Curious WS ValueWines...

Noted in reading the WineSpectator today (shhhhh..don't let this get out on the InterNet that TomHill reads the WineSpec) with Laube's '07 Cabernet reviews. The RoundPond Cab '07 receives a ValueWine recommendation at 93 pts for $50/btl. And the Neyers Estate Cab receives a 94 pts at $48/btl...yet does not receive a ValueWine recommendation.
It do seem a bit curious to me.
Tom

[James Roscoe]

Money, money, money, money, money!

Money, money, money, money, money!

I have noticed that RoundPond sometimes advertises in the WineSpec, but never Neyers.
Not implying there's a connect there...but juss sayin'.
Tom

In truly fine newspapers or magazines editorial and advertising are clearly separated. I cannot speak for or about the Wine Spectator but I am quite sure that the senior writers of that magazine would not allow themselves to be influenced by just whom is or who is not advertising.

I think of my own newspaper (that is to say, the one that employs me full time), and any hint of cross-breeding between editorial policy and advertising would be met almost instantly with a call to see the general secretary of the paper, there to receive one's final paycheck and a firm adios. And that, by heaven, is the way it should be!!!!

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

What's the case production of Round Pond and Neyers respectively? WS has always placed a huge emphasis on availability.

There's value...and there's value.

But it shows how far WS has moved from speaking to me that it lists a wine for $50 as a "value".

[James Roscoe]

In truly fine newspapers or magazines editorial and advertising are clearly separated. I cannot speak for or about the Wine Spectator but I am quite sure that the senior writers of that magazine would not allow themselves to be influenced by just whom is or who is not advertising.

I think of my own newspaper (that is to say, the one that employs me full time), and any hint of cross-breeding between editorial policy and advertising would be met almost instantly with a call to see the general secretary of the paper, there to receive one's final paycheck and a firm adios. And that, by heaven, is the way it should be!!!!

Best
Rogov

Nothing so gauche as that, but some nice green fees, a box of Cuban cigars, a few invites to the box at the Laker's game......

I have noticed that RoundPond sometimes advertises in the WineSpec, but never Neyers.
Not implying there's a connect there...but juss sayin'.Tom

My guess it's more likely to be an availability issue (according to a poster on another board, The Round Pond is out in about 7 times quantity of the Neyers). As Hoke says, I'm bemused that new release wines close to $50 are being touted as values.

As to whether advertising makes a difference, the only real study I remember was by a West Coast Wine Network guy. This is what I posted re his findings in 2004:


This comes up periodically. I'm no fan of WS. I don't like panel tastings (no
one to "calibrate" to), I don't think that Suckling or Mansson (sp?) match my
tastes very well, etc. I don't subscribe, though I did in my more innocent
years, and have long list of
problems I could name with the "Speculator". But while I've often heard the
complaint that they trade points for ads, I've never seen anyone try and really
analyze it, except Jon Reuter.
Jon, a poster on WCWN who is apparently a statistician(he was a
frequent and respected poster who has no apparent connection to WS) posted this
a couple years ago:
"I've actually done a fairly technical (and therefore boring) review of WS
advertising and ratings (using WA ratings as a sort of control group) and found
only a slight bias at WS. For the majority of wines, the WS and WA ratings are
statistically indistiguishable. However, it does appear that WS is more likely
to retaste wines from advertisers and that these wines as a group benefit from
being retasted (to the tune of 2-3 points). To put that effect in context
though, less than 5 percent of wines are retasted so the overall average bias
is quite small.
Furthermore, conditional on price, production, and actual WS rating, there does
not appear to be any bias in who receives the various awards. So the earlier
post by a former WSer claiming that advertising and awards are unrelated
appears to be dead on."
There was a disclaimer that he only did the analysis for US wines for a 3 year
period I believe.
Of course, an extended analysis AFTER a winery scores high would probably show
a bigger correlation, because if WS scored one's wine a 94 wouldn't you think
of advertising there to remind readers once that issue has passed?
Now, the entry level restaurant awards are another thing. Pretty much any
restaurant that pays the $100 fee gets an award (602 out of 763 first time
entrants according to their own website).

...Nothing so gauche as that, but some nice green fees, a box of Cuban cigars, a few invites to the box at the Laker's game......

Ah, but now we get into the question of just who is a whore. Simple.....one is as much a whore if he/she accepts the green fees or the box of cigars as if they charged $500, $5000 or $50,000....

Best
Rogov

[James Roscoe]

...Nothing so gauche as that, but some nice green fees, a box of Cuban cigars, a few invites to the box at the Laker's game......

Ah, but now we get into the question of just who is a whore. Simple.....one is as much a whore if he/she accepts the green fees or the box of cigars as if they charged $500, $5000 or $50,000....

Best
Rogov

But wasn't that vacation in Mexico nice? Of course not all people are built like you Rogov. Ask any politician if this is okay.

If I didn't receive the magazine free I would never subscribe. Besides the usual complaints I did notice awhile ago a real effort by them to "pick" new favorites. I think they felt fearful of being boring so it was in their interest to move on to favor a new selection of wineries. I use their magazine like I do other wine publications to simply point out to me at times some wine I might find of interest. I really don't pay a lot of attention to their scores. I find that on the CA side little in their publication to be of interest. If I am seeking some ideas on CA wines I rely on Dan Berger.

WS should instead of stroking their "buddies", advertisers, and people they and their cronies like, regardless of the wine why don't they write an article or series of articles as to the effects upon the wines and wineries after being purchased by a large entity. Of course if they were to write such a series it would not be critical of the larger entities. It would be too gutsy a position for them to take. When I look back at the wines I used to purchase and now do not it is interesting how many of these wineries are now owned by large entities. A few years after these purchases their wines lost my palate's interest.

[David M. Bueker]

You know what guys - you have no actual evidence other than the ghost-like black helicopters in your back year that WS does anything improper in picking value wines or scoring wines. This is such a ridiculous and overdone speculation...

You know what guys - you have no actual evidence other than the ghost-like black helicopters in your back year that WS does anything improper in picking value wines or scoring wines. This is such a ridiculous and overdone speculation...

I didn't know that actual "evidence" was needed to state ones perceptions and opinions. I do stand by my perceptions as my perceptions. OBTW in my backyard to date I haven't seen any "ghost-like black helicopters". I guess my imagination isn't as active as yours.

There is an old dicho - "Sobre gustos y colores no hay nada escrito." I concur with this dicho.

I believe that you do need evidence to support perceptions of which to form opinions. Perception is reality to many and often based on flawed conclusions drawn from observation, reports, hearsay etc.....what is it that drives your perception of WS?

Drew

You know what guys - you have no actual evidence other than the ghost-like black helicopters in your back year that WS does anything improper in picking value wines or scoring wines. This is such a ridiculous and overdone speculation...

Yup, David...not being privy to the inner machinations of the WineSpec...I have no actual evidence.

It just struck me as curious that the RoundPond Cab, 94 pts and $50 got a "Top Value"; and the Neyers Cab, 95 pts and $48 did not get
a "Top Value". Any logical/rational thought would have also given it a "TopValue". So I was curious as to what criteria the WineSpec used to
award a featured "TopValue". Someone suggested it was based on availibility/production level/national distribution; but there are some obscure/
limited production Cabs that also received a "TopValue", so that's not the criteria. Since I've noticed RoundPond adverts in the WS, I speculated,
with absolutely no actual evidence, that that may have been the reason. But I'm certainly open to suggestions for other options on what criteria
they use to designate a "TopValue", since I couldn't find their criteria stated anywhere in the publication.
I've also noted in the TN section that some TN's have the visage of the winemaker/owner is adjacent to the TN. I've often wondered what criteria they use to
pick whose photo gets featured. But I figured it out recently. They are all young hot chicks/cool dudes...no ugly folks allowed.
Tom

There's value...and there's value.

But it shows how far WS has moved from speaking to me that it lists a wine for $50 as a "value".

That was my immediate reaction. There is so much good stuff out there that to say a $50 cab is a "value" seems to be a joke. I admit to not drinking many domestic wines but compared to '07 So Rhones under $25 or the '06 Ch Lusseau St Emillion Grand Cru I just picked up locally for $16.99????

Walt

I don't think one needs to wear aluminum foil hats to wonder about the impartiality of a publication that accepts advertising. That said, I think actual empirical evidence (such as Jon Reuter tried to provide) is of more value than impressions/anecdotal evidence. I'm no fan of WS (I've had 2 1 year subscriptions in last decade, one courtesy of Zachys, the other cost me 1000 miles on an airline I never fly, I probably spent 30 minutes in those 2 years reading, and have never found most of their reviews especially helpful for my tastes) but if the divide they describe between the editorial staff and business end didn't exist, I personally am surprised that no disgruntled former employee has spilled the beans in 25+ years.

Someone suggested it was based on availibility/production level/national distribution; but there are some obscure/
limited production Cabs that also received a "TopValue", so that's not the criteria. Since I've noticed RoundPond adverts in the WS, I speculatedwith absolutely no actual evidence, that that may have been the reason. But I'm certainly open to suggestions for other options on what criteria

Tom,
What are the other limited production Cabs, and what is production (and scores and price, as it could all be weighted)?
The other issue is that you say you've noticed Round Pond adverts, but does that mean you've actually checked to see Neyers has never advertised? And if that's the case, and there is favor given to advertisers, why does Neyers end up with wines high in the WS Top 100 (I just googled Wine Spectator Neyers and got a bunch of hits, WS seems to love them).

[James Roscoe]

I've also noted in the TN section that some TN's have the visage of the winemaker/owner is adjacent to the TN. I've often wondered what criteria they use to
pick whose photo gets featured. But I figured it out recently. They are all young hot chicks/cool dudes...no ugly folks allowed.
Tom

So you are saying that it is sex and money? I am sticking with my original answer. Money talks and everything else walks. The WS is a big advertisement for big rollers. Small-timers need not apply.

[David M. Bueker]

Evidence is not needed to state an opinion. But the speculation about ties between WS scores/features and advertising have been done over and over and over so many times with no supporting evidence that it does seem more than a little silly.

Evidence is not needed to state an opinion. But the speculation about ties between WS scores/features and advertising have been done over and over and over so many times with no supporting evidence that it does seem more than a little silly.

David,
Obviously without a whistle blower or an inside mole there is not "absolute" evidence. I gave up reading the Speck years ago because of what seemed like over-whelming anecdotal evidence of a big ad being in the issue that gives that wine a high mark. Seemed to happen very often. Is the WS paying you to support them?
Walt

[David M. Bueker]

Evidence is not needed to state an opinion. But the speculation about ties between WS scores/features and advertising have been done over and over and over so many times with no supporting evidence that it does seem more than a little silly.

David,
Obviously without a whistle blower or an inside mole there is not "absolute" evidence. I gave up reading the Speck years ago because of what seemed like over-whelming anecdotal evidence of a big add being in the issue that gives that wine a high mark. Seemed to happen very often. Is the WS paying you to support them?
Walt

Not at all. I get no support from WS (not a subscriber) or WA (subscriber) though I would gladly take it!

Cite your specific evidence and also the supporting evidence that the wine in question was not actually a fine wine then we can have an actual discussion.

Cite your specific evidence and also the supporting evidence that the wine in question was not actually a fine wine then we can have an actual discussion.

David,
I do not doubt it is a good wine. Can't bring myself to buying and drinking a $50 CA cab when there is so much good juice floating around. How about a $50 '07 CnP,?? CA cabs are not my cup of tea. I purchase 2 bottles per year just to say I have a cab in the cellar.
Walt

[James Roscoe]

The first question I have is whether there should be a serious question about the value of the Wine Spectator. It is what it is. There is decent stuff in it. There is the usual BS. It is there to make money. I have no problem with that, but don't ask me to take it seriously.

Someone suggested it was based on availibility/production level/national distribution; but there are some obscure/
limited production Cabs that also received a "TopValue", so that's not the criteria. Since I've noticed RoundPond adverts in the WS, I speculatedwith absolutely no actual evidence, that that may have been the reason. But I'm certainly open to suggestions for other options on what criteria

Tom,
What are the other limited production Cabs, and what is production (and scores and price, as it could all be weighted)?
The other issue is that you say you've noticed Round Pond adverts, but does that mean you've actually checked to see Neyers has never advertised? And if that's the case, and there is favor given to advertisers, why does Neyers end up with wines high in the WS Top 100 (I just googled Wine Spectator Neyers and got a bunch of hits, WS seems to love them).

Dale,
Just looking at their TopValue list, the procucers Pedemonte, Sodaro, RootsRunDeep, 4Bears, and Line 39 are all wineries I never heard of. I have no idea
what their production levels are and not inclined to do the research to find out. But I would guess their availability is not as great as the Neyers, which I see on
retail lists quite a bit. But, must admit, I don't buy much in the way of Cab and don't really know what the Cab market is like.
And, no, I've not checked that RoundPound advertises and Neyers doesn't. I'm interested in RoundPond because of their Nebbiolo, and have just noted
there ads in there. I buy lots of Neyers Syrah and just don't recall seeing an advert of theirs in the WS.
I'm not interested in doing that much homework to prove my case (if it's really my case) that the adverts influenced their TopValue selection. Maybe there is
some other criteria at work. Don't know..don't really care. It's just that my original observation seemed curious, independent of whether it was influenced by ads.
Tom