes (after all, the wine was selected because we thought so highly of it). Second, as much as tasting wine can be a very rewarding challenge, it is very, very hard work, the time and concentration involved in tasting dozens or more of wines in a day being enormous and then adding the time required to write up and post or otherwise publish the tasting notes. The rewards are great because most critics love wine (as much and perhaps even more of a philosophical base than food) and love the challenge of testing and re-testing their own palates.

Enough for now. I look forward to the dialogue that will hopefully develop from this too-long post.

P.S. Because I have written this for the forum and not for my various print outlets, I am not proof-reading it as I should nor is it being edited by a professional editor. I therefore apologize in advance for any grammatical or spelling errors that may have worked their way in.

[Fat Guy]

It is generally acceptable for critics to accept one bottle (occasionally two) for tasting

←

There is certainly not universal agreement about whether it's okay to accept bottles from wineries. Needless to say, some of the premier wine critics -- Robert Parker, Robert Finigan -- would say this is a conflict of interest, just as Consumer Reports believes it's a conflict of interest for newspapers to accept cars, stereos and computers for review rather than buying them in retail stores. But if we took that position we'd effectively destroy or severely limit the enterprise of wine journalism.

The most important rule is that the critic should tell the truth. Whether wine, travel, hospitality or information is provided by the producer or purchased by the critic is irrelevant to the ethical critic. Any other guidelines aren't really about ethics. They're about 1- protecting the writer from his or her own weakness, and 2- avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The solution in each case is not to create a system that makes it impossible for any but the most elaborately funded ventures to engage in wine journalism. Rather, the solution is disclosure.

Simple enough – of the thousands of wines that one receives as samples or tastes at events, 99% is tasted and spit and only 1% actually goes into the body. True, one might save the best wine tasted in a given day for dinner but that hardly comprises a bribe or tempts one to change one's impression or tasting notes (after all, the wine was selected because we thought so highly of it). Second, as much as tasting wine can be a very rewarding challenge, it is very, very hard work, the time and concentration involved in tasting dozens or more of wines in a day being enormous and then adding the time required to write up and post or otherwise publish the tasting notes. The rewards are great because most critics love wine (as much and perhaps even more of a philosophical base than food) and love the challenge of testing and re-testing their own palates.

I don't find those distinctions the slightest bit compelling. So if a food critic spits his food and works very, very hard then comps are magically okay for food critics? That seems like a nonsensical outcome, and I think the reason it's nonsensical is because the distinctions themselves are without substance, kind of like the old "but I didn't inhale" excuse.

[Fengyi]

In general, there are several ways in which a wine critic can receive the wines that he/she is going to review

1.  Individual visits by the critic to and tastings at wineries

2.  Invitations to visit a winery as part of a group of journalists

3.  Invitations to tastings held not at the winery but elsewhere

4.  Tastings at professional or non-professional wine exhibitions

5.  Tastings sponsored by importers, distributors and wine stores

6.  Bottles sent from wineries for tasting

7.  Purchasing wines for tasting

←

We've come across a new one here in China:

5a (subset). Tastings where the press pack comes complete with a "red envelope" inside it. [Red Envelope is a Chinese code for money in a pretty red envelope].

We've started to get these...and promptly return them to the people in charge of the tasting, who are startled and amazed by our behaviour! To my regret, we actually haven't opened any to see how much we are worth!

there's also:

2a (subset) where your visit also comes with red envelopes....

It's been really tough in this market to try and maintain an independent stance. I am going to print out your post and put it up at the office, just to help us find our way!!!

Many thanks!

[Fat Guy]

To ensure proper disposal of the red envelopes, please send them to me. Thanks.

[Daniel Rogov]

Steven, Hi...

There is certainly not universal agreement about whether it's okay to accept bottles from wineries. Needless to say, some of the premier wine critics -- Robert Parker, Robert Finigan -- would say this is a conflict of interest, just as Consumer Reports believes it's a conflict of interest for newspapers to accept cars, stereos and computers for review rather than buying them in retail stores. But if we took that position we'd effectively destroy or severely limit the enterprise of wine journalism.

Mr. Parker indeed accepts bottles for tastings, does attend barrel-tastings, and does visit wineries. I do not know Mr. Finigan so cannot comment on that (fair enough though, as I'm fairly sure Mr. Finigan doesn't know me either). I personally know no wine critic who buys nearly all of the wines he/she tastes. Au contraire, most have a specific set of guidelines for what they will and will not receive.

As to potential bias, that is one of the reasons why one does blind tastings whenever possible.

With regard to Consumer Reports (for which I have a high level of respect), there is a difference between wine, automobiles and most other items. Cars, stereos, toasters, vacuum cleaners and computers can be re-sold after testing to cover the bulk of the expense. Wine, once opened and tasted, has no refund value. That may be one of the reasons why Consumer Reports does not taste and write about 10,000 or more wines annually.

The most important rule is that the critic should tell the truth. Whether wine, travel, hospitality or information is provided by the producer or purchased by the critic is irrelevant to the ethical critic. Any other guidelines aren't really about ethics. They're about 1- protecting the writer from his or her own weakness, and 2- avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The solution in each case is not to create a system that makes it impossible for any but the most elaborately funded ventures to engage in wine journalism. Rather, the solution is disclosure.{/QUOTE]

All critics should tell the truth, on that we agree completely.  With regard to protecting the writer from his/her own weaknesses, that is why we try so hard to taste blind whenever possible, and when impossible to do follow-up tastings. 

With regard to "the solution", I would have to ask you to come up with an ethical system that is different than the one I have suggested.

The person who didn't inhale the marijuana was simply being foolish (you can't get the impact of any smoked hallucinogenic no matter how you try without inhaling). Speaking of food critics spitting is carrying the issue to absurdity. I dread the horrendous scene at a restaurant the day I see a critic (or anyone else) take a mouthful of food, chew it reflectively and then spit it into his/her napkin. And then to repeat that act some 50-100 times during the course of a meal.

To be evaluated properly food must be seen, smelled, chewed and swallowed (not to mention being put in a set of multiple contexts). Wine needs not to be swallowed to be evaluated.

More important, the restaurant critic who sets out to a restaurant does so with the hope of having an aesthetically and culinary experience that is pleasurable. Although the wine critic seated at a tasting table hopes for a good set of wines, there is no pleasure other than the challenge of the tasting in the act. If anything, because wine tastings should be conducted with no conversation or commentary whatever, they become almost anti-social events in some ways. I will grant that the critic who is foolish enough to get sloshed at every tasting may, in some perverse way, be enjoying himself but will also suggest that he probably will not live past 40 without his liver going or, at least, his nose turning bright, blotchy red.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Nathan]

the food and service can be altered (whether comped or not) when a critic is recognized.

not so for the wine.

[Fat Guy]

You think producers don't take extra care that the wine they provide to critics is in pristine condition, stored under ideal conditions until the hadoff to the critic, etc.? Of course there are things that can be done.

In addition, as I mentioned on the restaurant reviewing comps topic, comps and non-anonymity are not necessarily linked. I gave the example of invitations I've had that came in the form of cards/certificates that don't need to be presented until the end of a meal. I've also had several restaurateurs email me with instructions to the effect: "Come, eat, and then when you get the bill just ask for Mike the manager and he'll take care of it." Needless to say, this is a minority occurrence, but then again so is any major critic not being recognized. The important point, though, is that equating the issues of comps and anonymity is a fallacy that muddies the discussion. They're two separate issues.

[Daniel Rogov]

Agreed with Steven on two points:

(a) That the issues of anonymity and comps are unrelated

(b) That wineries too can play tricks when they send out samples

The leading such trick is "special bottlings" for tastings, competitions and critics that may not even be from the same cuvee or even the same blend as those bottles headed to market. When special treatment is given in a restaurant that's one of the "rules of the game". When special bottlings are made for competitions or critics that is out-and-out fraud.

Not many wineries will do this but some do. One of the way one checks from time to time is by re-tasting, sometimes even on the same day but from two numbered glasses tasted blind, one with the sent sample and the other from a bottle purchased.

Also clear that a barrel tastings many winemakers will obviously draw from their most promising and not most "average" barrels.

Critics learn who plays the tricks. The stupid critic doesn't hold his job very long.

[Rebel Rose]

Considering the serious objections I have stated towards accepting complementary meals, the major question I expect to arise is: "Why is it acceptable to sometimes accept wines or attend wine-tasting events sponsored by commercial sources when it is forbidden (in my opinion) to accept such meals?"

Interesting topic. I have difficulty imagining that anyone would object to a winery sending samples to critics. Wineries are expected to present their product for free all day long, to anyone from your Uncle Charlie who 'only likes beer' to discerning visitors who may be excited by your region or specialty. I have even more difficulty envisioning a restaurant doing that all day, every day. Free samples are part of the wine business, and they are expected more routinely by the public than by reviewers.

The well known critics have tasting schedules which they release to their mailing list or to tasting event coordinators. Basically, there is a cattle call for various regional specialties at certain dates. Most wineries send two bottles in case the first one opened is corked or in any way questionable. Unlike restaurants, who can hardly refuse to seat and serve a food critic, wineries may select the critics and publications they would like to submit to, and submit only the wines they feel will show well at that time. The major food publications . . . Food & Wine, Gourmet, etc. . . . also accept both food and wine samples.

Basically, it's just an entirely different business model. In wine, each bottle represents thousands of dollars of vineyard maintenance and harvesting costs, months of winemaking effort, years of aging, and very expensive packaging. A wine critic often covers diverse regions, and vineyards which are geographically distant, entailing considerable travel costs. A wine critic must taste thousands of wines across regions and vintages and compare or contrast them. Wineries may choose the critics to whom they would like to submit samples.

A restaurant, on the other hand, has no choice--critics drop in unannounced. Food must be prepared on the fly and its quality and presentation will rely on the staff's level of training, skill, creativity and stamina at that moment. Vintage variation does not come into play. A food critic generally covers a relatively small metropolitan area and does not need to fly, drive and risk rattlesnake bites to review the product.

The differences between critiquing food and wine are numerous. But as Daniel points out, some things are just 'not done.' The life of a true critic must be so much harder than those of us who are in production. We are free to form friendships with our peers, whereas I imagine a critic must always be weighing the force of his/her career against forming close relationships with other people in the industry.

Edited April 5, 2008 by Rebel Rose (log)

[Phil Ward]

I am sure many of you saw this last week re my former employer and his idea of comps and gifts.

I was upset when I was terminated last August, after only 11 months with the company, and happily I am gainfully employed by a superb family company, The Opici Wine Group.

<<Decanter.com April 22, 2008

Magrez luxury gifts rebuffed by journalists

Wine magnate Bernard Magrez has outraged a group of journalists by offering each of them a Cartier wristwatch worth €1,650 (£1,322/$2,641).

The watches were distributed after a press lunch hosted by Magrez and French actor Gerard Depardieu on 26 March. The lunch was held at the Alain Ducasse restaurant at the Hotel Plaza Athénée in Paris. Around 50 journalists attended – including wine critic and ex-Revue du Vin de France editor Thierry Desseauve, Philippe Bidalon from L'Express magazine and Gérard Muteaud of Le Nouvel Observateur.Upon leaving the lunch, journalists were offered a bag that contained a press kit and a box that most did not open until after leaving the restaurant. The box contained the watch, and a certificate of authenticity signed by a Bordeaux jeweller.

One journalist, who requested anonymity, told decanter.com> that many journalists discussed the situation and agreed among themselves that keeping the watches could be misconstrued. It is understood that the majority have been returned.

In response to the gift, Desseauve wrote a letter to Magrez, detailing that he had donated the watch to French homeless charity Restaurants du Coeur.

'Together with my colleague Michel Bettane {also ex-Revue du Vin de France}, who was not there, we wanted to show Mr Magrez that his gesture would not change our professional attitude towards him, nor our way of judging wines. We felt the most judicious response would be to give an equivalent sum to a relevant charitable body,' Desseauve wrote in an email.

'At 72 I've been around the block a few times, and I know what you should and shouldn't do with respect to journalists,' Magrez told decanter.com.

'I am not so stupid as to think I can buy them. This lunch was held to commemorate over 1,700 vintages [collectively] at my three greatest vineyards, and I chose to mark the occasion by engraving a watch. If a few of the invited journalists choose not to keep the watch, that is of course their prerogative.'

The former head of Cartier is Alain Dominique Perrin, a friend of Magrez who recently commented that Bordeaux pricing was immoral, and that first growths could not cost more than €15 (£12/$24) per bottle to produce.

The incident was first published on political blog site bakchich.info, with the comment, 'When you produce an average-quality wine, nothing works better than a pretty present in order to get the specialist press onside.'

The Bernard Magrez Group has an annual turnover of €40m (£24m/$48m), with over 35 wine estates around the world.>>

[Daniel Rogov]

the food and service can be altered (whether comped or not) when a critic is recognized.

Joan, Hi....

I just spotted your note now (no fear, my senility began when I was 14 years old so no need to worry now).

You are, of course correct in that once recognized the critic can be assigned the best waiter/waitress in the place, that the service will indeed be more responsive, more friendly (albeit less familiar). Knowing and armed with this the critic must be certain to keep a close eye on other tables to follow carefully how the service is going there - to see whether they get the same attention, response time, warmth, "sincerity" whatever.

As to the food, to some extent that can be improved in honor of the critic. That is why I always make sure to order at least two-three of the most standard of dishes on the menu. The soup, many of the desserts and most of the sauces, for example, have been made long before my arrival and there is little that can be done to salvage those. And I always like to play my own little games - e.g.asking for my steak with sauce Bearnaise when Bearnaise is not on the menu -. If the chef did not know how to make a Bearnaise before my arrival, he/she is most certainly not about to learn because I'm sitting there.

Another game - having my party of three guests enter the restaurant before I do, to order for four and only when the first course is on the table for me to enter (that is why God invented the cell-phone, no?)

Indeed one can also get larger portions, but one watches carefully to see the portions that others receive......etc etc

And, as I like to cite Robert Courtine: "If they know I'm there and it's not perfect that only proves that they cannot do it perfectly"