Booze Spectator

Dec 15 Wine Spectator full page advertisers:
Johnny Walker
Remy
Cazadores
Crown Royal
Grand Marnier
Don Julio
Hennessy
Dewars
Grey Goose back cover
Bacardi first two pages
Whisky Fest next two pages
Big Smoke/Whiskey Fest two pages

I received a free subscription after many years without and found it interesting that 10% of the mag was booze ads and another four pages were promoting whiskey fests.
I thought the Wine Spectator was a promoter of the wine biz, guess not so much as previously.

Their job is to sell advertising, last I checked. Add in that wine drinkers tend to have more expendable income and all above are super premium spirits it makes perfect sense.

[wink.gif]

Hey…don’t forget the cigar advertisers!!
Tom

They’re a magazine. They make a lot of their money from advertising. If Remy Martin, Coke, or Goodyear wants to advertise, their money’s as green as Constellation’s or Diageo’s.

I’d almost rather they take money from the booze folks, rather than the wine folks. Gives at least a patina of objectivity then…

Its a given that they make their money selling advertising, but my point and the bottom line is the Spectator is eroding the wine biz client base

The conclusion is there are not as many wine businesses willing to buy ads in the Spectator because if there were, the Spectator’s selection of liquor ads over winery ads is curious.
If the conclusion is true, then is the Spectator struggling for winery ads?
Was this a holiday issue aberration(this is my first glance at the rag in years)? I imagine the profits from premium booze would influence a conglomerate’s advertising.
Did they put their rates out of reach for wineries?
Is it no longer as effective a medium for wineries?

They had about as many pages of wine ads, so the Spectator went 50-50 in the wine business’ biggest sales season and I find that notable.





.

Print magazine advertising is declining in general, because consumer subscription numbers are declining.

-Al

As WS has sister publications in Whisky Advocate and Cigar Aficionado, it only behooves them to offer advertising deals across the portfolio to the wineries, distilleries and tobacco companies.

As soon as I saw the OP, I knew Wine Spectator Advertising Conspiracy Guy would make an appearance.

Glad I didn’t disappoint!

Agreed. And based on the Bourbon thread, apparently there’s a pretty large crossover anyway. Also, I would guess that the spirits companies have the money and distribution to make national advertising worthwhile, whereas a small winery that sells out doesn’t need that kind of reach.

I do not know what full page ads cost these days, but it was $20,000+ in the 80’s. Small fish were not players, even if they sold out and yes that still holds today.
Back in those less sophisticated days, it was rather obvious to us that when an article mentioned a wine and there was a display for that wine ad on that page, or a strong review was printed and the same occurred, it appeared to be an advertising mutual back scratch.
Yes it was that obvious, so if that what Chris and Jason are referring to Denmark was still odiferous!

Pilfering wine clientele via advertising makes perfect sense and I guess the WINE Spectator is just another business with bottom line in mind.
Besides, it will be easier to schedule and handle fewer reviews with less wineries out there.

So are you implying that the WS is lying about their blind tasting or are you suggesting the WS alerts wineries who have received a good score in the blind tasting (and suggesting a timely ad might be beneficial)?

This accusation is made in every thread about Wine Spectator, but I have never seen anyone give any compelling evidence of it. Sure, you can imagine the incentives to do so, but you could say the same about every publication which reviews anything, as well as a thousand other places things like that could occur. Do you assume the New York Times gives favorable reviews to movies which are advertised in their paper, just because it could theoretically make sense for that practice to occur?

Think about this, too – of all the people who have ever worked in reviewing wines and in the marketing/advertising section of Wine Spectator, how has none of them ever blown the whistle on the practice if it’s something regularly occurring there? One former employee going public with evidence of that practice could ruin that business. Would they risk that in order to get a few more ads?

Personally, while I have no connection to Wine Spectator or particular incentive to defend them, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse them of highly unethical behavior in the absence of at least some compelling evidence. “I can see how that could happen” isn’t good enough, in my opinion.

I am stating it was a good back scratch for the wineries contacted by the WS advertising staff when a good review or favorable article was in the offing, a low hanging fruit sale. That practice raised suspicions about the other way around with some of the more successful Napa wineries.

[cheers.gif]

That’s how I feel about claims that the NBA lottery was rigged so the Knicks got Patrick Ewing.

Thread got hijacked.
Those Wine Spectator liquor ads are not helping the wine business.
Is the WS still the most widely circulated wine publication?

The Wine Spectator isn’t a trade magazine, it’s a consumer lifestyle magazine. Promoting the wine business is not its primary function, and they run ads for revenue, not as part of their editorial content. I think the discussion went in a different direction than you expected because you have a different view of WS and its goals.

-Al

But what kind of lifestyle do they promote? It seems to have gotten glitzier over the years and a bit more upscale instead of merely aspirational.