22 Responses to “Dubious business? Wine stores that employ critics”

1. Gary Vaynerchuk
   March 3rd, 2008 at 9:41 am

   awesome article

   PS: I adore ur design this site is ripping cute :)!

2. Taster B
   March 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 am

   Nuh-uh…it is *wicked* cute, and that is beside the point Vaynerchuk!!
   Jill, you bring up some really good questions. Are these blurring lines making the separation of wine critic/merchant irrelevant? I’d say only so long as customer’s actually realize that they are taking wine advice from the guy who profits from their buying the wine he suggests. A lot of people do this already at their local shop but Gary is doing it in a new and big way. Then you have to ask yourself if there are ulterior motives when a wine gets a so-so review as you so astutely brought up in a recent twitter discussion…
   I think if WLTV made extra sure to do the full disclosure thing that might go a long way to quell the uneasiness GV has stirred up with his social shopping methods.

3. RichardA
   March 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am

   Jill, you raise some compelling points.

   Robert Parker attempts to avoid any potential conflict of interest with his ratings. Yet he still gets backlash and accusations of partiality. Can anyone imagine the backlash if he decided to open a wine store and only reviewed wines he sold? Would not many questions the credibility of his ratings? Would not the same occur if Wine Spectator chose to open a store and only review wines they sold?

   I don’t know Gary well enough to say whether he is an impartial critic or not. But, since he seems to only review wines that he sells, there arises the perception that a conflict of interest may exist. And sometimes perception is all that is needed for some to make assumptions. If nothing else, it raises a red flag and several questions.

   1) Why doesn’t Gary review wines that he does not sell?
   2) The WLTV site states Gary was the store’s only wine buyer and sampled every wine that entered the store. Is that still true?
   3) The site also states “He routinely pans popular wines (even ones sold by Wine Library).” So, if he samples every wine that comes into the store, why is he buying wine he will later pan?
   4) How many bad reviws has he actually give of wines sold by the Wine Library?
   5) Is WLTV not really as spontaneous as it seems, as Gary will have already tasted the wines he brought into the Wine Library? So his WLTV appearance is not actually the first time he tastes the wines?

   As Jill asked, with all the people who do buy from WLTV, does it really matter even if Gary is not an impartial critic? Wine Library is certainly doing very well for itself and there are many ardent fans.

4. Randy
   March 3rd, 2008 at 10:51 am

   Jill,

   Read Tom Wark’s post on the Wong/BevMo connection. It hopefully puts to rest some of the concerns you raise.

   http://fermentation.typepad.com/fermentation/2008/03/who-to-trust.html

   I think it’s in Gary’s best interest to be viewed as impartial (Millenials can smell BS pretty quickly), and he’s panned some very big wines, and talked about how wineries and distributors have beaten him up about the bad reviews he gives.

   Also, from my point-of-view, your post can be viewed as one retailer capping on a competitor. NTTAWTT

   <3 domaine547
   <3 WLTV

5. d547
   March 3rd, 2008 at 11:11 am

   Everyone, thanks for the comments!

   Randy, I did read Tom Wark’s post. I don’t really agree with it. I don’t believe in the notion of a store having an on-staff “critic”. I don’t have ANY issues with stores having passionate buyers or writers or sales people (or bloggers, or all of the above) who can speak intelligently about wine…in fact, I think this is what Gary does very successfully.

   Even so, my point wasn’t that there was anything wrong with Wilfred Wong, just that he’s not really that much of a factor. Gary is the factor right now. The only thing I take issue with is the positioning of Gary as a “critic”. It’s largely a semantic issue. I think that the notion of “wine critic” right now might be outmoded. I see some similarities here to a heated discussion in the wine blogosphere several months back about what makes somebody a “professional” vs. amateur.

   As for whether I’m one retailer capping on a competitor…you don’t really think my piece is that hard-hitting, do you? I mean, I didn’t really say anything nearly as pointed as Richard’s comments. All I said was that there are lots of lines blurred here and I raise some questions without being at all harsh or making judgments.

   If I wanted to really raise issues, I would ask…does Gary know the inventory of a wine before he reviews it? Does he know whether his competitors carry it and, if so, whether they just bought a pallet? Has he tasted it prior to the show? Why doesn’t he taste only wines that he is considering bringing into the store, rather than wines that are already there? Is he still a wine buyer for the store or not? How about the pricing practices of WL which seem ultra-competitive to the point of being loss leaders?

   But I didn’t ask these questions (though Richard did subsequently, as does Taster B). I put Gary at the center of a new arena. I pretty much put him on a pedestal with the caveat that we should ask some questions and explore some of the gray areas about this entire new world, of which domaine547 is but a teensy, tiny part.

   On a final note, I have never claimed to be a critic, or suggested that my opinions on a given wine could possibly stand up to those of Suckling, Parker, Tanzer or otherwise. So if we get back to the original inspiration for this hastily written blog post, a newspaper article on the efficacy of a store employing a critic, then domaine547 isn’t really a part of the discussion at all.

6. Randy
   March 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 am

   Hey Jill,

   Fair response. I was just saying that it could be “viewed” as one retailer capping on another. I don’t think you’re hitting hard at all.

   In fact, I welcome the discussion, though I doubt it’s going to get very far. Gary will either disclose or not disclose how and why he selects the wines he reviews on WLTV. I will give you that there is a whiff of conflict of interest, but from seeing what I’ve seen, IMO Gary is not into this as a marketing device for the Wine Library business.

7. Randy
   March 3rd, 2008 at 11:32 am

   And for RichardA’s comment, I would say that Gary has indeed tasted wines he doesn’t sell. I don’t have specific examples handy to link to, but I’ve watched at least two episodes (granted, out of 400+) that were all wines he didn’t sell. Now, if that makes any difference to the perception of impartiality, that’s up to the reader/viewer to decide.

   And if you were to watch all the past episodes of WLTV, you quickly see that he does pan quite a lot of the popular wines that he carries. It’s almost comical to see his review because he knows he’s about to slam a wine that he sells a lot of.

   Of course, finding those examples is left as an exercise. Sorry, I have a day job!

8. RichardA
   March 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am

   Thanks Randy for your info as I did not know that he does review some wines that he does not sell. Though it may not be a large number.

   The panning of wines that he carries still mystifies be a bit though. It returns to my questions #2 & #3 above.

   Thanks.

9. Taster B
   March 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm

   Yeah, and in all fairness, I never watch WLTV. I’ve seen one episode–45 minutes of wristband photos. So, what do I know.

10. Kritic
    March 3rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Gary Vaynerchuk is no longer interested in selling wine. Gary Vaynerchuk is interested in selling Gary Vaynerchuk.

11. Tom Wark
    March 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Someone is going to have to explain to me the difference between what Wilfred Wong does and what a sales associate on the floor of Bevmo does.

    In both cases they are providing information to the customer.

    In my view, retailers (and wine PR folks like me) are the biggest contributors to the existence of the ratings-by-all-cost situation we have in the American wine market. I rather like the idea of a retailer doing what it can do to take the reviewing of wine in house.

    The question comes down to whether or not you trust the retailer.

12. Tom Wark
    March 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    “3) The site also states “He routinely pans popular wines (even ones sold by Wine Library).” So, if he samples every wine that comes into the store, why is he buying wine he will later pan?”

    The answer is because he knows that even though he may not like a wine, others that come into his store will.

    I was never a big fan of the regular Mondavi Fume Blanc (loved the i-block however), yet were I a retailer I’d definitely carry it because I know others would want it.

13. 1WineDude
    March 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    Nice post, dudette!

    “The real story is about the blurring of the lines between criticism and sales techniques, between community and client lists, between providing content and purely marketing, between entertaining and educating, and between educating and selling.”

    Well - that’s pretty much a lot of what Web 2.0 and modern-day marketing is all about these days, isn’t it?

    Gotta go - I need to go rate some books I’m selling for affiliate fees on my on-line Amazon.com shop…

    …just kidding…

14. d547
    March 3rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Tom,

    Thanks for stopping by. Actually, if I were really snarky I’d suggest that Wilfred is providing MUCH more information to the customer than the average BevMo sales associate. I happen to say I agree with the philosophy of getting away from the major reviewers and a store having a point of view. But I do think that a store employing a 100 point system of its own is a little bit more than hairy.

    The more qualitative a shelf-talker or review (or whatever you want to call it) happens to be, the more words rather than numbers are used, the better.

    Personally, I taste everything I bring into d547 and it has to meet whatever the criteria are that I’ve set in order for me to invest in inventory. These criteria include a range of items, from “do I love it” to “do I think it will sell.” I have tried hard to avoid the items that I can sell but I don’t love, though sometimes they sneak in. I have fewer than 300 sku’s, so it’s possible for me to really keep things down to what I love. If I were trying to be a wine superstore, this would pretty much become an impossible task. This is where I think the more specialized stores come into play…like Chambers Street Wine in New York, Silverlake Wine in LA, or even one-wine-a-day places like The Wine Spies. They aren’t trying to be all things to all people.

    It does really come down to finding a source you can trust, whether it’s a retailer, blogger, blogger-retailer, vlogger-retailer, or traditional wine critic whose palate matches yours. Tom, you are right in this regard.

    But, personally (and I don’t think I’m alone), it rubs me the wrong way when people use the term “critic” in referring to any retail employee. I can’t think of another luxury item, whether it’s electronics, jewelry or automobiles, where it would be deemed appropriate for an in-house employee to rate the products on a 100 point scale and be considered impartial. I do want the opinions of a store’s staff. I just don’t want that opinion to be deemed falsey impartial.

15. Carol
    March 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Stores rating the wines they sell on a 100 pt. scale? We don’t do it, but I can see why a store would. Some customers are very point-driven. You can describe a wine until you’re out of breath, and some people will still reach for the one with a number attatched to it. I don’t see it as someone trying to be a wine critic so much as someone trying to employ a sales tactic. I wouldn’t do this in my store, but then again it’s about the size of my kitchen. If it was a big store, with employees who might not be all that knowledgeable or helpful, at least it is something for a customer to think about as they select a bottle to purchase. Naturally an in-house rating is going to be meant to sell wine, but how is that any different from ratings by certain magazines? I’d love to get away from points because I feel that overall they’re arbitrary and little more than a sales tool no matter where they’re from. Unfortunately, consumers seem to like to like them. I think a lot of customers view their local wine merchants as “experts” and in a way “critics.” As many before have said, it comes down to trust, I guess.

16. Erika
    March 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    This is a really insighful discussion. As a retailer who does employ our own 100-point-scale (WEX ratings), I feel the need to chime in. A few things to say here:

    Frankly, we can give a wine a WEX 95 and it really doesn’t mean bupkis to most customers (what’s WEX 95?). We have them for those customers that are steadfastly point-driven (as some are), to help them dig through and find some of our favorites. What does help sell wine is our tasting videos, where our Wine Director discusses what he personally loves about each wine and tells the customer why it’s so special. It’s like you said Jill, the more qualitative the review, the better. That being said, I don’t think it’s the ratings Gary provides that sell the wine, it’s him. If Wilfred Wong is someone that people come to trust, people will buy the wines he recommends, rating or not. Otherwise nobody will care and it won’t get BevMo very far. If his ratings are inconsistent, they’ll only end up shooting themselves in the foot in the end.

    I think it all kind of evens out and doesn’t matter much whether a rating is attached or not, it’s just a tool to quantify. If I were in a store and the retailer said that a wine is a 95 for their palate, would that be so wrong? A retailer’s ratings can be trusted, but they’re certainly not independent!

17. domaine547 » We’re not alone: of Wong and Vaynerchuk
    March 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    […] our Grapewise post yesterday about the LA Times Wilfred Wong piece wasn’t the only response to the subject. Check out Tom […]

18. MonkuWino
    March 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Very interesting discussion, and great original post, Jill. Frankly I think the BevMo ads I hear on the radio are too overblown with their emphasis on points, making it sound like that ought to be the sole criteia for choosing a wine and if you buy a 90+ point wine, you can sleep with a big smile on your face because you done good, fido.

    I think where it is dangerous is when BevMo or any other place that employs a “house critic” does not prominently disclose that fact to the customer, and instead just promotes something as a “95 point wine.” Personally if I hear Wilfred Wong gave a wine a high score I could care less because I don’t even shop at BevMo and to me an in-house critic really lacks credibility. One may have good intentions but nevertheless, the critic knows where his or her paycheck is coming from. Of course, being someone who used to work for a CPA firm I always thought the same thing was true for “independent audits” conducted on public companies by the firms. How can you be independent if the customer is paying you big bucks to do the audit and there is an implicit threat of other CPA firms waiting in the wings if you don’t see things the same way the customer does? If Wilfred pans too many wines, will he still work for BevMo?

    Now as for Gary Vee, I happen to like him. At least he doesn’t have to worry about his paycheck being threatened if he pans a wine! I also feel he gives his honest opinion on things but I also follow his advice: not to listen to him or anyone else when it comes to deciding what wines I like or don’t like. I use his show as a guide to educate myself about what is out there as well as for entertainment purposes but I really don’t go searching for anything on his show no matter how highly he recommnends it.

    I put just as much credence in your (Jill’s) recommendations, or those of fellow bloggers or people like Marshall at WineQ as I do Gary or any other critic. I think if you find a critic whose taste matches your own, then stick with them.

    Did I win the longest, most drawn out comment award?

19. Steve
    March 4th, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Great discussion.

    I don’t really have a problem with a retailer having its own rating system. When I go to book stores I frequently see shelves with employee picks, etc. I don’t really see a particular problem with that, even if they assign a numeric rating. As for Gary’s videos, I view them as really entertaining commercials, maybe with a bit of education thrown in.

    I agree with MonkuWino - find a critic that matches your own taste. Of course, that is the whole point of my little wine operation, so I am a bit biased.

    In essence, I don’t agree with the fuss. Consumers need the help, want the help, and ask for the help. As a retailer, I think you are almost obligated to provide the help.

    Really interesting topic - it really shows that Domaine547 is coming of its own!

20. Siobhan
    March 12th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    I’m late to this thread—very interesting.

    I know you’re making the distinction about calling oneself a critic, however, speaking more generally, and from my personal perspective (even though, I too, link to my employer in this comment):

    From the looks of it, business today is all *about* social community and benefiting financially from blogging/vlogging/myspacing… call it critics, tasting notes or what have you, it’s conversations that sell, I keep reading in my marketing e-newsletters.

    That said—it’s a new way to sell, but if the products are good, it will bring customers back. And with that good buying experience, wouldn’t I *want* to know what the store thinks I might like? The relationship we have with our vendors does rely on his/her specific opinion.

    I’m not really sure whether I think it’s acceptable or dubious…but it is the nature of things. Being chatty myself, I actually like knowing there will never be a lack of vids to watch, comments to leave, message boards to lurk on or sheep to throw at others on Facebook (although that, I’m *so* over).

21. Girl
    April 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Points aside, I’ve found that my palette matches certain critics and not others.

    On another note, I don’t mind Wilford Wong being an in-house critic, marketing is marketing. I like to think consumers can discover, taste and then decide in a variety of ways. (Btw, Wong is a judge at many competitions so he must have some credentials although I’ve never seen his bio.)

22. WineGent
    April 10th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

    FANTASTIC discussion. Let’s all remember…that caveat emptor still applies. Anyone that buys wine strictly on scores, gets what they deserve. I give Waynerchuck credit, he is educating his audience. I don’t see him as a hard sell, and he is a innovative breath of fresh air in an industry that can be quite snobbish. Is Gary trying to sell wine…? Of course. You cannot help seeing the passion he has for the grape. Keep the discussion open…and lets continue to educate the naive wine drinkers that you need to buy what you like! Cheers! WineGent

Leave a Reply