Is the wine industry telling us the truth?
‘When we read wine recommendations and reviews, there’s an implicit trust that the points awarded, the glowing terms used, and the research that’s been done is all for us, the consumer, so we can make an informed choice.’ Michael McKenzie, ABC Radio National
‘I don’t think the consumer or the reader understands the co-dependent relationship that now exists between wine producer and wine media.’ Angie Bradbury, Wine Communicators of Australia
Looks like we had the right idea: this is what we said when we launched Best Wines Under $20: ‘We don’t go to the fancy lunches, dinners and launch events the wine industry puts on. It’s much easier to shoot straight when you’re not partying on the gravy train with the people who wine and dine you.’
A friend alerted me to a discussion led by Michael McKenzie on ABC Radio National, on the subject of Ethics in Wine Journalism, under the title Lifting The Veil On Wine Journalism. The panel included Max Allen and Mike Bennie, the publisher of James Halliday’s Wine Companion Simon McKeown, media ethicist and journalist Dr Denis Muller, and the chair of Wine Communicators of Australia, Angie Bradbury.
‘Wineries can’t buy their way in’
The most interesting topic of the debate for me was a current Wine Companion magazine supplement, which has this title printed on the front: James Halliday’s Top 100 Wineries. Below that we’re also promised Ten of the Best New Wineries and Ten Dark Horses.
After listening to a podcast of the debate, I bought a copy of the magazine with the supplement. The introduction says: ‘In this guide, you will find 52 of the top 100 wineries featured, plus many of the best new wineries and dark horses too – they have all taken the opportunity to tell us a little more about themselves. The remaining top wineries are listed at the back for your reference.’
Not a word about the reason why the top 100 have shrunk to 52, and why the best new wineries and dark horses number less than 10 each. It turns out that the missing wineries weren’t willing to pay for their place in the supplement, yet there’s no disclosure anywhere that the supplement is an advertorial, and Simon McKeown from the magazine’s publisher Hardie Grant sees nothing wrong with it.
He said there was no need for disclosure since Halliday’s notes were provided unaltered – only the wineries refusing to pay had been dropped off the list. He argued that no winery could buy its way into the supplement, which caused Dr Muller to point out that all the wineries listed had in fact bought their way into the supplement. That Simon didn’t see this is deeply troubling, but then the whole magazine is compromised as you’ll see below.
Who am I to Blow Against the Wind? (With apologies to Paul Simon)
BWU$20 is 18 months old, and I received the first critical email from a subscriber this week. After hundreds of positive ones, it was about time. This subscriber said he found my constant digs at Halliday boring and unprofessional. I’ll let ‘boring’ go, but I’ll defend ‘unprofessional’.
James Halliday towers over the Australian wine landscape like a colossus, and I’d be the last wine lover to deny his enormous achievements and contributions. However, with his exulted position comes additional responsibility: wineries, liquor stores and wine merchants all quote Halliday’s point scores to sell more wine. In the post Another Week, another 96 pt Halliday Bargain from Winestar, we show how this merchant exploits Halliday’s scores to shift lots of wine – and who would blame him?
The problem is that Halliday’s scores are consistently 3 – 6 points higher than the Winefront, Huon Hooke or yours truly, as I showed in the post Halliday’s 2015 scores – over the top as usual. Remember that the 100 point scale is really only 10 points long: 97 points is outstanding, 87 points is pretty ordinary.
That’s why I wrote back to our subscriber saying that Halliday was in fact the one being unprofessional because he was seriously skewing our wine judging system, and making the rest of us look mean and incompetent. The ‘bracket creep’ we’ve seen in the scores of the Wine Companion has resulted in no fewer than 340 wineries receiving a 5 red star rating in the 2015 edition. Do we really have that many great wineries in Australia?
Wine Writers have to make a living too
Both Max Allen and Mike Bennie admit to not disclosing payments for some activities in the past, such as hosting an event or writing an advertorial. Let’s be honest: it’s tough to make a living as a wine writer in Australia, without supplemental income streams. Should they disclose this? Of course they should. Is it a major misdemeanour? Hardly.
I don’t make a living from writing about wine, and I have no conflict of interest to declare. The only event I went to in recent memory and didn’t pay for was Kemenys’ Penfolds lunch at The Quay, and I made my reasons clear at the time. I’ve been offered kickbacks and affiliate arrangements by wine merchants but have refused them. If and when I decide to make such arrangements, I’ll make that very clear.
Another interesting talking point was a monthly wine review column in The Australian Financial Review written by wine store owner, importer and restaurateur Philip Rich, who conceded that he stocks many of the wines he’s reviewed, but has never declared his business interests. Max Allen blames the absence of a clear code of ethics for wine writers, and I’m honestly wondering what’s not clear about the obvious conflicts of interest that were discussed in this round table. A wine writer of Max’s experience and standing shouldn’t need to ask for a code.
Samples Corrupt?
Angie Bradbury suggested that the samples sent to wine writers were some kind of inducement, and she compared wine reviewers to restaurant reviewers who act under cover and pay for their meals (surely the publications they work for do that). We started out buying our own samples at BWU$20 – and we still do – but we also accept samples from selected wineries and merchants.
Receiving free samples doesn’t make us feel like we owe their suppliers any favours, because most wineries send samples to most reviewers. That’s how this business works. The difference is that at BWU$20 we select our samples so we have some control over what we’re reviewing, while most of the other guys review whatever turns up on their doorsteps. The second difference is our ceiling of $25, which means that we don’t see samples from Domaine de la Romanée-Conti Burgundies, or Penfolds Grange or Henschke Hill of Grace.
A more likely seducer: Special Privileges
For the 2013 release of Penfolds Bin and Icon reds, Penfolds put on a special performance for a handful of carefully selected wine scribes. They invited them to Magill estate, and for three days wined them on the new release wines and all kinds of older Penfolds reds including one-off bins and cellar door specials. And dined them, of course, with more special wines.
When I read Tyson Stelzer’s account of the new releases, the gushing tone and hyperbole struck a sour note with me. It was so bad in parts, it read like a press release. More on this in Penfolds Bin Reds and Icon release 2013 – breathtaking stuff. The gravy train rides again, with wine writers on board.
I’ wasn’t the only one who found the story a bit over the top. Let’s make clear though that Tyson disclosed every detail of the event, and those who know him swear that he and his boundless enthusiasm are genuine. It seems he simply lacked the experience or the judgement to see that he was leaning too far and too uncritically in Penfolds’ direction. Special hospitality from wine companies, dispensed to a select few, puts wine writers in a difficult position I think.
Wine Companion – wine magazine, advertising platform or tourist guide?
That’s the question I asked in the post The Flawless World of James Halliday’s Wine Companion, 12 months ago I was still subscribed to the WC online, and the magazine began to turn up in the mail for no particular reason. This is what I said then: The current mag has a ‘celebration feature’ on sparkling wine that is 25 pages long. It starts with details on the Champagne region, and continues with a feature page on each of 13 houses, followed by more pages featuring some of our local makers of sparkling wine. It’s all very congenial, but it looks a lot like a cocktail party where everyone is terribly nice to everyone else because it’s such a perfect day out on the terrace, and the sun is so golden and the breeze is like silk on your skin and …’
It was almost certainly an advertorial supplement that companies had paid to be part of, which explained why a number of top notch makers were missing, but there’s no disclosure. ‘Even a restaurant review of Petaluma’s Bridgewater Mill reads like an ad,’ I said as I sensed another sign of foul play. ‘Not a single nit to pick here, not even a dropped napkin. Perfection all the way.’ Yes, perfection is the domain of advertising and paid features.
‘I like things to be clear,’ I wrote then, and I stick to that. ‘I like to know when an ad is an ad, and when a story is a story. I loathe advertorials, infomercials, features and promotions disguised as stories.’ In the Wine Companion magazine, all these elements are blended into a smooth gravy for easy and uncritical consumption. The train moves on, and we’re proud to stand where we do.
As I look at the 3-page ad by QANTAS in the middle of the gala awards night story in the current magazine, I wonder if the wineries and winemakers featured here also had to pay to be included. That’s what I mean by the slippery slope: once you’re on it, there’s nothing to hang onto. Max Allen and Mike Bennie may not need a Code of Ethics, but the publishers of Wine Companion magazine sure do.
Kim