Peter Simic blasts Rutherglen.

[KMP]

OK, as a small producer I am not excited by the submission fee for Winestate, but can I say in defence of the magazine....

I have been on a Winestate tasting panel and there is absolutely no relationship between the results and any advertising revenue - it's not even an issue and I think it's a bit offensive to suggest tastings are biased in this way, not only to the mag but to the tasters who give up their time freely to participate. Tastings are blind and much debate occurs where discrepancies occur between tasters. Virtual show-conditions exist and the recent tasting I was involved in lasted all day and was conducted with integrity, and with a view to obtaining the most accurate results for the readers.....................................................

Brad, seeing as it was I who made the comment on the ethical appearance of money changing hands to have a wine reviewed I feel I should comment on your reply.

Caution – long piece of BS.

While the actual money that is paid to Winestate may go to the magazine and the tasters not see anything it is appearance of money having changed hands to have a wine reviewed that is the problem. It renders the independence of both the magazine and the winery suspect and taints the tasting panel (good people IÂ’m sure they are) in the process. ItÂ’s a slippery slope that Winestate should avoid.

I can appreciate that getting a panel together for a large tasting is not an insignificant matter and significant cost may be involved. But if you run a wine magazine this should be part of the budget planning because you have to review wines. Subscriptions and advertising should be major sources of finances. If they can't get into the black through those means then perhaps they are not supplying their readership and the retail industry with a quality publication. Its probably worthwhile noting that even advertising has been questioned - Wine Spectator has been criticized as a magazine that gives big advertisers big scores. Where profit is involved it is much better to tread carefully if you donÂ’t want your ethics questioned.

I can also appreciate that this is a difficult area as it is not black and white. Are prestigious wine shows open to ethical concerns because they also require payment to submit a wine for judging? IÂ’m not privy to all the details of whether they make profit from their activities and who gets paid for their services, and I wouldnÂ’t be comfortable being involved until I did know. Financing this type of event is a serious problem because industry sponsors are definitely questionable.

Let me give you a personal example of the problem; this one is slightly wine related. When I first came to the US in the early ‘80s the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) used to have numerous social activities that were funded by various drug companies where lots of freebies were handed out. I used to love one called something like “The Wines and Foods of Sonoma County”. None of these events ever influenced me with regard to any drug company as I have always avoided doing research involving drugs that treat disease. So you can imagine that I (along with a lot of other folks) was not real happy to hear that the ACR was dropping these events because they were worried that the appearance was one of the drug companies paying off the whole organization through these freebies. The enjoyment of a bunch of hardworking, honest folks was severely curtailed simply to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And believe me you really enjoy a few glasses of free wine after a day of sitting in stuffy auditoriums.

I cited Parker because he is probably one of the few individuals who does not take advertising and pays his own way – although on the latter point he is clearly not squeaky clean. He clearly makes a profit or at least an exceptional income from his activities as a critic and so he’s fair game for criticism. And he gets his share, but he sets a benchmark that I would be happy to see more widespread.

Mike

[KMP]

Australia reputedly has the most crowded magazine market in the world. Once upon a time, over 25 years ago, Winestate was an important magazine and for many years no one could touch it.

Ric,

Going back 16 & more years Wine & Spirit Magazine was around and that was a significantly superior magazine to Winestate from a number of aspects, not the least being Mark Shield's column. Unfortunately it was swallowed up by Winestate and the glossy wine magazine market was pretty barren until AGTWine came along.

I still have a number of old W&S mags in the library to read & reminisce.

I thought it was called Wine and Spirit Buying Guide, but I'm probably wrong as its been a long, long time since I had a sub. All my old copies are still in Oz, somewhere. And it was better than Winestate. I now get AGT Wine and while its not perfect it has more on Oz and NZ wines that the WS.

Mike

[brad]

While the actual money that is paid to Winestate may go to the magazine and the tasters not see anything it is appearance of money having changed hands to have a wine reviewed that is the problem. It renders the independence of both the magazine and the winery suspect and taints the tasting panel (good people IÂ’m sure they are) in the process. ItÂ’s a slippery slope that Winestate should avoid.

I never said tasters should get paid. And although I'm personally not excited about the tasting fee, as I understand it everyone has to pay it. In the end it is similar to having to pay to enter a wine show.

I'm not here to question their business operation as I am in the wine game, not publishing, however there is no doubt the introduction of tasting fees will see some smaller producers reconsider their involvement. In the end, it is a marketing expense - if you want to pay it, and run the risk of a poor review, then it's a risk you take. If you get a 5 star review I think the risk has paid off. Just like wine shows really.

Its probably worthwhile noting that even advertising has been questioned - Wine Spectator has been criticized as a magazine that gives big advertisers big scores. Where profit is involved it is much better to tread carefully if you donÂ’t want your ethics questioned.

Who has questioned Winestate's ethics on this issue and what evidence is there?

I do notice some wineries that get rave reviews in Winestate occasionally place adverts within the magazine to promote their scores and contact details. I strongly doubt there is any relationship between those or any ads and reviews.

Let me give you a personal example of the problem; this one is slightly wine related. When I first came to the US in the early ‘80s the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) used to have numerous social activities that were funded by various drug companies where lots of freebies were handed out.....

Ha! Pharmacy is probably a good industry example to illustrate your point, but I'd say the wine industry is at the other end of the spectrum entirely!

[Guest]

Brad, I understand the marketing issue. You need to do what you need to do, right? Just be very careful about not losing your credibility in the process- Winestate has very little. You've just got to compare the Vic pinots they review with WFM. No Savaterre, Giaconda, Bass Phillip, Tarrington, etc to my recollection. Maybe the odd Bannockburn? Jesus H, if they can't get hold of Vic icons, it's apparent they're doing 2nd Eleven stuff. To give them some credit, on their web site (http://www.winestate.com.au/magazine/ar ... icleno=113) they do say they taste some of these wines and have found them unworthy. If this is the case, I'd say it probably reflects the cigar-smoking, SA blockbuster palates they've got.

Agree with the comments about Wine and Spirit- bought both this and Winestate in my formative years- even then, knowing nothing, it was apparent Winestate was vin ordinaire in comparison.

[smithy]

Bottom line guys is that those that don't show well don't want to show. We put in 11 wines which i would expect to do pretty well for us,
we've blitzed the field for the last 3 years and the competition doesn't want to show against us on equal terms.
Wine shows are biased towards lighter Wwahgunyah styles which the public don't seem to chase like they do big stuff.

C
Bring on some competition I say!
Cheers
Smithy

[Guest]

That might be the case Smithy but Peter Simic's comments suggested he expected Winestate to receive samples of the best Rutherglen grand and rare muscats and tokays from Bullers, Chambers etc. The question remains, is Winestate entitled to be so indignant when it doesn't receive such samples?

[bacchaebabe]

Brad, I understand the marketing issue. You need to do what you need to do, right? Just be very careful about not losing your credibility in the process- Winestate has very little.

Guest, who says Winestate have little credibility?

I don't think anyone has stated this - it's more a case of the magazine being boring and only rating with stars out of five and very little other information being given. I personally don't doubt their credibility - it's more that the magazine holds little interest.

[Ian S]

I do notice some wineries that get rave reviews in Winestate occasionally place adverts within the magazine to promote their scores and contact details. I strongly doubt there is any relationship between those or any ads and reviews.

Brad
Part correct for sure - I believe that a regular advertiser will not get preferential reviews.
However there is advantage to Winestate being generally generous with ratings as there is money to be made in wineries placing adverts as a result of the scores. If they gave lower marks, would they lose some revenue - yes. Most wine magazines seem to accept this as ok. Likewise the proliferation of Gold medals & trophies at various shows, not just promotes the wineries, but also the shows & ensures a healthy supply of entrants next year.
The well-informed people that post here are better placed to take all this for what it is & take the gongs with a pinch of salt. However the normal punters are being (gently) duped.

Having said all that, I had a subscription for a year & I think some of the comments were a little harsh - indeed I recall mention that if a benchmark wine wasn't submitted, then they'd go out and buy it to compare. In terms of wines rated, they seem to have fair representation at the top end, which is not true of events like International Wine Challenge or the even worse Decanter copycat event.

Is it fair to say "the less commercial, the more harsh the reviews"?

Ian

[Chuck]

Hi all,

Boy, has a lot been said on this topic. I look forward to my Winestate for the unbiased blind tastings. Many a $50+ wine has seen good competition from $15 to $20 jobs. For example Mr Simic's recent rare Editorial comment on the humble and unashamably commercial Jacobs Creek 2002 Reserve Shiraz. Stunning wine that some would not be seen drinking just because of the label. At $11.00 its QPR is off the planet. On my budget I can't afford to drink labels. Keep up the good work!!

Chuck

[smithy]

2 issues here.
Winestate don't give higher points to advertisers. Been on the panel. Doesn't happen.

If the wineries don't want/need to show their fortifieds so be it.I showed mine, but like I said I felt we had a good show of doing well.
Its a free country and you don't have to if you don't want to.

Who was on the tasting panel? This has more to do with what styles are recognised than anything else.
Sorry wasn't more help on this issue earlier. Busy catching tuna in Cairns!

Cheers
Smithy

[RogerPike]

I see no connection between Winestate ratings and advertising revenue.

My wines consistently achieve 4 1/2 and 5 star ratings at Winestate and my advertising budget is NIL.

Roger

[Ian S]

I see no connection between Winestate ratings and advertising revenue.

My wines consistently achieve 4 1/2 and 5 star ratings at Winestate and my advertising budget is NIL.

Roger

Roger
No disagreement that individual advertising does not generate better ratings for that wineries wines. However in general they aren't prepared to utilise a more critical marking scale, for fear of lost advertising revenue. Having said that though, I do remember one instance where the winestate panel crucified the wines, which is more than decanter would be prepared to do!

I don't subscribe any more (to any wine mag), because I prefer opinions that aren't tempered by commercial realities - people like the contributors here & on other forums & "amateur" wine sites on the web. Shame as I miss the columns by Richard Gawel & Velme Henkel (wine science & history respectively) which were often very interesting.

regards

Ian

[RogerPike]

Ian,

You can find some wine articles by Valmai Hankel by searching the archives of the Adelaide Review: http://www.adelaidereview.com.au

Roger

[Ian S]

Roger
Thanks for this (I knew I'd got the spelling wrong!).
Ian

[Guest]

Brad, I understand the marketing issue. You need to do what you need to do, right? Just be very careful about not losing your credibility in the process- Winestate has very little.

Thanks Guest, post your contact details so I can check credibility issues with you each time I'm about to get published!

Seriously, nobody has yet provided any evidence of links between results and advertising in Winestate. So I'll assume it's all guesswork or uninformed opinion.

And re consistency, if people are going to bag Winestate because of diverse panellists etc then they should bag all wine mags and all the show system too.

However there is advantage to Winestate being generally generous with ratings as there is money to be made in wineries placing adverts as a result of the scores. If they gave lower marks, would they lose some revenue - yes. Most wine magazines seem to accept this as ok. Likewise the proliferation of Gold medals & trophies at various shows, not just promotes the wineries, but also the shows & ensures a healthy supply of entrants next year.

Ian, as much as I think you have a reasonable, assumptive point, I still believe shows and magazines are generally balanced and provide a suitable, independent peer comparison for producers. Plenty of shows where golds or silvers are not awarded in classes and icons get canned. Plenty of reviews in Winestate mag where icons get 3 stars or less.

I see no connection between Winestate ratings and advertising revenue. My wines consistently achieve 4 1/2 and 5 star ratings at Winestate and my advertising budget is NIL.
Roger

Ha! Same here Roger - can't afford to advertise! The only $ I spend are submissions to wine mags and shows and I'm quite happy to stand by my wines and expect they'll be reviewed appropriately, and if they're not I take it on the chin (and bag out the useless tasters ).

No disagreement that individual advertising does not generate better ratings for that wineries wines. However in general they aren't prepared to utilise a more critical marking scale, for fear of lost advertising revenue.

For the record, we used a 20 point scale for the Winestate panel tasting and this is translated to the star system. I'm guessing that the star system is perhaps a more simple and digestible format for the average consumer (of any product). The serious winebuyer has a better grasp of 10/20/100 point scales, and follows particular reviewers, however the average consumer probably does not care for the detail. Just guessing.

[brad]

... oops, me above. ....

[Guest]

[quote=And re consistency, if people are going to bag Winestate because of diverse panellists etc then they should bag all wine mags and all the show system too.
[/quote]

not quite true. Wine Advocate essentially has the same reviewer(s) every edition. Onwine has the same reviewer all the time. Winefront Monthly essentially has the same reviewer. Winewise is a panel, but essentially the same panel. I would argue that you can draw a line with these publications i.e. you can gauge the publication's general taste, and as a consumer, know what aspects of that publication's taste that you can trust/correlates with your own. With winestate, it is a different panel all the time, impossible to callibrate against.

It is a very South Australian view of wine too.

Other than the boring articles and the fact that you can't take much notice of the reviews, it is a really good magazine

[smithy1]

Agreed totally.
Chairman, panellists etc are all important in style determination.

Sorry, Winestate panel esssentially varies every year.

Cheers
Guys
Smithy

[roughred]

It seems this topic has been railroaded a bit into discussing the attributes of the various wine media. I started the topic to express concern at the unfair and entirely unwarranted comments made by Peter Simic, but glad it has sparked some interest anyway. FWIW, I am not going to question the credibility of the various winemakers/journos etc that sit on the tasting panels, it just needs to be recognised that the system is not perfect. I have no problems with different tasting panels as long as they are balanced. But having seen the same wine recieve 3 and 4.5 stars in the same edition of Winestate (in a regional and varietal tasting) I realised that as a buying guide Winestate is of little value. And as the magazine is practically tastings/reviews and little else, I find the magazine in general to be of little value.

LL

[Guest]

8)
Agreed totally.
Chairman, panellists etc are all important in style determination.

Sorry, Winestate panel esssentially varies every year.

Cheers
Guys
Smithy

Yeh, sorry, just like most wine shows.

[smithy]

This years panel consisted of Jen Pfeiffer, David Sutherland and Steve Chambers.
If I'd have known that previously I wouldn't have bothered to show my big stuff, as its counter productive to put big stuff in front of Jen or David, they neither understand nor enjoy the style.....which begs the question...

Why have them on a north east Vic tasting panel?

Cheers
Smithy

[Guest]

Local journalism at work.

Peter Simic airs his vitriolic, unfounded, rubbish opinion. Front page with picture and sensational heading.

Buller Wines (for whom I work, interest declared) wins Federation Square Victorian Wine Regions Wine of the Year (NV Fine Old Muscat) with Morris winning two sub categories. Three sentences tucked away on page 19.

Good news doesn't sell? Thanks for the support Border Morning Mail.

LL

[Blue]

Their(Winestate) lastest issue comes with a free margaret river wines special.

I wonder why Leeuwin Estate, Pierro and Cullens were not mention at all.

[TORB]

Their(Winestate) lastest issue comes with a free margaret river wines special.

I wonder why Leeuwin Estate, Pierro and Cullens were not mention at all.

Never 'erd of 'em. Must be the new kids on the block, so no wonder they were not invited to come out and play.

[Guest]

I don't know Jen Pfieffer or David Sutherland. But if you don't like a style, does that ALSO mean that you don't understand it? Can't you understand it AND not like it?

I don't choose to drink high alcohol red wine. I have no problem with people making it though, and agree that there are times when it is done very well. The fact that I don't choose to drink it, and think that other more restrained styles are much better wines, does not mean that I don't understand high-octane styles.

Why take a cheap shot at Pfeiffer and Sutherland?

[smithy]

dear Guest
Do us all a favour and register, as the mystery guest poster who won't put a name to his opinion is pretty lame.

I did say that the 2 panellists neither enjoy nor understand the style.
My comments relate to why have them on a NE Vic panel when this is a local style.

Big stuff is not just about alcohol, you have also blinded yourself to the obvious,so your'e comments are doubly or is that triply lame.

Cheers
Smithy

[Guest]

blind leading the blind by the sounds.

[Muscat Mike]

blind leading the blind by the sounds.

Go pat your girfriend's seeing eye dog and bite the dust. You choose to not like or understand, or even bother to read what is being said here so don't bother coming back in the next 30 years or so.
MM.

[Guest]

Mike, is it fair to say that someone "doesn't understand a style" just because they don't like it? Can't you understand it and still not like it? This doesn't need to get personal.

Michael.

[beef]

Mike, is it fair to say that someone "doesn't understand a style" just because they don't like it? Can't you understand it and still not like it? This doesn't need to get personal.

Michael.

No, it's not fair. But that's not what Smithy did.