I’ll answer that immediately by saying that I want to be a working wine critic. I would love to be rich and if an opportunity presents itself, trust me when I tell you that I would jump all over it. I have entrepreneurial tendencies, but of the two businesses that I started, one did very well, and as for the other, I went another direction before I could see the fruits of my labor. Neither of those ventures made me rich, but they were great experiences non-the-less.
I have become an established wine critic, although on a small-scale for now, and I hope with a lot of hustle and determination I can put myself on the map as a respected wine dude. I have two wine blogs, a YouTube channel and a full-time job as a wine steward in a very busy store in a tourist destination area. I have thought long and hard about whether or not to become a full-time critic, and thrust myself head-long into writing about wine and traveling the globe in search of stories about the subject. For now, I have decided against that direction for one main reason. I do not want to be at the beck and call of those who sponsor wine trips and send samples to me.
Being on the retail side of things gives me certain liberties that are not available to those who depend on PR companies or wineries who send samples. I have 8-10 sales reps who are more than eager to put samples in front of me on a weekly basis in hopes of getting a shelf spot, a stack on the floor, or especially my “Pick of the Month”. I have no reason to favor one over the other. I like them all, and appreciate their efforts in getting wines for me to try. I am under no obligation to do anything special for any of them.
I believe that Robert Parker Jr. had the right idea in the early days, when he put out a newsletter that did not depend on any outside advertising. As far as all of us know, he funded his own ventures, using his own money that he earned in his lawyer days. We know how things turned out. He became an icon in the wine world, and his periodical The Wine Advocate became the wine bible for many consumers and those in the wine business. He claimed that he never took anything from wineries (sans samples), and as a result, all his reviews were unbiased and not tainted by graft. In later years, some of his contributing writers were found to have excepted gratuitous offers from PR companies and wineries. Although Robert himself was never accused of excepting graft from anyone, the fact that his employees did so made it hard for him to recover from the repercussions (anyone remember the name Dr. Jay Miller?).
I have never liked the idea of someone expecting something from me, in exchange for whatever it is they have to offer. By having a job or business, it allows me the freedom of choice without obligating me to review a wine in a positive light in order to receive incentives in the future. If I don’t like a wine, I will publish it or say it on my YouTube channel. If the winery doesn’t like it, too bad ( fortunately, this doesn’t happen too often). I have many other wines to review without any obligation to anyone. Why? I am in retail, putting me in the driver’s seat. For a wine critic, it is very important to be the driver, not the passenger.
The Wine Spectator is a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. I have a lot of respect for what the Spectator has accomplished over the years, but the fact that they have so much advertising in their journal, certainly taints their efforts. If they think otherwise, they are fooling themselves. How do they lure wineries into advertising in their magazine? I am sure the exposure is part of it, but how about a couple of good reviews? When they put the Marival Rose` in their “Top 100” wines for 2013 (the Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie effort), it was obvious to me that they were looking for an article or advertising from a couple that could certainly boost their popularity. I tasted the rose` and it was good, but hardly qualified to be in the top 100 (I know wine is subjective, but in this case the motive was obvious).
For critics that are full-time (unless they have a lot of dispensable income), to go on global wine adventures and to feature wine stories on wineries around the world, they have to depend on PR (Public Relations) companies or wineries to foot the bill. Is it right for a critic to accept such offers? It depends on how seriously you take what they are writing. Do you follow them because you like their style of prose and their personality? Or, do you really respect them for their objective approach to what they are tasting and grading or scoring in regards to wine? You are the judge, not me.
As far as how I feel about myself, I prefer to be a critic who is in a paying job where wineries are trying to get a space on my floor or shelf. I have accepted certain things from some of my distributors with the understanding that nothing is to be expected in return, simply because I do not depend on them. I will be the first to admit that it is a hard-line to draw, especially when you are friends with the person who is selling you the wine or the winery owner or the wine maker. Like most critics that I know, the main objective is to give our audience a candid estimation of the wines we try, no matter how the winery, distributor or wine maker feels. I feel quite honestly that a critic that doesn’t depend on incentives from PR Companies or wineries will do a much better job of reviewing wines with an honest palate.
Cheers!
Stan The Wine Man
