This event constitutes a MAJOR shake-up in the wine industry. Maybe the biggest in decades, mostly because it marks the beginning of the end of an era.
In case you don't want to read the articles (Link to Decanter, Wall Street Journal), here are a few salient points:
1. After 35 years of making and breaking brands and regions through his "unbiased" newsletter, The Wine Advocate, Robert Parker has sold part of the brand to 3 big-time Asian investors, whom he has described as savvy business and technology experts.
2. The publication, previously run out of an office in Maryland near Parker's home, will now be run by Lisa Perrotti-Brown, Master of Wine, out of Singapore. She'll be the Editor-in-Chief and make most of the editorial decisions.
4. The Wine Advocate will start taking advertising, something they've slammed other wine publications for in the past.
5. Perrotti-Brown said the publication will change its business model: they're going from a full staff of freelance journalists to full-time employees. She sited the need for more control.
_____________________________________________
What's my opinion of WTF is happening here?
Well, in the US, I see the first brick of the foundation crumbling on The Wine Advocate empire. The writing is on the wall: the old guard of wine writing is on its way out. Why? The people who buy the majority of wine can't afford the stuff Parker oozes about. These days people are looking for alternatives to the high alcohol, high tannin fruit bombs on which Parker and his staff lavish praise. The wine dynasty Parker built, and the wineries that went with him on the ride -- the ones who made wine in a new style, that often lacked subtlety and nuance in favor of alcohol and upfront fruit flavors -- have a future in front of them that's a little bleak. Watch for falling rock...
After podcast Episode 52, "Critiquing the Critics," you know I've got some opinions about Parker and his "unbiased" views. Since I admit I'm biased (because I'm human and all humans are), I'll be honest in saying I don't really like his style and I do think he plays favorites: most wines The Wine Advocate advocates for are similar in their boldness and over-the-top quality. And Parker is so influential that people make wine just to get the scores. That hardly makes him an advocate for wine.
But despite my feeling that Parker has messed with the industry in a negative way, strangely I'm feeling very mixed about the dynasty ending. The dude is responsible for much of the growth of the wine industry in the US and his influence has been historical. Parker helped elevate wine culture and created a place for me and all the other wine bloggers, writers, professionals, and enthusiasts to voice our opinions and actually have people care.
Because of that I say "Thanks and hats off to you Mr. Parker" (because I'd be marketing over-the-counter drugs or hybrid cars rather than writing this and having you read it, which I thank you for doing, BTW).
________________________________________________
An Exit Strategy
I think this is big news. This is Parker's exit strategy. At 65, after 35 years of doing wine stuff he's probably getting tired. And more, it's clear that he sees himself losing ground. To go back to the analogy of the crumbling foundation, Parker's been surveying the perimeter, and he noticed things looking shaky.
The dude is smart. He's selling before the building falls down and his proverbial Chateau isn't much more than a double-wide. He's taking the Seinfeld route -- go out while you're still on top and people remember you in a good light.
Parker helped build the US market for wine writing. It's maturing. And the people who are influencing that market are not people writing descriptions about "meat blood" and "herbes de Provence". Writers, myself included, try to write about stuff most people eat, smell, or can at least envision. We're not into esoteric terms that make people feel completely lost when they hear them. We want as many people to like wine as possible -- at any budget and for reasons that are personal and understandable to them.
In this maturing wine market, with new generations of wine buyers, Parker's brand of "advocacy" for wine, which in many ways is for those who aspire to be wine snobs and are able to quote his description to seem like the most knowledgeable person in the room (when in reality they are just the best memorizer of someone else's opinion), it's Game Over.
Genius Moves
Let me address each salient point of the transition from the article...
Robert Parker is a businessman and attorney. He's not dumb: he is gently transitioning his "baby" to people who may be able to keep it going long after he's done with wine. Great move to get investors from an emerging market who may be able to make The Wine Advocate so popular and slick using digital media that people won't even know it started out as mailer. And better for Robert Parker, his target audience is growing all over Asia, while with the economic situation in the West, it's shrinking here. Where are people with lots of disposable cash who could consider buying, as a friend of mine calls them, "unicorns," or the first- or second- growth Bordeaux, the top Chateauneuf-du-Papes, Barolos, Napa cult wines, and all the other stuff we can't get or afford? In Asia, it's Parker's sweet spot.
2. The magazine, previously run out of an office in Maryland near Parker's home will now be run by Lisa Perrotti-Brown, Master of Wine, out of Singapore. She'll be the Editor-in-Chief and make most of the editorial decisions.
You've got to go where your audience is and I think it's another great idea to move the operation to Singapore -- follow the target market.
3. The print version is going away -- all subscribers will need to access the newsletter via PDF or other digital medium.I know it is still in print but I just can't believe The Wine Advocate still issues a paper newsletter. I mean, does the guy run it off the ditto machine in his basement? I can't even imagine reading something in a mailed newsletter anymore. Magazine, maybe, but newsletter glossy, not so much. I guess it's just the generation gap.
4. The Wine Advocate is taking advertising, something they've slammed other wine publications for in the past.
I know some people have raised their eyebrows at The Wine Advocate for taking advertising. You know what I say?: "What took him so long?"
As an entrepreneur myself, I've found that you've got to be open to (ethical) ways to make a buck. If the advertiser is unrelated to your content or complementary and doesn't want any say in what you write, where's the harm? I see no conflict of interest there, but maybe I'm just too much of a capitalist.
The fact that Parker has rebuffed advertisers for so long and has criticized Decanter for taking ads is just stubborn (check out Decanter's article because they found a way to get a dig in on him in their coverage, nice politics there). In the digital age we are all used to seeing ads on Web sites and I think, to some extent, we realize it's the price we pay for enjoying the content. It's just outmoded to think otherwise. Ridiculous to have waited so long to take ads, and ridiculous to criticize The Wine Advocate for this move.
5. Perrotti-Brown has said that the magazine will change its business model: they're going from a full staff of freelance journalists to full-time employees. She sited the need for more control.
The final piece of this deal that I mentioned above is the one that I think was the most interesting. The Wall Street Journal article mentions that writers will be required to become employees rather than remain freelancers. Perotti-Brown wants more editorial control over the writing and over the activities of the employees. This is truly the corporatization of The Wine Advocate!!! "Office Space" here they come!
While I understand that this move makes The Wine Advocate more like a conventional magazine, not allowing people the freedom of their own style, requiring them to conform to an editorial norm, will make this just another version of Wine Spectator... biased, insider-y, and to some extent, not trustworthy.
The article claims it comes from the accusations that some of the writers were getting paid by wineries to write positive things, but there are plenty of freelancers out there who wouldn't sacrifice their integrity and would still offer an interesting perspective. It's an extreme position to force people onto payroll.
It's already evident to some extent but groupthink could be magnified with the new structure: Once things become corporate, the bias becomes uniform. All the writers drink each other's Kool-Aid. Although wine writing is, by nature, based on opinion, freelancers at least offer their own brand of bias. Put everyone together and lock down editorial controls and BAM! none of it can be trusted.
________________________________________________
Parker will stay involved as CEO, Chairman, and a part owner of The Wine Advocate brand. He's also still writing and covering Chateauneuf-du-Pape, old Napa vintages, and Bordeaux (which means the high alcohol vintages like 2009 will still be overrated, where more balanced traditional ones like 2005 will be less valued even though they are more delicious, but I digress).
Regardless, my feeling is that the guy is checking out. And who can blame him? He's busted his ass for years. I don't like his stuff and I think he's destroyed some of the beauty in a lot of wines by making everyone feel they have to make wines for his palate to get the best scores, but he's done so much good for the industry too.
Regardless, my feeling is that the guy is checking out. And who can blame him? He's busted his ass for years. I don't like his stuff and I think he's destroyed some of the beauty in a lot of wines by making everyone feel they have to make wines for his palate to get the best scores, but he's done so much good for the industry too.
Is it time for him to go in the US? Yes. But it's not without a debt of gratitude from all of us who will fill his shoes in one way or another.
No comments:
Post a Comment