Bellbrook graduation 2012
Fairfield Senior 2012 graduation
Kroger Aquatic Center opens
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2008 > March > 12 > Entry
Wine Spectator defends ad, denies it intended to deceive
Thomas Matthews, executive editor of Wine Spectator magazine, posted a comment yesterday on the Uncorked entry entitled “Did the Wine Spectator intend to deceive saying, essentially, No, it did not. Here is the full text of the executive editor’s comment:
Let me make three comments on this advertisement for Da Vinci wines. First, the editorial staff was not involved in its creation or approval. Second, the words “special promotion” at the top of the page indicate that the content is not Wine Spectator editorial. Third, all the wine reviews cited in the promotion are actual Wine Spectator scores and tasting notes, the result of our own blind tastings. I am sorry if any readers were confused, but I think accusations of “deception” are unjustified. Thomas Matthews Executive editor Wine Spectator
First, I, along with the readers of Uncorked, appreciate the response from the Spectator’s top editor.
Yet after reading Mr. Matthews’ response and the other comments on the Uncorked entry — along with the emails I’ve received from folks who chose not to post comments to the blog but to respond privately — I’m still left with several questions for the magazine’s top editor.
You state that Wine Spectator’s editorial staff “was not involved in (the ad’s) creation or approval.” Would you have approved the ad had you have seen it in advance?
You state quite correctly that the term “special promotion” appears at the top of the second page of the ad. I would also point out that the first page of the two-page ad contains the term “wine everyday” at the top of the page. What does “wine everyday” mean? Why not do as most newspapers do and put the term “paid advertisement” atop every page that is a, well, paid advertisement?
Finally, the elephant in the room here, the question that begs to be asked, is this: If there was no attempt to deceive, why make the ad look so much like editorial content?
As reader MJ points out in his comment, “The problem is that the piece looks exactly like a Spectator article. Usually in advertorials of any kind, in any publication, the type style/layout stands out as identifiably unique from that of the publication.”
Another e-mail commenter who works in a winery noted, “It took me a good while to realize it was advertising. Now, if a wine professional takes a while to sort it out, what about the average reader?”
My readers aren’t shy about letting me know when they feel I’m beating a dead horse, so this will be my last entry on this topic. I’m sure this is of more interest to those of us who have worked in print journalism for decades and have witnessed the increasing sophistication of “advertorials,” or ads masquerading as stories. This caught my eye exactly because it was so well disguised, because I too initially thought it was a “real” Spectator story, because it took the advertorial concept to a new level that deserved exploration and comment
Again, I would think that the nation’s highest-profile wine publication, whose credibility is so important to its wine ratings, would hold itself to a very high standard when it comes to drawing a line between advertising and editorial content in order to protect that credibility.
But hey, that’s just me.
Cheers!
Mark Fisher
TweetGo to my facebook page and click Like to comment.
Comments
By lynn
March 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
As a freelance food and wine writer I have been much annoyed to find these kinds of “advertorials” in my favorite national food magazines. It does indeed take a little practice and discernment for the novice to distinguish between editorial content and advertorials. However, as a frequent contributor to the WS, I must say that over the past ten years, I have experienced Tom Matthews as being absolutely meticulous in his insistence upon both accuracy and integrity from his writers. I would be loathe to suggest any “attempt to deceive” to him. He places too high a value on his personal reputation and that of the mag. And I am always amused by the way in which people love to take cheap shots at the WS.
By MJ
March 12, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
See new WS April 30 2008 edition “advertisement” beginning after James Laube column, page 29. “Exceptional Global Whites”. Are you sure that you are finished with the comments Mark?? :)
By Jean-Marc
March 12, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this
Is this really a debate subject ? For me, wine is everythink but a score !
By Lenn Thompson
March 12, 2008 12:14 PM | Link to this
Of course the ad was meant to deceive, but it’s the advertiser who is trying to pull the fast one, not WS. Most magazines have these sorts of things in them nowadays, but this is the first one I’ve seen in WS that so closely resembles editorial design style. Most magazines that I read regularly use the phrase “Special Advertising Section” to designate these areas. I think “Special Promotion” leaves a bit more room for interpretation. For an editor to say that he didn’t see this ad before it goes out is surprising. Isn’t the editor ultimately responsible for the magazine in its entirety? Regardless of intent/blame/etc. if readers were confused and feel negatively about it, WS should listen and address going forward. That’s where we’ll really see if they even care what we, as readers, say.
By Mark V Marino
March 12, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this
It is a fine line between endorsing advertisers and retaining credibility. My question is why do we put so much confidence in others opinion. People all have different tongues and noses the best evaluation is always yours. If you are experimenting with a new wine buy one bottle or better yet get a taste,and decide for yourself!