Perrotti-Brown to launch her own publication

[Marcus_Dean]

Lisa Perrotti-Brown MW launches ‘fiercely independent’ wine publication

Lots of interesting details here, but this stood out:

… Speaking to db last week ahead of the official launch of the new publication, Perrotti-Brown said that she and [her 50-50 partner Swedish photojournalist Johan Berglund] “had been playing with so many names” for the title, but “it was The Wine Independent that came to us, because it seemed to say exactly what we wanted.”

Continuing, she told db, “I don’t want to point fingers at anyone else’s business in particular, but people don’t know what’s happening behind the scenes of so many wine criticism publications, unless you’re in the business, and then you are like, ‘oh my God’.”

She added, “A consumer reading a publication that tells you what you should and shouldn’t buy has no idea there are other agendas behind the scenes, so we are saying we are independent in the name, there is never going to be any wriggle room on that, there is never going to be any compromise on integrity, and that comes with us [Perotti-Brown and Berglund] being majority shareholders, and the others being very much in agreement with our ethos – no-one is going to get greedy; we want to remain completely unbiased.”

Indeed, in the press release on the title’s launch, which was sent to db last week, the new publication is said to “return to the high ethical standards initially championed by Robert M. Parker, Jr. back when he started The Wine Advocate in 1978,” noting that “a reputable wine criticism publication should not accept money from any other wine-related entities” …

it is rumored that Coates would pick up gratis a case of Chambertin at Rousseau as he left after each annual tasting . . .

I heard…
The boot (trunk) of the Jaguar was left open when he arrived for a tasting at quite a few wineries.

[ToddFrench]

You guys are all far too easily seduced by the sudden appearance of the possibility of juicy insider gossip.

The founder of this illustrious website allegedly has a penchant for gossip. He’s also lazy and has a narrow agenda.

That’s what people have told me! I didn’t know these things about myself until I was told

[Dennis_Borczon]

We already have a perfectly good place for loose rumors, gossip, ignorant opinions, and petty grammar arguments right here!

[ToddFrench]

We already have a perfectly good place for loose rumors, gossip, ignorant opinions, and petty grammar arguments right here!

AND an ‘advanced search function’ as they brag about!

[Mark_Golodetz]

There is a book by Andrew Barr called Wine Snobbery detailing some of this. I seem to remember it led to a law suit.

[Cris_Whetstone]

What exactly is she saying about team Wine Advocate with this quest for purity?

As others have mentioned, I don’t see how she has the following or clout to really give this traction. The supposed useful search thing sounds like what plenty of retailers do with tags and shelf talkers. Given that those sorts of descriptors are largely subjective in nature this is hardly useful or unique. It sounds a lot more like sales which is supposed to be what she is trying to be independent of.

Good luck to her. I just wish there was a better vision and idea behind this. Saying you’re not like those bad people you won’t name isn’t a very high pedestal to gain attention from.

[David_K_o_l_i_n]

We already have a perfectly good place for loose rumors, gossip, ignorant opinions, and petty grammar arguments right here!

AND an ‘advanced search function’ as they brag about!

[Neal.Mollen]

We know she will have at least ONE subscriber - Neal - because they have “groundbreaking new search capabilities”

Think of all the times wine publication subscribers lamented that the search capabilities were so not-groundbreaking, only ‘regular’ capabilities like when you enter a word or set of words, you get results that show you those words or sets of words.

ANY search capability would be ground-breaking for SOME sites I could name (but valor prevents me from doing so).

Refresh my memory: didn’t LPB personally engineer some shady pay to play deal with their stillborn sake coverage way back when? And wasn’t TWA doing pay-for-attendance wine dinners while she was running the joint?

Like Mark, I am not especially interested in her wine opinions as we don’t seem to value the same things, but what really bothers me about this is that by pretending to remain above the fray, but not naming those doing shameful things at other pubs, she manages to elevate her own ethics while trying to raise serious questions about ALL of her competitors, whether they are doing customers dirty or not.

Unless she is claiming to be the only honest wine critic on the planet in which case hell no

[M.Kaplan]

.

[Ian_Sutton]

Just FYI Parker started the Advocate railing against the English writers, many from the trade, who dominated the wine scene then.

and indeed I saw her pitch as trying to replicate that message against the current establishment. Let’s hope she delivers on that better than Parker did, avoiding the ethical own goals that set TWA on its downward path, and drove their forum to extinction.

I daresay there are some beans she can spill about TWA and her fellow employees from that time. Whether she can avoid the questions about why she said nothing then is possibly a different matter.

[JDavisRoby]

You guys are all far too easily seduced by the sudden appearance of the possibility of juicy insider gossip.

The founder of this illustrious website allegedly has a penchant for gossip. He’s also lazy and has a narrow agenda.

At least he doesn’t have the palate of a yak!

[Mattstolz]

I am surprised that everyone seems to think this is a call out of a single critic or publication as being overly influenced in their decisions. I always kinda figured it was taken for granted that they all have ads in their publications that probably wouldn’t be there to advertise scores in the 80s, or have top 100 lists that have mid 90s scoring wines on them for a reason, or 100 other things that make this whole group more than a little biased. am I reading this correctly to assume that people think galoni is somehow more bought than suckling? or (insert name of other critic thats not William kelley here)

[JDavisRoby]

What is wrong with a wine rating publication hosting a wine tasting?

Admittedly, I never attended those that are being discussed but I would find being able to attend and compare my palate side by side with a published reviewer to be extremely helpful and fun. I guess I could see where it could become too commercialized, but on its face doesn’t seem to be an indicator of a reviewers lack of independence.

[Robert.A.Jr]

You guys are all far too easily seduced by the sudden appearance of the possibility of juicy insider gossip.

The founder of this illustrious website allegedly has a penchant for gossip. He’s also lazy and has a narrow agenda.

At least he doesn’t have the palate of a yak!

He idolizes me. Trust me.

[ToddFrench]

The founder of this illustrious website allegedly has a penchant for gossip. He’s also lazy and has a narrow agenda.

At least he doesn’t have the palate of a yak!

He idolizes me. Trust me.

Who doesn’t, when you really think about it?

[Keith_Levenberg]

The “consumer advocate” thing was Parker’s schtick, so everyone trying to step into his shoes has to do the same little song and dance about avoiding conflicts of interest, but the one thing they’ll never do is actually pay for the wine they’re reviewing. They’re independent to the extent consistent with showing up at Lafite, Petrus, and DRC and expecting free wine.

[J_Rock]

I don’t know where people are getting Galloni form her statement or saying her statement is controversial/dramatic or “catty.” She says other wine publication have business models that, at the least, necessarily create conflicts of interest, if they’re not downright willfully unethical with respect to their purported advocacy for the consumer.

[P_L_owet]

Subscriber-only model makes sense in today’s world assuming she has the name recognition or can benefit off of her experience at WA.

Actually, I’m worried that the subscriber-only model is NOT economically feasible. It seems like the best known reviewer “publications” are profitable only by monetizing their influencer profile with events, merchandising, ads, and/or “special access”. All of the side revenue creates potential conflicts of interest. I don’t see how a new venture will viably overcome this barrier to “independence”.

Given the inherent conflicts, a subscriber can’t rely solely on editorial rules/regulations; one needs to believe in a reviewer’s integrity. It’s too easy otherwise to throw unsubstantiated accusations. (See recent threads on 2019 Napa and 2020 smoke taint. Fine to disagree, but why did so many posters question particular reviewers’ motives? I suspect that most people throwing innuendo do not subscribe to the targeted publication.)
Regards,
Peter

[Neal.Mollen]

I don’t know where people are getting Galloni form her statement or saying her statement is controversial/dramatic or “catty.” She says other wine publication have business models that, at the least, necessarily create conflicts of interest, if they’re not downright willfully unethical with respect to their purported advocacy for the consumer.

you don’t think that kind of statement about your competitors is dramatic?

[Neal.Mollen]

Subscriber-only model makes sense in today’s world assuming she has the name recognition or can benefit off of her experience at WA.

Actually, I’m worried that the subscriber-only model is NOT economically feasible. It seems like the best known reviewer “publications” are profitable only by monetizing their influencer profile with events, merchandising, ads, and/or “special access”. All of the side revenue creates potential conflicts of interest. I don’t see how a new venture will viably overcome this barrier to “independence”.

Given the inherent conflicts, a subscriber can’t rely solely on editorial rules/regulations; one needs to believe in a reviewer’s integrity. It’s too easy otherwise to throw unsubstantiated accusations. (See recent threads on 2019 Napa and 2020 smoke taint. Fine to disagree, but why did so many posters question particular reviewers’ motives? I suspect that most people throwing innuendo do not subscribe to the targeted publication.)
Regards,
Peter

I suppose it depends on what you consider to be “profitable.” From all appearances Gillman and Meadows make living and to the best of my understanding (I subscribe to neither) they don’t take ads or do the other revenue-enhancing things that outside investors might feel necessary