Which is to say, whether written by a professional or an amateur, the one standard for writing about wine today is that it should be entertaining and fresh, maybe even funny, and, at the very least, relatable to its audience—the average drinker, the collector, whomever. It should invite people in and allow them to explore their palates and be curious. Perhaps most of all, as Arnold and Rosen know with their e-newsletters, wine writing should, on top of all these things, make use of social media, too.
Just look at Gary Vaynerchuk, who turned his day job at a family wine store in New Jersey into a digital-media empire through lively, high-energy online TV episodes. Vaynerchuk found so much success, in fact, he wrote a self-help book about it. Is he the next Robert Parker? No. Not yet, anyway. But what Vaynerchuk did (and is still doing, it should be added) does prove a point: All it takes is for a wine critic or blogger to have a unique idea—a Daily Candy-like newsletter for wine, say—to create next big thing. No print publication necessary.
I think reviews written by the masses benefit the wine industry. Working closely with French producers, it is important for us to know what the market really thinks of our wines and who is really drinking them.
Pierrick
@pierrickbouquet
#1 Posted by Pierrick Bouquet, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 01:40 AM
Great article! It's interesting to note that there is some effort to discuss this trend among wine writers, as we can see in the Symposium for Wine Writers at Meadowood Napa Valley.
It's also worth mentioning the importance of this trend where wine consumption is growing, for example, Brazil. The majority of the population is not familiar with this kind of product and, therefore, seeks information that is both simple and fun to read.
Again, great article!
#2 Posted by Murilo Thomaz, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 09:48 AM
I'd like to add a few comments to this thoughtful article.
First, there are some errors regarding Wine Spectator. A 1-year subscription to either the magazine or the web site is $49.95; $75 buys a combined subscription to both. Second, much of the content on WineSpectator.com is free to all visitors, including news stories, many wine reviews and our lively Forums discussions.
Finally, I disagree with the assertion that "the one standard for writing about wine today is that it should be entertaining..." That's important, but more important is information that is accurate, comprehensive and informed by experience. I think that is true about all journalism, whether it's about wine or any other subject.
Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator
#3 Posted by Thomas Matthews, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 09:59 AM
Good article! I too am one of the masses of amateur wine bloggers (I do video wine review at thebottlereview [dot] com). In my opinion, the amateurs are even more important than the "pros" like Wine Spectator. WE are the ones that are buying and drinking the wine regularly, and if WE don't like a wine, then who cares what Wine Spectator et. al. think? Publications like that are great for industry news from vineyards, distributors, etc, but in terms of just reviewing and tasting wine - that's up to me to decide what I like!
#4 Posted by Matthew Harrison, CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 12:22 PM
This is an interesting bit of growth that certainly isn't limited to just the wine business, a growth that is worth exploring further. For various other entertainment, educational, or service industries, the proliferation of digital media introduces assorted conflicts between those who refuse to distinguish themselves as cultured hobbyists and those whose specific education and experience in a field may lend a more comprehensive industry-view.
I think there is an immense difference between a "reviewer" and a "critic," personally, and find any mislabeling, lack of distinction, or neglect thereof on the part of the journalist, egregious. This isn't to say these two types of contributors do not benefit the fields they serve in positive or impressionable ways; but only to clarify that I cannot help but feel a sense of deception otherwise.
#5 Posted by Aaron B., CJR on Tue 18 May 2010 at 04:36 PM
NIce piece. Wine media is churning and changing faster than ever. Blogs will continue to gain traction because the information and attitude they offer are far more real-worldly useful than wine mags offer -- as well as more entertaining. Ratings and so-called "buying guides" clearly sinking; watch the trend of retailers forgoing their previous heavy reliance on scores. One more thought: the wine community on twitter is tremendously vibrant. Yet wine apps are proving highly limited. As a result, expect sharing of information/advice via social media to continue ascent.
#6 Posted by Tish, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 10:05 AM
Good synopsis of what has been happening.
What isn't addressed is how one gets paid.
For the most part, the online writing by professional freelancers in wine is work-for-hire with traditional media; even Huffington doesn't pay for blogs. The e-newsletter may gather support, advertising and $ - good luck. Yet, in wine, the general opinion appears to be that only niche experts can go the $ route - and maybe not even then. Parker's erobertparker.com has a $99/yr entry. The popular independent wine bloggers you mention (Yarrow and Heimoff) say one can't make money from a blog. (Heimoff said so again this week.) Heimoff doesn't accept advertising. Vinography does.
Wineries are still trying to sort out who amongst the bloggers can deliver ROI and have jumped on Twitter and Facebook. Some of the blogs noted sell wine as their primary business (Gary V and wineries are the most obvious).
As we become a mobile mass of sip and spitters, the scene will likely change again. And, I'd bet mobile will evolve into a profit model. After all, if Twitter and Facebook can't seem to make a profit online, how in the world can a wine blogger?
BTW, wine may is social but wine humor and satire blogs are rare; try HoseMaster of Wine.
#7 Posted by Kathy, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 11:15 AM
We are in the very early days of this transformation. It will take 10-15 years for it to fully change, i.e. when today's 19-25 year olds reach their prime wine drinking years.and they and their successor generations (plus younger GenX) have become the majority of the wine drinking adult population.
Palate Press has just published an article I wrote on consumer wine buying influences at retail (http://palatepress.com). Blogging shows up but the evidence of it's impact on the average 'high street' wine buyer is still pretty tenuous.
#8 Posted by Paul Rickett, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 12:55 PM
I worked in the traditional wine media for what I think was a pretty terrific magazine for about ten years. Now I import and distribute my own selections in New York City. It seems to me that there's more than enough room for both types of media. The old way may be losing traction to the bloggers, but it will take years for all of this to be figured out. And it's certainly true that many of the new so-called experts are only experts because they say they are, it's also just as true that, to paraphrase Jeff Lefevre, there have been, and still are many, from the old guard who don't know shit about their subject matter either. No harm can come from either. It's only wine, after all.
#9 Posted by Todd Wernstrom, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 01:22 PM
Times are messy for all stripes of wine writers. Whether you are a hobbyist who just loves freebies showing up in the mail, or an established professional, long-tenured at major glossy, life is very different than it was a few years back. I’ve read these debates ever since I started blogging about wine back 05 with my old blog cellarrat. org and I think it’s short sighted to debate if the rabble can storm the castle to topple Mainstream wine media. It almost doesn’t matter until whatever source has amassed enough content to be mined to allow comparative shopping and evaluate a match to our own palates. And considering the mind numbing number of choices out there, no one source can possibly cover them all.
The single most powerful influencer for wine purchases is a trusted recommendation. Wine blog and other print pub reviews can provide good guidance if you trust the writer’s palate and are on a mission to track down a specific wine. However, I think we are evolving to an environment where decision assistance will be delivered at the point of purchase. And by this I don’t necessarily mean consulting my iphone for reviews via one of many apps. but rather you’ll be able to post questions in real time and get trusted recommendations back from your friends and trusted sources. I see a system evolving where I can post a specific choice A vs. choice B to a live feed on cellartracker or via twitter and have someone weigh in on which wine on the list in front of me has the acid profile I want to match my meal. It sounds completely nerdy perhaps but I’ve done it, and I’ve helped others who have posted similar questions.
I’d love some comment on how we look past source of a review and towards how we as consumers and producers can grow and utilize these networks of trusted opinion.
Cheers.
Alan Baker
Winemaker - Cartograph
#10 Posted by Alan Baker, CJR on Wed 19 May 2010 at 03:54 PM
Interesting. I am definitely an amateur critic, and while that may draw some amused smiles, it is noteworthy to point out that the bulk of consumers are everyday Joe (and Jane) Winelovers that know from the moment that beautiful and sometimes velvety part of Heaven hits their lips, whether they're going to like the wine or not. They may not know why, or how wine is made, or care. They only care that they like this varietal over that one, or simply, red more than white. The bottom line is they are the bulk of sales around the world, not the rich wine snob that pays tens of thousands to have very rare, pricey, and long-established wines tucked away in their $50,000 cellar they just had installed. No, the average wine lover has the upper hand when it comes to criticism because it is proven in political elections that average people listen to average and down-to-earth candidates, not elitist, over-educated snobs not in touch with their constituents. Sorry, Thomas Matthews from Wine Spectator, but while experienced, BUT SUBJECTIVE, wine experts labor by the 100 point scale, no point value can say whether a wine TASTES good or not. It simply implies the wine is complex. Not all people are going to like Chateau Margaux because it's $900 and received a 100 points.
#11 Posted by Chris Scates, CJR on Thu 20 May 2010 at 04:13 PM
"Whether written by a professional or an amateur," Bailey says, but he doesn't come right out and define the difference between the two. Presumably he means members of the "old guard"--i.e. the people who get paid to write about wine--are the professionals, while new media bloggers--i.e. those who don't get paid--are the amateurs. Yet I know bloggers who have credentials from WSET and Court of Master Sommeliers and the Society of Wine Educators, and professional writers (i.e. those who get paid) who don't. It's a blurry line.
#12 Posted by Gretchen Roberts, CJR on Fri 21 May 2010 at 09:21 AM
“There are a lot people that don’t know shit about wine and blog about it," actually applies to Jeff Lefevre! Very amusing. He knows practically nothing apart from the ability to occasionally read a newspaper and string two sentences together.
#13 Posted by Harry, CJR on Sun 23 Jan 2011 at 06:53 PM
People don't want to listen to wine experts all the time. And this new generation of wine drinkers is not the type that listen to wine experts, its about their own personal experience. I have a blog that is not for wine snobs or experts its for people that just want to have fun with wine without all the experts and rules.
MegWine
http://notforwinesnobs.blogspot.com/
#14 Posted by MegWine, CJR on Thu 27 Jan 2011 at 03:35 PM