By Mike Duffy

September 17, 2006 7:41 PM | Link to this

Ann should do a simple test. A nice looking one-page mailing. One with well-written stuff, one with “Parker ratings” and see which yields better results. Catalog/Direct is all about test, test, and test some more. From her perspective as a retailer, she should do what generates sales. After developing some history with a client, then try “if you liked X, then try Y”, which is the real value that a good retailer offers their customers.

By Gerald Weisl, wine merchant

September 14, 2006 5:35 PM | Link to this

For many people, the world of wine is a jungle. I can’t blame a consumer for wanting to have to relatively unbiased advice. On the other hand, many people neglect to read the tasting notes and focus solely on the numerical score in making a purchasing decision. Our shop, located in the San Francisco Bay Area, is one of the few that does not post reviews, medals, scores or accolades from third party sources. We are “wine merchants� and, as such, taste and select the wines we have in the shop. There are about a thousand, or so, different wines to choose from and of those, there is but a handful of wines we carry due to customer demand (Far Niente and Cakebread being good examples of wines we don’t think are worthy of their lofty price tags or our recommendation, but their marketing efforts are strong enough that consumers request these bottles). We write all of our own point-of-sale material, have an infrequent wine-letter and a humungous, very personal and opinionated web site. We travel to top wine growing regions and are knowledgeable about off-the-beaten-path wines and wine values. And we know about the culinary arts, as well, so matching up wine with food is a major part of our helping customers. Were we to adhere to offering only wines with high numerical scores, we would not be offering good selections from the Beaujolais region, for example, nor would we have much in Kabinett level German wines since even the best of these classic market segments tend to garner scores in the low to mid-80s. (( Why are we using the ‘yardstick’ of Cabernet Sauvignon to evaluate wines made of Gamay Noir?? )) When sales reps arrive to pour wines for us, we request they not recite numerical scores or medal information. We wish to taste and evaluate for ourselves and for our customers. “Robert Parker is not a customer here,� I tell them, “Nor does he ‘work’ in the shop, so while I read his publication, I prefer to buy wines based upon my experience, not his.� We buy hundreds of dollars’ worth of ‘samples’ each month in hopes of making new discoveries. Most sales reps have quotas for wines which may be good enough for sale in a grocery store to the average wine drinker, but we cater to a more discerning palate. As a result, few reps have wines which will ‘work’ in our shop. Another issue with various wine critics: Few of them actually buy wine. Most accept sample bottles provided by the winery or wine import company. My “tasting notes� on various wines are often quite different from the descriptors used by some critics, for example. I would suspect that some vintners may be sending samples to critics which differ from the wines they actually offer for sale to you and me. Some publications accept money in the form of advertising dollars from companies whose wines they claim to critique objectively. You don’t think there’s subtle (or not-so-subtle) pressure from a company that’s paying your magazine a load of cash in exchange for not only advertising, but for favorable reviews? If wine companies sell wines based upon the numerical scores, then they severely limit the types of wines they can work with. Over the years, the bar keeps getting raised on scores to where a score of 88 to 90 points is not sufficient. Further, wineries seeking to make wines for these critics tend to make wines which often display “extreme� characteristics (“dry� wines with residual sugar, high levels of oak, huge alcohol, curiously dark colors –in red wines-, etc.). These wines are great in the context of a wine-tasting or “beauty contest.� They are often tiresome on the dinner table, however. Of course, there are many consumers these days that drink wine as a ‘cocktail’ beverage and not as an accompaniment to food. If they enjoy a mind-numbing 16% alcohol, slightly sweet,palate-fatiguing jammy Zinfandel, then by all means, that’s what they should drink. A producer of many single vineyard-designated Pinot Noirs sent a message to his wholesale accounts with the praise of a particular journal. I shot a message back to him saying “Live by the scores, die by the scores.� He wrote back saying customers may demand these wines thanks to the favorable reviews. I responded, by saying that if he expects me to buy his wine solely on the basis of the score and review, then he should also send me notes where his wines are not highly praised “so I will know which ones to avoid.� Of course, I was sarcastically emphasizing the notion of “Live by the scores, die by the scores.� If wineries, sales companies and retail shops want to really do their jobs, then perhaps more real “education� and less “cheer-leading� from critics might be appropriate. If you train your customers to buy wine on the basis of a numerical score, then you cannot expect them to buy wines based upon other factors (such as its compatibility with the meal on tonight’s dinner table! =-=- Say, where can I buy a “92 point� lamb chop to go with this 92 point red wine?). I’m sure many readers of this forum have seen the old, classic LynchBob cartoon of a customer tasting a wine in a shop and claiming “This is the most disgusting wine I’ve ever tasted,� with the sales rep responding “It got a 96 point rating in the Wine Advisor.� The final frame has the customer saying “I’ll take a case.� That’s my two-cents’ worth. Your mileage may vary. Gerald Weisl, wine merchant WEIMAX WINES & SPIRITS www.weimax.com in the San Francisco Bay Area market

By TJ

September 14, 2006 5:16 PM | Link to this

With the Luxory of being in CA and able to actually go to a variety of different wine appelations in a matter of a few hours…I’m spoiled. Also, we have Trader Joe’s here and the Charles Shaw is $2 + tax AND TJ’s stocks a TON of wines that are under $10 (Many of which are decent) When telling friends who aren’t into wine I say go to TJ,s and pick up a variety of $2 Chuck and remember the name of the wine you liked. Syrah or Cab. Then go back to TJ’s and TRY other things bottles that have the same type of grape. One of my old bandmates started experimenting with that idea and his girlfriend works for Cost Plus. Employee’s get an extreme discount on wines they are trying to purge out of the store to make room for more/new wines that might sell better/faster. He’s developing his palate using TJ’s and Cost Plus deals. Hopefully soon I can get him out for wine tastings. I haven’t used Parkers scores since…2004 when at Beverages & More to pick up a bottle of Champagne for a friends birthday. I’ve used the recomendations of many wine shop employees and got turned onto some great wnies that way. I used to carry Wine Spectators pocket suggestion guide on varietels/years of buy or store. That helped me pick many good drinkable wines as well. So I use the Parker system when my own knowledge can’t help decide but otherwise I just try based on friend recomendation or guess. Like if it’s a 2001 Napa Cab, it’s probably really good to drink!

By Ken Brown

September 14, 2006 1:49 PM | Link to this

Obviously, wine tasting is very much a matter of personal taste. The best source of information is, without a doubt, our own experience. Failing that, we are forced to rely on people who’s recommendations have been acceptable to us in the past. I think most of us will rely far more on our local retailer than any one else once we have established that kind of confidence in thier abilities. I would suggest to Ann that she hang in there. It will take time for people to recognize her selections.

By Paul

September 14, 2006 1:18 PM | Link to this

Parker probably has his greatest impact on those only marginally interested in wines. If you know little or nothing about wine, and have no better source of information, Parker ratings are a good guide on what to buy. But even those seriously interested in wine can benefit from Parker’s input — sometimes. I’ve been on all sides of this issue at one point in my life or another. Ultimately, we all need to trust our own judgement about what we like and dislike. But we don’t start out at that point. When you’re young and just starting out, NOTHING can replace a knowledgable mentor — whether a retailer or a friend — who can share both passion and knowledge. Too often, however, the mentor forgets one important aspect of winedrinking — everyone’s taste is different. So even more important than sharing his/her passion and knowledge, the mentor must learn the student’s likes and dislikes. Help the student understand which wine components predict the students likes and dislikes. Then (and only then) can the mentor help the student find wines the student will like (as opposed to wines the mentor likes). At this early stage of learning, knowledge about the vineyard, winemaker, terroir, weather conditions, etc., is both facinating and informative. As the old saying goes, knowldege is power. And this knowledge helps the student understand which variables affect his or her likes and dislikes. My experience suggests this needs to come partly from the mentor, and partly from a lot of reading. Once you become comfortable with your own tastes and what you find appealing, if you find Parker’s opinions consistently similar (or dissimilar) to your own, then Parker ratings can be a very important aspect of your wine purchasing strategy. This was certainly the case for me during the late ’80s and very early ’90s. But consistency is the key! At some point, Parker’s recommendations became less predictable. Maybe his tastes changed; maybe my tastes changed; probably a combination of both. At any rate, the less often Parker’s ratings predicted my own likes and dislikes, the less useful his ratings became. Finally, they became virtually useless and I stopped paying any attention to Parker’s ratings. (Note that I never found any consistency with Wine Spectator ratings, so I’ve never paid any attention to them.) Parker, perhaps more than The Spectator, also provides a lot of information about the wines he rates, growing conditions, the harvest, the wine in cask, etc. His books provide good data on the vineyard, grape percentages, winemaking philosophy, etc. So regardless of whether Parker’s ratings are useful, the other information Parker provides will be useful as long as you are actively buying wines. Because that and similar information from other sources; your own history of liking/disliking particular wines from particular vineyards; and, for those wines you’ve actually tasted, your tasting opinions, are the keys to making informed buy/no buy desicions. I have to admit, though, that now that I am not actively buying wines, my perspective has changed again. Now, my primary concern is whether I like a wine or not. Secondary to that, if the wine is from my cellar or someone else asks my opinion, I’m concerned about whether a wine is improving, holding steady, or in decline. If improving, when should it be tasted again. When will it peak? If holding or in decline, how much longer does it have? How fast does the wine need to be consumed? And finally, if from my own cellar, is it a wine I want to share with my friends, or swill at home (the latter, primarily wines that are drinkable, but not really all that enjoyable). All the experts in the world can’t help with that assessment (unless they happen to be right there tasting the same wine). And since you are talking about a particular wine stored in a particular cellar, knowledge about the wine, the vineyard, the winemaker, etc. has very little significance. So Parker and other pundits have little usefulness at this point in my wine life.

By MJ

September 14, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Have to weigh in briefly on this one. People love purchase confirmation, especially in wine and that can be in the form of a Spectator rating, Parker rating, shelf talker or merchant recommendation. If I am dining out and the server is enthusiastic about the special for that night, I am quite likely to buy it. If they can recommend a good wine choice to go with it, I am likely to take their advice if it sounds like a nice match. I am sorry that it has started out frustrating for Ann, but I think that ultimately, customer by customer, she will start to win them over. What defines her selections are her personal knowledge of the wines, her experience in the business, her superior level of service and her passion and enthusiasm for the wines that she recommends. It DOES make a difference to a lot of wine buyers and I think that she might also have something else going for her in that I saw yesterday that a study of wine consumer buying habits points to the fact that they are increasingly becoming more adventurous and have actually shifted away from their reliance/purchases of big brands over the last year. Those are the type of customers that I think she will eventually reach and who will end up hearing her message loud and clear. Finally, it has to succeed, because Ann is so good at what she does. Keep preaching the gospel of wine…You will build a congregation soon enough! Best of luck.

By wine-o

September 14, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

I think Niki is on the right track here. Too much of wine is now thought of in terms of “commodities” and a wine’s resale value on the internet is directly related to the scores. As a retailer I can tell you that there is a large and growing segment of winedrinkers who want to know the story behind the wine, about the people involved, the unique soil types, why the vineyard is named for One-Thumb Bob, etc. But a vast majority of people who buy high end wine are only interested in the bragging rights involved in acquiring something that got a 96 and they only make 400 cases. It is the “My Ferrari is better than your Porsche” syndrome. You can’t tell me that a young wine upon release, a wine that is a fiery mess of tannins, oak and high alcohol, that it is an enjoyable wine, yet those are the ones that sell. The wine will never get the 20 years in the cellar that it needs to soften and mature, and many people aren’t interested in a $100 wine that will drink great now but doesn’t have the score attached to it. It seems sometimes that no matter how much I talk up the producer, or the vineyard, or WHY it is such a special wine, if it has not been rated high by MR. New World then the customer can’t pull the trigger. Sad. There is hope in the internet information revolution. More sources of info will lessen the impact of certain palates and opinions. One can only hope that people will try new things and trust their own judgement over some guy who made a lot of money on his opinions.

By Niki

September 14, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Mark, I think there is a difference between wine geeks who search out blogs and other internet sources to read about wine, and yuppies who just want to buy “the best”. Many folks don’t have the time or interest to search for good wine, and they find the fruit and oak driven Parkerized wines to be just fine, thankyouverymuch. Also, some folks, IMHO, are more interested in status than in developing their own palate. For all of those reasons, many folks will just look at the points and buy wine accordingly. For the rest of us, I think a well-written wine descripter may trip the balance between buying and not buying, although sometimes I suspect we’re in the minority. Personally, if something gets high points from Parker, I’m less likely to buy it… Cheers, Niki

By Radman

September 14, 2006 9:40 AM | Link to this

Unfortunate as it may be Parker’s rating is an important tool for most of us that are not privy to the ever growing number of wine lables exploding around us. For myself he does provide choices that I have to say are rarely wrong. For the retailers I would say this is a good thing because when I do come look for those wines I will more likely then not also pick up something that they recomend out of their stock. Knowledge is always a good thing be it from a national source such as Parker or a single retailer as far as I am concerned. What ever gets be to the good juice is the end result. I would add one last comment to Ann. Do not despair. Yes, we sometimes come in blinders and the dreaded yellow pamphelet but it gives you a chance to turn us away from the “dark side” and once we get to know your list of what to get the smart ones will also start using your list.

By Erwin Dink

September 14, 2006 8:20 AM | Link to this

Parker is dead.