In an article in the newspaper the other day (yes, some of us still read those), there was a discussion about how much films have depended on reviews to generate interest.\u00a0 The piece was making the point that box office receipts, in fact the difference between success and failure for newly released motions pictures, was predicated directly on receiving positive reviews.\u00a0 Reviews have had an impact on a lot of things over the years\u2026movies, restaurants, books, and, of course, fermented beverages.\u00a0 But the gist of this article was that, these days, reviews are pretty much a life and death proposition for films.<\/p>\n
Is this really news<\/em>?\u00a0 People are busier and the competition for consumer dollars is fierce.\u00a0 There are so many choices for virtually everything, and consumers, faced with making decisions about entertainment, dining, appliances, etc., like to have someone to turn to for advice more than ever.\u00a0 The critic fills that role and is put in a position of elevated power as a tastemaker these days.\u00a0 It has to be frustrating (to say the least) for a studio to invest millions (tens of millions?, hundreds of millions?) into a picture or TV series only to have the whole thing derailed by a couple of bad reviews.\u00a0 Talk about life on the edge.\u00a0 But while this may be a frightening scenario to Hollywood types, all we in the wine biz can say is, \u2018Welcome to our world\u2019.<\/p>\n We have been doing this long enough to remember a time before<\/em> everything was dictated by reviews.\u00a0 OK, maybe that isn\u2019t entirely<\/em> true.\u00a0 In olden times, wine scribes would write about wines in newspapers, offer their opinion using (gasp) words<\/em>!\u00a0 One guy talked about a wine he liked, people would read it, and perhaps go out and try it.\u00a0 But then the paper would go in the recycling bin and eventually those flowery words would be forgotten.\u00a0 Three things changed that had far reaching effects on the power of the review.<\/p>\n First was the review format itself.\u00a0 Rather than occasional pieces and regular columns in a newspaper, or something published in a food-centric magazine that was usually no longer timely when it finally got into print, there were wine specific publications that came out on a regular basis that dealt specifically<\/em> with wine.\u00a0 The second thing was the familiar 100-point rating system which effectively ranks the wines in some kind of digestible pecking order.\u00a0 People could save the books, magazines, or issues, and refer to them whenever they wanted to find out something.\u00a0 Unfortunately these printed formats did have to be manually gone through when someone needed information.<\/p>\n As it has with so many other things, the internet changed all of that.\u00a0 A wine buyer today can call on databases from a number of different publications 24\/7 and has the \u2018answer\u2019 (if you want to call it that) right at their fingertips.\u00a0 Consumers have the critic in their pocket, as well as price search tools, and even maps should they actually decide to drive somewhere in the context of wine buying. It has never been easier to get<\/em> information.<\/p>\n Now there has been plenty of discussion on these pages about how a critical, scored review is like a photo, a picture of a wine at a particular moment in time, within the context of all kinds of variables including bottle development, wine temperature, barometric pressure, the biodynamic calendar, and a whole host of other things, all affecting the showing.\u00a0 Then you have the critic interpreting what they see at that very fluid moment in time and passing judgment on the wine, absolutely and forever.\u00a0 Finally all of this information is encapsulated and expressed in a single number that defines everything, and measures the wine\u2019s value in the marketplace vis-\u00e0-vis other choices available to the consumer.<\/p>\n Ultimately that \u2018number\u2019 will be the most significant tool in the majority of decisions made about any particular wine by most people.\u00a0 Does that seem fair?\u00a0 Would you like your entire \u2018being\u2019 subjectively evaluated based on a single day or couple of days, for all of eternity?\u00a0 Of course not!\u00a0 Yet that is exactly what is happening with wines (and apparently a lot of other things these days) on a regular basis.\u00a0 What is particularly disturbing is that this whole mentality has trickled down to the most peripheral of wine buyers and folks who aren\u2019t particularly \u2018dialed in\u2019 on wine ask about rating validation before purchasing.<\/p>\n One supposes it\u2019s easier that way, and someone can merely react to a perceived validation rather than wade through a lot of \u2018winespeak\u2019 (buttery minerals, creamy jimmies, blah, blah).\u00a0 Busy people need fast answers, even if those answers don\u2019t necessarily hold up under scrutiny.\u00a0 What does a \u201892\u2019 taste like? Hey, we get it. Though we don\u2019t necessarily embrace it, we\u2019ve learned how to play it.\u00a0 A lazy industry handed the critics the power long ago, and that has been the way of things for three decades.\u00a0 But as things continue to develop, and more would-be reviewers come on line, how is the consumer best served?<\/p>\n It has to be getting more difficult for consumers these days.\u00a0 There are so many reviewers flinging scores out there, and often those numbers get detached from the actual reviewer and exist in a vacuum.\u00a0 We do this every day and we have trouble keeping it all straight!\u00a0 We\u2019ve have gotten to the point (truth be told we have been this way for a long time) where we take nothing<\/em> at face value.\u00a0 Purveyors interject a score into a conversation without reference, and we ask who it is from.\u00a0 Then we look it up.\u00a0 The ratio of how often we are given the wrong data by suppliers, either cavalierly, ignorantly or with intent to deceive, is appalling.<\/p>\n But even if all of the information is correct and appropriately conveyed (good luck with that part), it is still a rather muddy proposition.\u00a0 It\u2019s a simple fact that big numbers sell wine.\u00a0 You\u2019ll have someone grouse about how a reviewer is too generous with their scoring, yet that same person isn\u2019t likely to buy a $40 Cabernet that \u2018only\u2019 got 91 points, even if that is a strong recommendation for the particular critic that gave the score.<\/p>\n The person who makes a $50 Chardonnay is incensed when a critic gives him a \u201890\u2019 even if there are only a couple of other wines that scored higher.\u00a0 The problem isn\u2019t the review in the publication, because no one will see it (most buyers won\u2019t read down<\/em> that far). It\u2019s that the score will be there for all eternity when people look it up.\u00a0 Is the consumer really served by this?\u00a0 Does a 90-point $10 Chardonnay taste the same as a 90-point $50 example? \u00a0Is the price taken into account? Critics don\u2019t address those<\/em> questions, or make any statement about what the ratings mean.\u00a0 So what is the takeaway?<\/p>\n As more reviewers crowd the field, the \u2018numbers\u2019 will only go higher.\u00a0 \u00a0Purveyors and merchants aren\u2019t going to talk about how this or that wine got \u201889s\u2019.\u00a0 In the real world, no one cares or takes the time to calibrate, even if that 89 represents an enthusiastic tout for the particular reviewer.\u00a0 Writers know that, and it is a real balancing act for them to generate reviews that people will quote while at the same time maintaining credibility with subscribers (we presume they think about that stuff).<\/p>\n Why do the writers care about being quoted by the industry?\u00a0 Most of them won\u2019t admit it, but that is their best form of advertising.\u00a0 A review service is, after all, a business that relies on people paying into it.\u00a0 The industry is a big supporter from a research standpoint (we now subscribe to six and very loosely follow a few others).\u00a0 But consumer followers are clearly important, too.\u00a0 Yet as the number of review services expands, we have to wonder how much the influence of each will be diluted.\u00a0 Given that, who will be the ones that people follow (if any, maybe everyone will just read Yelp\u2026ugh)?<\/p>\n The newer \u2018services\u2019 seem to generate somewhat higher scores.\u00a0 Are they trying to deliberately get people to pay attention with more \u2018quotable\u2019 work (i.e. higher numbers), or are they just more enthusiastic?\u00a0 Who\u2019s to gauge whether it isn\u2019t incrementally more exciting<\/em> finding a sensational wine under $20 than an icon for the ages?\u00a0 A couple of extra points aren\u2019t hurting anyone if it guides people to cool stuff, right?<\/p>\n At the other end of the spectrum are the reviewers that score conservatively.\u00a0 Respected writers like Stephan Tanzer (Vinous) and Alan Meadows (Burghound) don\u2019t give away points like Halloween candy.\u00a0 So even though they are specialists, and typically deal with pricier goods, their scores don\u2019t seem very thrilling in the big arena with inflated scores being the norm these days.\u00a0 A $300 Grand Cru gets a \u201893\u2019 and a $12 Spanish red gets a \u201892\u2019.\u00a0 How is anyone supposed to make sense out of that, even when both reviews are well intentioned?<\/p>\n Take the California editor for Wine Spectator, James Laube (or \u2018Angry Jim\u2019 as we refer to him here).\u00a0 The magazine in general, and he in particular, have seemingly taken on a \u2018tough guy\u2019 attitude with respect to scores.\u00a0 One has to wonder how many people are going to be compelled to try anything<\/em> after reading column after column of 91 point Cabernets with $100+ price tags.<\/p>\n The real question is which \u2018camp\u2019 is really serving its readers best in this market with a staggering number of choices and numbers flying everywhere?\u00a0 And where will it go from here?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In an article in the newspaper the other day (yes, some of us still read those), there was a discussion about how much films have depended on reviews to generate interest.\u00a0 The piece was making the point that box office receipts, in fact the difference between success and failure for newly released motions pictures, was … Continue reading “WHAT\u2019S THE POINT(S)?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2158,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[39],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2140"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2140"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2140\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2155,"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2140\/revisions\/2155"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.winex.com\/stockreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}