The Wine Spectator Revealed

[Craig Camp]

Secrets of Wine Spectator Magazine Revealed in Unauthorized Guide

Ever wonder if the Wine Spectator was on the up and up. Did some of those ratings seems a bit funny? Wine Angels is a consulting group that has just released and interesting look at the Wine Spectator.

Have fun!

[Bux]

I haven't read the unauthorized guide and I don't wish to be seen as defending WS, but can anyone tell me if the high marks follow the advertising or if the advertising follows the high marks. There's always an inclination for businesses to support the media that's rated them well in the past. That's far less questionable than a publication awarding its regular advertisers high marks. There is always a danger of conflict of interest when a publication accepts any advertising and that's most focused when the advertising is from a business that is central to the editorial content pages of the publication. Nevertheless, it's not uncommon for a print publication to let potential advertisers know that their product will be featured in an up coming edition and offer then the chance to capitalize on the publicity with an advertisement. Theoretically, this opporutnity would be offered to those who scored low and no one would know exactly how they scored in advance. I am playing devil's advocate. I'd not bet on WS coming out particularly clean, but readers should note that I'm displaying my own prejudice here.

Certainly one could question the merits of the NY Times accepting advertising from the very films it reviews, although I suspect a secret study would find very little relationship between the ads and the best reviews.

[klinger75]

Just finished reading this report.

Bux, I encourage you to look over this, but all in all advertisements were not mentioned. The primary analysis comes from the coorelation of price and cases made. This could have been more negative towards WS, but I feel that the numbers represented in the report are accurate. Youll have to look this one over yourself to understand the jist of what I am explaining. Hope this may help

[Bill Klapp]

I actually looked at the Wine Angels stuff, and it makes me a little ill. They withheld a sufficient amount of data to keep you from concluding that WS sells scores. What you could glean was, in my view, worse. The real objective of the "service" being sold was to encourage winemakers to manipulate their Chardonnays in a way calculated to make James Laube utter the magic words "pear" and "fig" in his review. The second thing that becomes obvious is the Spectator's focus on California, Australia and New Zealand wines at the expense of reviewing and praising classic and far more worthy French and Italian wines. I felt vindicated, because the data showed what I have always believed: WS knows its audience, and panders to its taste. That taste is a preference for easily understood, fruity, pleasant wines at a reasonable price. I have no problem with that, but the flip side is that WS is all but useless to serious wine collectors. Add to that a general perception that the people reviewing the wines are second or third-rate at best (and I will step up to the plate on Suckling, who heaps his praise and allots most of his time to the often highly drinkable but ultimately mediocre wines of his adoptive Tuscany at the expense of coverage of many vastly superior, collectible Piemontese wines). I have decided that the Wine Angels reports are no better than signposts on American capitalism's personal highway to hell. Teaching winemakers to pander to Parker's or Tanzer's palate would be dubious at best, but the Wine Spectator? I hope Wine Angels dies an early and timely death. We don't need more wines custom-crafted for ratings points.

[klinger75]

Bill, I couldn't agree with you any more. Wine Angels=

[Bux]

Bux, I encourage you to look over this, but all in all advertisements were not mentioned.

I apologize. Apparently I was reading the wrong blurb on the linked page.

[Rebel Rose]

The real objective of the "service" being sold was to encourage winemakers to manipulate their Chardonnays . . .

The second thing that becomes obvious is the Spectator's focus on California, Australia and New Zealand wines at the expense of reviewing and praising classic and far more worthy French and Italian wines. . .

That taste is a preference for easily understood, fruity, pleasant wines at a reasonable price. I have no problem with that, but the flip side is that WS is all but useless to serious wine collectors.

No need to worry about winemakers changing their styles because Wine Angels suggests it . . .

Wine Angels is not in a position to "teach" winemakers anything, and in fact they got the idea from us. We've been yellow-highlighting reviewer's remarks for decades. Winemakers and principals routinely scope out reviewers to see what their tastes are like, and where their wines would be a "best fit." It's just common-sense marketing. We're not the Wine Angels real market.

And yes, I have noticed that the 'Tater goes through reporting fashions, tending to focus exclusively on certain regions of the world for a while, but they change it up every few years.

As far as collecting goes, I think they've really tried in recent years to get back to featuring tiny and new producers in small features, which is all to the good for people seeking out the hot new wineries.

The down side is that their submission protocols are geared entirely toward large producers. They want the wines before or (gasp, we can barely tolerate it) upon release. But tiny productions are often released fresh off the bottling line (post-shock, of course), and sell out immediately, even though they may not be tasting as well as they would after six to eight months of bottle age.

And now there's a new phrase on the submission form: "We never guarantee the review of any unsolicited wine."

Why not just . . . wine?

[fifithewinecat]

Dang, this dead horse again!!!

People who believe the myth of WS faking reviews to deal with those who do or don't advertise are also believers in various other "urban myths" such as sending out so many emails and getting a bunch of $$$ from Bill Gates, and getting a free car, if you find something special in your Fruit Loops, etc.

Folks, MANY more people read WS than participate in these various wine boards. They are not looking for profiles on $100-200 a bottle boutique wineries, and probably don't all have wine cellars, and most likely don't want to store nice tight, but reportedly elegant, wines for 15 to 20 years before enjoying them. They want nice fruity smooth wines for now, or very soon, drinking.

If you disaprove of WS and their policies, DON't ever pick one up. It's that simple. Stick with WA, Tanzer, various Brit critics, etc. But there is really no need for another thread doing that old beat-up of WS that is getting rather stale now, even if it comes with another slightly cracked "fresh" coat of garish paint.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wine Makes Everyone Hopeful"---Aristotle or Plato

[beans]

First, welcome to eG fifithewinecat.

People who believe the myth of WS faking reviews to deal with those who do or don't advertise are also believers in various other "urban myths" such as sending out so many emails and getting a bunch of $$$ from Bill Gates, and  getting a free car, if you find something special in your Fruit Loops, etc.

Is their noted and very purchasable (is that a word?) plaques indicating an outstanding wine list for those restaurants willing to shell out the bucks also a myth? I think not. I once worked at one of those places wherein the wine list submitted was far from what was actually in stock. So, with such a blind endorsement, it really isn't that much more of a stretch to believe a corrolation between their bread and butter advertising dollars and ratings.

But hey, this may all be entirely IMHO.

Folks, MANY more people read WS than participate in these various wine boards.  They are not looking for profiles on $100-200 a bottle boutique wineries, and probably don't  all have wine cellars, and most likely don't want to store nice tight, but reportedly elegant, wines for 15 to 20 years before enjoying them.  They want nice fruity smooth wines for now, or very soon, drinking.

I no longer purchase WS, but do participate in eG's wine forum (not as often), WS's forums and VinoCellar. I do look for those $100-200 bottles (retail -- but I too can abuse some power and acquire one or two a year at wholesale price because of where I work). I have a wine cellar and do look forward to that 15 to 20 year date to open those "nice tight, but reportedly elegant wines." And I also enjoy the nice fruity smooth wines to drink tonight.

If you disaprove of  WS and their policies, DON't ever pick one up.  It's that simple.  Stick with WA, Tanzer, various Brit critics, etc.  But there is really no need for another thread doing that old beat-up of WS that is getting rather stale now, even if it comes with another slightly cracked "fresh" coat of garish paint.

Aww, WS is one of the big boys, they can take it. And if they earned that rep, well then they made their bed so to speak. I find it all interesting and not as tiresome. In fact, sometimes it spices up the day and I'll go downstairs and revisit my few resting bottles, actually enjoying the dust they are collecting.

[beans]

I have decided that the Wine Angels reports are no better than signposts on American capitalism's personal highway to hell.

Ouch.

Please Bill, tell us how you really feel.

[fifithewinecat]

Thanks for the welcome Beans--

You noted:

"So, with such a blind endorsement, it really isn't that much more of a stretch to believe a corrolation between their bread and butter advertising dollars and ratings."

I agree that their selling lauditory placques to restaurants is a flawed program and should be scrapped, unless WS is willing to put a LOT of work into overseeing the program. BUT, I can't see extending this to believing they are committing criminal offenses in linking their advertising dollars to good or bad ratings for the wines. This sort of threat and action, kind of like saying to a store owner, "buy my insurance, or your place might catch fire tonight" is racketeering, and punishable under the RICO provisions.

I think the stretch you are making here is a BIG one--going from a flawed stupid program without any overseeing, to a racketeering stance in WS's part!!!!

_____________________________________________

"Wine Makes Everyone Hopeful"---Aristotle or Plato

[beans]

BUT, I can't see extending this to believing they are committing criminal offenses in linking their advertising dollars to good or bad ratings for the wines.  This sort of threat and action, kind of like saying to a store owner, "buy my insurance, or your place might catch fire tonight" is racketeering, and punishable under the RICO provisions. 

I think the stretch you are making here is a BIG one--going from a flawed stupid program without any overseeing, to a racketeering stance in WS's part!!!!

Who is asserting criminal offenses?

edit to add: Don't mistake that WS is in business to make money. They are not public service and do not carry that burden or responsibility.

Edited May 31, 2004 by beans (log)

[Craig Camp]

Folks, MANY more people read WS than participate in these various wine boards.

Actually far more people visit eGullet every month than subscribe to The Wine Spectator if you want to compare readership.

[rose and antojitos]

Wine Spectator is an avenue for marketing for many wineries. The same wineries that invest money in advertising in the magazine are going to be the same ones that make a point of sending their wines to the WS tasting panel. This means some correlation (however small) does exist. Regardless, I give readers of WS and other wine publications enough credit to use the material as they would any other opinions and ultimately let their own palates make buying decisions. If the descriptors WS with a wine appeal to your taste and your budget, it's worth checking the wine out. If you like it, buy a lot. If you drink enough wine, over time you can guesstimate almost as well as the experts what will age well, and what should be drunk sooner. The fact is, the wine critics that are the most successful are the ones that recognize or concur with the tastes of a wide range of people, including the serious collectors (who are just as likely to like wines that taste good). And guess what, often the wines that taste good upon release are ageable, and just get better for a long time.

[jaypm51]

Sounds like a tempest in a teapot. There is usually pretty broad consensus among critics when rating the same wines. Robert Parker (Wine Advocate) has had a long standing policy of not accepting gifts, payment, paid trips or accomodations etc. in return for rating wines. Also accepts no advertising dollars, yet interestingly his ratings are more often in the same ballpark as WS, Wine Enthusiast Kevin Zraley et. al.

Given the numbers of wines and producers they rate each year, it stretches the limits of plausibility to think the ratings are influenced by dollars spent on advertising. If they are, shame on them. Nonetheless, as a longtime and reasonably discriminating consumer of wines (all regions and price ranges), I have found their ratings to be pretty consistently on the mark.

Taken with a grain of salt, it at least helps narrow the field for those of us who can't spend all day everyday tasting wine but want to keep our cellars full of reliable wines to complement our meals.

[Rebel Rose]

Meow. A lot of fur and feathers over the Wine Spectator here. Interesting.

However, the original point of this thread as posted by Craig is about Wine Angels and their "scientific analysis" of the WS scores. Would you pay $95 for their report?

And they're selling a "Wine Marketing Companion" to wineries for $495!

Boy, I can tell you, if someone's got hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars into grapes, barrels, buildings and equipment, they'd better know more about marketing than what James Laube had for dinner this week and how it affected his palate.

But for the sake of a healthy rant, which no good thread can survive without, let me delicately point out that in this business, as in any business, schmoozing is part of marketing. It's expected, it's done, it's received. It's not always successful, and sometimes businesses that eschew the schmewze get high scores, but it does happen, and frequently.

However, many writers, and among them are WS' Matt Kramer, Daniel Sogg, and James Laube, are often turned off by gifts of large format bottles and personal tours, stays at four-star winery B&B's, etc. They'll explore new territory when it's brought graphically to their attention, but they're suspicious of Geeks Bearing Gifts, as they should be.

Writers are people, however, and a warm smile and an offer to have dinner with the family will open the door for curiosity and loyal appreciation. A lot of the wines that these fellows rate highly are wines that they have encountered in situ, and they have a deeper understanding of the family and terroir behind the wines.

[Echezeaux]

What's the difference between "gifts" and being shown a set of wines in the context of a lavish dinner at some fancy dining establishment, I wonder? Mr. Parker is routinely "hosted" by certain luminaries, especially in France.

As y'all know, most of the wine critic publications DO NOT GO OUT AND BUY WINE. They are "shown" wines, samples which might be rigged to sandbag the critics and their audiences.

Some of these publications also accept advertising (WS, Wine Enthusiast, etc.). Hard to believe there is not some influence (some wineries who don't advertise won't have their wines critiqued, for example).

Aside from the Wine Angels' "study," you have micro-biologist Leo McCloskey whose company claims to be able to analyze some producer's wines and guide them towards what steps need be taken to assure 90+ point ratings.

It's not a perfect world.

[hotle]

on the surface, i've gotta agree with those who think this is less-than-news. however, for some reason, i also find myself compelled to respond, so i guess it must be more interesting than i thought!

the ws gets its revenues from (not an exhaustive list, i'm sure, but prob'ly three of the big categories): events (tastings, the 'experience' stuff they do), subscriptions, and advertising. those who seem to ascribe to the conspiracy theory seem to believe that the most influential of these (to the ws, or parker, or whomever) is advertising. what that theory misses is that without subscriptions, there would be no advertising!

this means (at least, to me) that it's in the ws's best interest to have its subscribers believe in its integrity. right? i mean, when you buy ws or wa or whatever you want, you are paying for the OPINIONS of the writers in those publications (btw, that's the primary difference between the model of an online community and a publication - online or print - and why the comparision of the ws's subscription list to hits on this site is comparing apples and grapes. one asks the question: would you read this person's opinion? the other asks: would you PAY to read this person's opinion? BIG difference, as a number of my friends found out in the late '90's.). if the ws or any other publication is either fabricating its reviews (i believe i've heard folks here accuse them of this, no matter how nicely-worded the accusations are) or are being strongly influenced by ad dollars, then the drop in the public's perceptions of ws's integrity would result in less subscription dollars, which would result in less ad dollars and events revenues.

iow, looking at it from the ws's pov, it is absolutely in their best interest NOT to be influenced by who buys ads and who doesn't. IF such an effect were widely known, it'd be disastrous to their business model. same for parker and anyone else who runs a business in this business.

of course, it took the payola scandal to change this type of practice in radio. and, i can only believe those who've written that they've been strong-armed by ws's ad folks. however, though i don't know any of the reviewers personally, i get the feeling that challenging their integrity directly would get the same, in-your-face response as challenging the integrity of a writer here, which is why i just don't buy the conspiracy.

m