Al, true I have not been around the WS for many years.
It is much less appealing now when it is no longer loyal to its foundational intentions-evolution.
50% liquor ads in Dec. seems to undercut its foundations
It’s fair enough to ask for proof and not just insinuation. That said . . . .
WS is not the New York Times.
Second, it’s not at all unusual in parts of the magazine business for favorable coverage to be linked to advertising, even if it’s only with a nod and a wink. Where the advertiser base coincides with the subjects of the coverage, it’s hard to avoid talking up advertisers and soft-pedaling criticism of them. Editorial employees aren’t dumb. They can see that, even if it isn’t made explicit. That’s why there are so many trade publications filled with uncritical, flattering articles.
It’s easier to maintain the wall between editorial and advertising at publications with a broader scope. For example, Vanity Fair writes about celebrities and politics and whatnot, and not about diamonds or fashion labels or liquor or other advertisers.
All of that is relevant to the second bolded part of your post. I doubt anyone at WS sees this as something to “blow the whistle,” particularly since it may just be a shared understanding that you can’t (hypothetically) dump on a Constellation wine.
As for the question of whether it would be unthinkable for WS to risk some reputational damage to maintain their advertisers, I hardly think it would ruin the business.
Absolutely true. But why the shift toward liquor advertising?
Speculation: Maybe wine producers have found that advertising isn’t effective for their products.
Shanken also owns the Whisky Advocate and lots of wine drinkers who buy Spectator probably also buy liquor. As far as effectiveness, fewer eyes means more difficult to be effective, and there are other channels for marketing efforts now (as you know).
-Al
I can see how Shanken can leverage the liquor and cigar advertisers. But the interesting question is, where did all the wine advertisers go?
I can imagine that wine brands are harder to establish with print, particularly in an editorial “environment” that isn’t terribly compelling. How many people will be influenced to my Stinky Skunk merlot by an ad in the WS? I’m not sure.
The consolidation of wine producers may be another factor. It’s a very concentrated market now. By 2011, Gallo, The Wine Group and Constellation already had more than 50% of the market, and they’ve made major acquisitions since. That means the advertising buying decisions are in fewer and fewer hands.
Every wine trade publication has been talking about different marketing channels for several years now. The idea of advertising in a print publication is of decreasing importance, whereas advertising through various social media platforms, and to “influencers” whatever the hell they are, has become more important. Rather than take advice from an authority figure, people get their recommendations from friends, both corpreal and virtual, and people they respect for whatever reason.
So I’m not at all surprised that the WS has advertisements for widely-available liquors. The magazine is still largely devoted to wine. How they pay the bills is based on who they’re selling as their demographic, and apparently that demographic seems to be interested in stuff like Scotch and Bourbon. And cigars.
As to the connection between advertising and positive reviews, it’s easy to make accusations. Maybe it’s the other way around? Maybe you get a good review and it sells some wine and you figure you’ll take out an ad to move some more?
I know some of the reviewers and they’re as circumspect as can be. I don’t doubt that they taste exactly the way they say they do.
All this does is continue to theorize how it might be possible. A great many things are possible, but I don’t want to go around defaming someone’s ethics because theoretically they could have an incentive to do something unethical.
Is there any convincing evidence that they’re in fact doing what they’re routinely accused on this site of doing? If so, I’ve never seen it. If not, I don’t think all the trendy snark on WB about how they sell their ratings for ad dollars is fair.
Another worthy Seiber post.
FYI, John probably has more insight into the magazine/publishing issues than most people on this site.
Still, I haven’t seen the things insinuated here. No affiliation and no financial incentives, just recalling dinners and tastings with a few of the reviewers.
Charlie, Todd, and Alfert of course! Look at their influence in peddling Northern Rhone wines over the last few years!
Chris - As I said, you’re right to demand proof over insinuation. I was addressing your suggestion that WS’s reviews couldn’t be compromised by commercial interests because that would be suicidal from a business standpoint. My point is that it happens all the times with publications that devote their coverage to potential advertisers.
In WS’s case, one indication of the pub’s orientation – toward the industry rather than consumers – is that they rarely say anything critical about a wine or anyone in the wine business. That tells you something about who pays the bills. The fact that they pretty much give away subscriptions is the other tell that they’re entirely dependent on advertisers. That’s not proof that they’re skewing their reviews to favor advertisers, but it supplies a motive.
I do buy that they are in an overall sense going to be more a cheerleader for the wine industry than a scathing critic or adversary of it. It’s a leisure activity/hobby and, while there are some areas worth probing and criticizing (e.g. Burgundy premox - not that I recall WS being much, if any, of a voice for change on that topic), I get that a magazine like Wine Spectator is overall going to be cozy with the industry, and reviews are going to be generally more oriented towards promoting wines.
That’s not the same thing as changing reviews for a specific wine or producer based on them advertising, but I do agree about their overall orientation.