Changes for Retailers wanting to use WA tasting notes

[C_Bowman]

Peter, Silly!
Not cheating but if I’m logged in on my computer and try to log in on my laptop that’s trying to access the site from more than one place and apparently it’s a no-no

[John_Peacock]

Speaking as someone who manages a couple different Social Media platforms for small wineries, this additional requirement and cost could be a huge deterrent. I’m not sure if these wineries will want to spend $200/year to be able to publicize scores/notes. It will definitely come down to if that press is worth the spend, which when you’re selling out of your wines already, might not be worth it. Time to send out some emails and start the conversations…

[Ken_V]

@John Peacock

Speaking as someone who manages a couple different Social Media platforms for small wineries, this additional requirement and cost could be a huge deterrent. I’m not sure if these wineries will want to spend $200/year to be able to publicize scores/notes. It will definitely come down to if that press is worth the spend, which when you’re selling out of your wines already, might not be worth it. Time to send out some emails and start the conversations…

But what if the extra money guaranteed better scores?

[dougwilder]

High profile wineries and retailers will likely adopt this but changing the behavior of small, local retailers and wineries who have used TWA reviews for decades will be difficult to enforce. As the only publication to require this measure it may result in businesses weighing the value of using TWA scores (or wineries to submit their wines) realizing there are alternatives. The first evidence that somebody gets popped will launch a social media tidal wave that won’t reflect well on the new owners. Who are they, anyone know?

[Bruce_Leiser_owitz]

We’ll see how this all plays out, but if a winery or wine retailer only mentions the score given by the WA, I think WA may have a tough time prevailing on the claim that you have to buy a subscription to be able to mention the score.

Think of all the movie ads out there that contain short excerpts (blurbs) from critic’s reviews. Distribution companies don’t pay anything for the right to use those short excerpts in their ads.

Bruce

[Peter_Gatti]

I’m thinking that

1. The new owners have decided/realized that they paid too much
2. They’re noticing that the the revenue curve is trending downward
3. They’re realizing that global critics are becoming less influential and therefore less necessary for any number of reasons
4. They’re trying to maximize revenue
5. Arpy’s laughing all the way to the bank.

my 2 cents worth, and I may be waaaay off base here.

[Randy_Bowman]

@Robert Pollard-Smith

‘Rated 93 points by a formerly highly-regarded ex-Maryland-based wine publication’ ?

Now that is good.

[Robert_Pollard-Smith]

@Randy Bowman

@Robert Pollard-Smith

‘Rated 93 points by a formerly highly-regarded ex-Maryland-based wine publication’ ?

Now that is good.

Feel free to create your shelf-talkers, Randy. Gratis.

[DougS]

@Peter Gatti

I’m thinking that

1. The new owners have decided/realized that they paid too much
2. They’re noticing that the the revenue curve is trending downward
3. They’re realizing that global critics are becoming less influential and therefore less necessary for any number of reasons
4. They’re trying to maximize revenue
5. Arpy’s laughing all the way to the bank.

my 2 cents worth, and I may be waaaay off base here.

I think at least a couple of those are correct, and likely all of them.

This seems to be another in a string of bad decisions by WA. Retailers that do a lot of ecommerce will have to pay, and the $100 will mean nothing to them. I suspect that many other retailers will simply stop posting WA notes on their websites. I agree that this will be bad for WA because they probably get quite a few subscriptions from people who became interested after seeing them cited many times as an authority (sometimes THE authority).