By Larry

December 7, 2005 3:31 AM | Link to this

Cadillac? What if Beringer or Mondavi wanted to sponsor the list, LOL!!! Shanken and the Spectator will happily accept any\all the advertising $$$ they can get (short of porn sites). The other alternative is to go the Parker route, and accept NO advertising.

By Niki

December 6, 2005 8:26 PM | Link to this

This is off-topic (not wine related) but in response to MJ’s comment asking if there are any rock and roll bands that haven’t sold out, I’ll answer Tom Petty. Tom Petty is very adamant about NEVER selling out, and doesn’t even have corporate sponsors for his tours. And in response to Paul’s suggestion that the federal government look for sponsorship deals, I’ll point out that some folks might wonder if the war in Iraq has been sponsored by Halliburton… Cheers, Niki

By Paul

December 6, 2005 2:19 PM | Link to this

For some reason, I don’t see a problem with this type sponsorship — at least not when Football and Baseball stadiums are named for sponsors, basketball arenas are named for sponsors, and virtually every NASCAR vehicle has sponsor logos painted all over it. Maybe if the federal government looked for sponsorship deals, we might all pay less taxes. I wonder how much Chevy would pay to have the “Chevy White House” or Coke to have the “Coke Pentagon”? Or perhaps Pfizer would like to have the “Pfizer Food and Drug Administration.”

By cathy

December 6, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

I’m rolling on the floor here— Bob cracks me up. “I’m lovin’ it” indeed. On the other hand, the Wine Spectacle is not a non-profit mag, is it? I guess they wanted a way to pay for that glossy pull-out. NO-it wouldn’t in a million years inluence me to want to buy a cadillac. But I can’t remember the last time any magazine advertiser prompted me to buy something I wouldn’t have wanted anyway. Here’s a fun quote from an interesting article on Slate.com regarding the Top 100 wine thingy: The Wine Spectator “appears tailored to attract two groups of wine drinkers: trophy hunters and people fairly new to oenophilia…” see http://www.slate.com/id/2075720/

By MJ

December 6, 2005 9:46 AM | Link to this

The Cadillac/Spectator tie in makes sense to me since the Spectator readership, I would imagine, fits nicely with the demographics that Cadillac would be trying to reach. Personally, I am still much more confused and disturbed with the use of Led Zeppelin music in the Cadillac TV ads. Are there any rock and roll bands that haven’t sold their soul to corporate America yet?

By wine-o

December 6, 2005 9:41 AM | Link to this

It is a sad fact that the wine world has become a global vehicle (no pun intended) for innocuous things such as corporate sponsorship and product tie-ins, as well as more shameful practices such as influential advertising, hostile takeovers and strong-arm tactics. The Speculator has long been accused by winemakers of offering better reviews for advertising dollars. The TJ article should be example enough that large companies that carry exclusive brands (C. Shaw, King Shag, et al.) will limit quality, selection and individual care when it comes to small-production wines. If Glazer’s has their way large companies such as TJ will be the only place that wine is sold, and it will all hail from the Glazer mass-market portfolio. Long live the small producer!!

By Bob

December 6, 2005 9:34 AM | Link to this

Well… certainly (b) applies and (a) does not therefore the answer can’t be (d). I suspect that (c) must be partially true or they would not have done it. The whole “sponsored byâ€? situation to me is pathetic. Would anyone actually be influenced to buy a Cadillac because they saw them sponsoring the top 100 wines. I guess putting up with these ‘affronts’ is just part of today’s commercial scene. Maybe this too will pass if the advertisers determine that they are not effective. At least we were spared “I’m lovin’ itâ€?. Don’t get me started on the foolishness of the top 100 wines in the first place.