Antonio Galloni launches preview scoring.

[Robert.A.Jr]

Did this “email” and “offer” go to trade and industry organizations as well?

[Mason_H]

All this does is make it clear who Vinous’s customer is: retailers. Releasing scores at the same time works in the consumers’ favor because they can snatch up high scoring bottles before the market has time to reprice (if that’s your thing). Releasing to the retailers first is obviously in the retailers’ favor.

That said, I’m not sure it affects his independence because the scores aren’t influenced by the retailers or producers - at least not because of this.

One thing this shows is it’s hard to make money rating wines. I’m much more sympathetic to the events as a revenue stream than this, which is quite a turnoff to me (I’m a subscriber).

[Andy_Sc]

I guess, we’ll be soon seeing Neil Martin moving on (again)…

[John_Morris]

Not good. If true, it certainly reflects on independence in journalism. Or the lack thereof.

How so? I frankly don’t get that at all.

Critics can do whatever they want. That’s true independence.

Ian - You’re right, favoring retailers and distributors over consumers does not necessarily reflect on the integrity of the criticism. In theory, the critics could still pull no punches in their reviews (but see below). Still, giving advance access to scores to the trade makes it clear that these publications are no longer devoted to serving consumers.

All this does is make it clear who Vinous’s customer is: retailers. Releasing scores at the same time works in the consumers’ favor because they can snatch up high scoring bottles before the market has time to reprice (if that’s your thing). Releasing to the retailers first is obviously in the retailers’ favor.

That said, I’m not sure it affects his independence because the scores aren’t influenced by the retailers or producers - at least not because of this.

But, as the events businesses show, currying favor with producers is now an important component of the business model.

[ToddFrench]

I’m thinking Argentina and Australia are among two countries spending a TON of money right now to move the glut of wine inventory in their regions, and the best place to do so it the United States. 37 of James Suckling’s top 100 were from those two countries. Take that in.

I’m guessing these two, and other countries, will soon take advantage of every ‘advantage’ they can get in our marketplace. It’s business, I guess.

[Mason_H]

All this does is make it clear who Vinous’s customer is: retailers. Releasing scores at the same time works in the consumers’ favor because they can snatch up high scoring bottles before the market has time to reprice (if that’s your thing). Releasing to the retailers first is obviously in the retailers’ favor.

That said, I’m not sure it affects his independence because the scores aren’t influenced by the retailers or producers - at least not because of this.

But, as the events businesses show, currying favor with producers is now an important component of the business model.
[/quote]

Sure, but there is some value to consumers in the events (access to producers, verticals, back vintages, exclusivity etc.). Are you saying that by scoring a given producer’s wines high, that producer is more likely to participate in an event which benefits Vinous financially? That could be…

[Ian_Dorin]

Not good. If true, it certainly reflects on independence in journalism. Or the lack thereof.

How so? I frankly don’t get that at all.

Critics can do whatever they want. That’s true independence.

Ian - You’re right, favoring retailers and distributors over consumers does not necessarily reflect on the integrity of the criticism. In theory, the critics could still pull no punches in their reviews (but see below). Still, giving advance access to scores to the trade makes it clear that these publications are no longer devoted to serving consumers.

All this does is make it clear who Vinous’s customer is: retailers. Releasing scores at the same time works in the consumers’ favor because they can snatch up high scoring bottles before the market has time to reprice (if that’s your thing). Releasing to the retailers first is obviously in the retailers’ favor.

That said, I’m not sure it affects his independence because the scores aren’t influenced by the retailers or producers - at least not because of this.

But, as the events businesses show, currying favor with producers is now an important component of the business model.

Where I’m not sure I agree with you is that this is somehow “anti-consumer”. Knowing that you can go online the day the review comes out and buy the wine (especially if it’s obscure) is helpful, no?

[Joe_Chanley]

won’t the distributor and retailer have advanced notice to jack the price of the wine on a high scoring bottle that jumped from 94 to 99 points year over year due to the advance notice? if they didn’t have that notice, the savvy customer doesn’t have to pay a sudden premium.

[Mark_Golodetz]

How would this look if we were talking about stocks, and the idea behind it is that scores in themselves move markets.

[HoosJustinG]

Score debate will always rage on. If you don’t think the end result of high scores was selling wine, I’m not sure what to tell you. The selling of early access - IMO - seems to be attempting to take back some of the profits Vinous generates for retailers by capitalizing on their influence. I don’t really see it as shady, so much as trying to capture some of the revenue they generate for others – and therefore perfectly logical.

[Anthony_Sanford]

How would this look if we were talking about stocks, and the idea behind it is that scores in themselves move markets.

That’s pretty much what analysts do - for the stock analogy, I think it would be akin to analysts providing their reports/recommendations to certain people prior to making them public for a fee.

[Jurgen_Steinke]

Justin,

but why should a wine lover subscribe to Vinous knowing that this subscription is not to my advantage but the total opposite? I have to pay a premium for my wine due to their “service”.

[Markus_S]

To be balanced, this has only been posted on here for a few hours and it’s not like Vinous folks are monitoring this site 24/7. Hopefully Antonio, or someone else from Vinous, comes on here to comment

When do we bring out the pitchforks? I hope it’s soon. I just got a new pitchfork.

Good question. I’d say after a reasonable amount of time has passed, which is pretty vague and I myself don’t really have a clear answer as to what constitutes that unfortunately. Though I do have some nice shiny torches at the ready to go with your new pitchfork when the time comes

You want some feathers and tar to go with that?

[Andy_Sc]

How would this look if we were talking about stocks, and the idea behind it is that scores in themselves move markets.

That’s pretty much what analysts do - for the stock analogy, I think it would be akin to analysts providing their reports/recommendations to certain people prior to making them public for a fee.

That’s so wrong! Analysts are by law not allowed to share their reports just with some players in the market. In fact, that’s why all rating and estimate changes happen before market opening, so that every client has (and also non clients through the press reporting on it), gets the information of the rating/estimate change not only before trading starts but actually has enough time before the opening to process it.

This new Vinous policy is the equivalent to insider trading which is highly forbidden.

[J_Rock]

What am I missing here (genuinely curious)? How does releasing his reviews early to one segment lessen his objectivity or independence? Is he giving early readers a chance to object to the score/review and have it changed before the general public see it?

[Mikael_OB]

Believe I recall a somewhat rantish moment a while back, with reference to a walking salesman

[HoosJustinG]

Justin,

but why should a wine lover subscribe to Vinous knowing that this subscription is not to my advantage but the total opposite? I have to pay a premium for my wine due to their “service”.

A very valid question all should be asking themselves. I think part of the answer comes down to why you subscribe. If you want/like the long form articles, this really doesn’t affect you … in fact, if anything, making more money should allow them to produce more content like that. If, OTOH, you use scores to speculate and buy wine for resale, you’re probably upset. But scores are usually either available or “findable” for free, already. At some point, AG/V have to be expected to try and monetize some part of the scoring process, and really all they can do is priority access.

Of all my “wine friends,” AFAIK, only one other person subscribes to a wine publication (WA, FWIW). So I imagine it’s hard for review publications to survive with that type of market penetration … or maybe I just know cheapskates.

[R_Frankel]

A few things to add to this:

First it’s not clear if this is to be offered to producers, importers or retailers (or other members of the value chain). Vinous has not clarified.

Second, IMHO whichever element of the chain that gets early access gets advantage. If they pay for this info, they must believe there is enough value in it for their businesses to generate more profit.

• producers could use this to make final price adjustments, or allocation decisions
• middlemen could buy more or less (big scores? Call the producer and buy another 100 cases!).
• retailers could do the same, and adjust pricing. Plus get marketing, web site, offers, etc. together earlier to get a jump on the competition.
  Any and all members of the pipeline could get value. The ones who participate and put the work in will get advantage over those who don’t. Large scale players for whom the cost is small will get advantage over small players who can’t or won’t pay. Consumers, for sure, will pay more.

[ybarselah]

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.

2K / month.

i figured that. but again, if that’s the market price, seems they’ve shown their hand. unless they can successfully execute on the wine-searcher pricing scheme of increasing until you cancel and then watch your sales drop immediately. though w-s has an advantage here in that they understand how google works and retailers don’t. that knowledge arbitrage is both genius and sad.

edit: adding that if this $2k / month price is real, then the same price for all stores doesn’t make sense. gotta be missing something. feels like this thread is based on a lot of missing info so far.

[R_Frankel]

About independence: I don’t think this (still unclear) product offering from Vinous changes their independence and objectivity. I know many of you think they are shills for (insert ITB member here) already. I don’t. I think they do their best to represent wines with scores and notes honestly and fairly. This new revenue stream doesn’t change that.

I can imagine a Preview middleman calling Antonio to complain about a low score for some producer, wine or vintage about to come out. He asks Antonio to raise the scores, reminding Antonio that this great producer has a good track record, will surely bounce back, would be sorely damaged, etc. etc. Antonio is a fighter - in this hypothetical example I’d think he’d tell the client to f*$* off. Maybe he’d do so politely, but he’d do it anyway.

But, and this is a big one, just because these reviewers try to be fair, honest and objective doesn’t mean they are. For sure they are influenced by all their friends in the industry. They are influenced by their tastes, ideas, experiences and preferences. They are susceptible to getting excited or disappointed. In other words they are human.

I am a Vinous subscriber. I find value in the articles, the backgrounders, the reviews, and the points. Preview won’t change that. Probably wine will cost me (and all the rest of us) more if this product is indeed launched. It will creat market unfairness biased against smaller players and consumers. That sucks, but doesn’t affect my enjoyment and utility as a customer of Vinous. If I find that changes, then I’ll cancel.