Not really imho. considering scores get published quickly onto websites like Farr, for example, you dont need to be a paying member of Vinous to be aware of his thoughts on a wine.
a little unclear to me still - was this âopenlyâ shared? Was it not leaked by someone who was offered to be a part of the preview club first?
Curious to get the record straight mentally, as such
It was not openly shared. In fact just the opposite
1 Like
Well thatâs $12,000 a month in the bag then⌠Ker-ching!
No vote from me. Like many I used *critics as a crutch before I learnt it was my palate, not theirs that mattered. Hence from my own perspective, he can do what he likes. I never saw him as a customer champion, just someone wanting to make a good living from telling others his opinion, and having them trust him more than their own palates.
I suspect this will be a âWizard of Ozâ moment for many though - the moment the curtain is drawn back to reveal the reality.
- Iâm not against still reading about wine, but itâs now very much in the wine writer sphere, with a very select group who I might be motivated by. Chief amongst those is Ian dâAgata, someone whose love of wine and all that surrounds the making of it, shines through strongly. In his way heâs still bad for us consumers, because his enthusiasm is barely contained, and that enthusiasm does rub off on us. His enthusiasm encourages exploration, rather than curating a highly pointed collection. A thirst for knowledge and experience, with enjoyment of the journey.
I voted Yes.
Is it right? Probably if he uses it as a conduit for additional revenue. I think sometimes people forget that wine critics arenât living some monk life on a hillside reviewing and tasting wine for the worlds benefit. If this option brings in revenue and thus profit, why not?
Am I going to spend the money, no. Absolutely not. But someone who values the information will.
TW
This is really a fascinating thread. I not only voted yes, I think that Galloni would be a fool not to offer a pay-to-preview service. The only possible harm to consumers would be those that, prior to this service, read the scores the second they were made public and rushed out to buy some wine that got a surprisingly high review before the retailer might bump the price. That would be about 0.000001% of the wine buying world. All this does is shift around in the supply chain a little bit who is able to capture the extra value that is being generated the Galloni generated scores. And since AG is the one creating this value, why should he leave all of that money on the table for the wholesalers or retailers?
For those that cancelled their subscriptions, did you originally subscribe for the scores or the content? Based on the generally high level of discourse on WB related to wine (as opposed to the low level of discourse on other subjects) I would have thought that the scores were an afterthought, at most, to the typical Berserker. That content hasnât changed.
1 Like
Haha yes, thats a funny ass post, love it!
Why does Galloni move wine markets?
Because heâs an accurate, consistent wine critic?
Because heâs developed a loyal following among wine geeks?
Both?
Would Galloni still move markets if Wine Geeks and the average wine consumer no longer thought he was a premier wine critic?
Would businesses still be interested in his $2000/month premium subscription if he had no regular $20/month subscribers?
1 Like
Yes.
He has the freedom to offer. Readers have the freedom to decline.
1 Like
Might be that I misread the other post.Thought it was made available on vinous? If not, disregard point 1. Regardless, thanks for getting that point straightened out.
Are equities market analysts allowed to sell previews to their recommendations before they are made public? Seems like a similar situation.
I donât care about scores. If he can get people to pay, good for him.
one should be clear, though, an analyst does NOT get access to isnide information when forming their preview/recommendation/report.
I see that as being quite different to the wine critics, who DO get to taste the product. That, for me, is the âinside knowledgeâ.
The equivalent to the stock market analyst would be the dude who cruises cellar tracker, knows in detail about production, likely lifetime, etc, and generates report and output, without having actually tasted the wine themselves
If an equity analyst got inside information, and then sold that as a service to people before they published it publicly (lets say, the full year financial results for example) - theyâd be going to prison pretty quickly
I voted yes
Not sure the consumer is affected at all by this business decision (they already are impacted by the scores)
All agree scores drive prices up. That is what is happening now. Two days earlier for some retailers to know the scores will really not impact the consumer (It happens now)
What it does do is give the retailer an advantage over other retailers to place larger orders on those higher scoring wines they know will sell quickly. Yes and raise prices for some wines that they are already doing. That is the value not all this other speculation that already happens. Winners and âlosersâ will be among the retailers not the consumer That is why the retailers are willing to pay and see the value
Yea I posit again that the framing of the question really skews the issue at hand. Most of us free market people will never say it is âwrongâ with what he or anyone does with their business, so long as it is legal. The question is whether him doing this compromises the (perhaps naively-anointed) credibility and integrity that many of us want from critics on any subject. To me this is an inherent conflict of interest, making him more and more of a shill for the industry rather than a source for consumers for credible information. While I do not subscribe, if I did, I would immediately be out. He sold out.
6 Likes
This
Yes, it seems like many people are reading the question as: âis it his rightâ, while I think the OP meant, âis it ethically rightâ.
2 Likes
Yup.
BTW, love the OPâs signature, so apropos to this issue
âOur integrity is not for sale." - Graeme MacDonald
Too bad some others in the industry donât think more like that.
1 Like
He is not going to lose many subscribers. But even if he did, the number of subscribers pales in comparison to shelf-talkers, online quotes etc. Plus he does not publish his list of subscribers.
while i dont think its right (and voted so), it is a pretty high premium for the information. how many times does that investment even really pay off for a retailer? most of the time, the wines that get scores where it would make a difference are already expensive. the ones where there could really be big price jumps are not gonna make up a 2k difference very easily (thinking of times like the Sonoma Hillsides 100point score). most cali cabs release with the scores already out, most bordeaux that are gonna get big price bumps are bought en primeur, and Galloni doesnt hand out big scores in Burgundy. Hes also typically already scored a Barolo 2-3x before its even released so it doesnt really help anyone there either.
I mostly just dont see how a 2k price tag per month gets justified.
AG must be quite reassured that on WB, not Vinous, he actually has 44% approval, unless his entire family, employees, friends plus the entire staff of all the businesses which already signed up are taking turns to vote!
Anyway, the Doubting Thomases are right in one respect - if this caper doesnât produce extra profits for those willing to sign up, they will drop it like a stone so it will be back to square one - and we will see if the Vinous business model really is flawed or if the whole thing was a scam.