Galloni needs to have the right to run his own business for better or worse. We don’t know if he is profitable or losing money and we dont have the right to know this. His business model of hiring the all stars of the industry versus being a sole proprietorship / journalist may be extremely lucrative or it may be more than he should of bit off or maybe it’s barely profitable while he works really hard.
The other important subject to bring out is this underlying theme that always gets brought up whenever critic scores gets brought up on the forum; is the system of tasting reviews and scoring fair/correct? Should reviewers buy the wine themselves? Should they be blind tasted? Should they drink them out of barrel? Are they biased to certain producers? Do the reviewers know the wine region enough? Do the reviewers have a biased palate? Should others see the reviewers earlier if they pay more? These are all interesting discussion points but in my opinion it’s another subject that is impossible to figure out. In my opinion it’s an impossible mission to truly pull of idealistically and fairly. Unlike the car industry where there are only about 300 different cars annually and they can be borrowed for a review there must be 30k different wines and the bottle must be opened for each reviewer.
In summary I think it’s good that we know this information and everyone has the right to do what they want however I also think we should all acknowledge some of the underlying components of this niche industry.
How many subscribers does vinous have? Is Galloni under financial pressure? If not this is just stupid. It makes so clear that subscribers are not in the first class seats but merchants, importers, producers etc. To me it was always obvious that consumers do not benefit from the reviews because you had to pay more every year for wines you loved. And beside that fine wine became a subject for speculation. All this has little to nothing to do with the love of fine wine and food.
Jurgen, you have every right to say what you want to but I don’t think it’s fair to assume that once antonio galloni receives enough subscribers he should bypass the free market system. I don’t know but my guess is his business is a bit more challenging than you would guess. Keeping his all star reviewers happy and retained based on a model that every 1000 subscribers only gets about $120k of revenue is not easy. That’s why most who does this are sole proprietors or close to. Honestly I don’t know galloni at all but my readings of him seems like he does love food and wine a lot and my guess is he’s just like any other person trying to make a nice living.
But it’s contrary to everything he stands for. Let’s be honest, retailer would only subscribe to get a financial benefit out of the insider information (buy more high scoring wines and sell them with the higher markups high scoring wines allow for). So it’s cleary designed to screw the consumer, Galloni or Martin champion.
There are additional revenue sources, mainly speeking fees/event fees to sweeten the deal but not screwing your consumers.
I’m sure it was not designed to screw the customer and I would guess it was designed to produce more revenue. Regarding your point that it screws the customer I do see what you are saying though however let’s be specific. The only thing I can think of how it could affect a normal user is Gallonis 100 point scores. Yes 100 point gallonis will not be as accessible at old pricing but the reality today is in the past 5 years getting unicorns on wine searcher alerts or other means has gone away to a large degree anyway. The world is much more transparent and real time so I think this won’t affect me much. Besides these very few wines I don’t see how it hurts me as a vinous member having retailers or importers knowing the scores a couple of weeks early. But your point is a real theoretical negative to the average user hiwever I’ll go back to my original point that galloni needs to be able to run his business and it is not unethical or with malintent to offer this and his business is not some money juggernaut like Amazon that we should all have the right to limit.
what do you think is the benefit for people ITB to have the scores 2 days earlier? I mean why should I pay 2.000/month if there is no or little benefit? Just curiosity? Would this be a clever business model?
I cannot find it on the Vinous web site but then I don’t particularly care.
The only two months it might justify that kind of premium or when California and Bordeaux futures are reviewed. So ubiquitous are the three figure scores and high nineties, that unless a completely unknown wine gets a high score, it probably will not make a difference.
Case in point: Neal Martin gives the Palmer 2018 100 points. It did not really move the market, despite the fact that the descriptors suggest that it was even more special than the normal run of the mill 100 point wine.
“The headline in the Margaux appellation is the sui generis that is Palmer, or, to use Thomas Duroux’s words, a freak. It dazzled not only with its complexity and audacity, but because no 2018 came close in terms of blossoming over not just 24 hours after opening, but 48 hours. I penned my tasting note and ruminated over this wine for many hours, finally nailing my colors to the mast and deciding that while I had erred on the side of caution from barrel, since it could easily have tipped over into something quite vulgar, in bottle it reveals itself as a legend in the making. Although I was familiar with the background, I spoke to Duroux, and our candid conversation gave me a deeper understanding about this 2018.”
I do not think you have framed the issue correctly. I’m sure Antonio baloney* did not intentionally set out to screw the consumer; however, that is exactly the consequence. Perhaps it is the law of unintended consequences here, but that is exactly what occurs in this scenario.
Here’s a very simple hypothetical: Zachy’s gets the advance notice that several lower production wines scored 100. That gives Zachy’s the opportunity and the motivation to do two things. The first is to quickly accumulate as much of that wine as possible if they think it will sell out fast. The second thing they will do is price it accordingly, which means higher. Neither of these things is good for consumers. Incidentally, since you commented on it, I do not believe it is limited to 100-point wines. Many of us consumers chase QPRs as well. Imagine Neal scored the 2020 Sociando a 98 or the Lanessan a 96.
It is my opinion that Vinuous has essentially become a shill for the industry. Antonio’s notes are often silly and complete hype-prose (See Bingo thread). Scores have also become inflated. And with this new move, it seems clear that he places business over the consumer. Now as you note, that is entirely within their right. Private businesses can essentially do, within the bounds of the law, whatever they want to do. The question is, how will consumers react. Personally I would withdraw my subscription immediately, but I’ve never bothered to subscribe to this publication. Sadly, most consumers will never even know that he is doing this.
Siri dictation. Too classic to change. That’s my thought anyway.
You have a better view of the market than I do, but from my perspective this is absolutely false. I watched the remaining cases on the US market disappear within hours of that review being published. The next tranche appeared within a few days, at nearly 2x the price. For the consumer, that price difference on one bottle is the cost of 2-3 years of a Vinous subscription. For the importer or retailer, the difference on one case is 2-3 months of a preview subscription. A few cases sold at adjusted markup and you’ve paid off your Vinous tax and are now increasing profit through this program. Of course this is the business value proposition that Vinous has queued up in their PPT for these clients.
I think it stinks. My immediate gut reaction was, oh well, it dilutes the value of my subscription but I still like having access to the database of scores and notes, and the board is good too. But on second thought I’m much more inclined to just cancel. They’re working for the trade now, not the consumer, which is perfectly fine. Free country, go make money.
I wonder if they’ll lower the cost of consumer subscriptions, now that like with most tech companies, we are no longer the customer, we’re the product…
i’m surprised no one has commented on the alleged price of $2k. Assuming they priced it correctly for the value received, it doesn’t seem like a lot of value.
from the consumer pov, i don’t care one way or the other and i would argue that vinous should do everything in their power to make as much money as possible. i also don’t believe this somehow undermines whatever journalistic integrity they have earned over time (the psychological reality is that high scores sell subscriptions because of the incredibly strong confirmation bias, but that’s a separate thread). but this price - if true - indicates a rather low-value proposition.
In a world where the scores come out to everyone at the same time, it’s ok for importer/brokers/distributors to jack up the prices to the retailers? Because that was the reality of the situation when all scores came out at the same time.
If true, this represents a shift in the business model. As others have said, free country, go for it. But time to update at least this section of the website:
We Are Here To Serve You
Vinous is a small business created for our subscribers. It is a pretty simple model. Tell us what you think. We are here to serve you and will always strive to make your experience with Vinous better.
The price seems shockingly high to me, perhaps only suitable for the large-scale retailers, creating yet another disparity in the marketplace that I did not think about.
Right on. 100% agree.
Antonio Baloney might be the greatest Averyism of all time!! How did he not know this would screw the consumer? I’m so glad I never subscribed!
![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}