Did Rodney Strong manipulate bloggers, use clever marketing, or both?
I found myself in a bit of a flap this morning. Yesterday, I made a comment on Mike Duffy’s blog, The Winery Web Site Report. He’d written about Rodney Strong sending preview samples of their debut 2005 Rockaway Cabernet Sauvignon ($75) to “a select group bloggers” in advance of sending it the usual way to paper-based wine reviewers like me (although obviously I’m a blogger too!). I didn’t know about the program, not having been contacted, although I did know about the impending Rockaway launch because Rodney Strong has been aggressively touting it through press releases for quite a while. Over the past week or so, during my routine web cruising, I’d seen a spate of glowing tributes to Rockaway on various wine blogs. These were almost universally positive and had phrases like “Making History” and “bold and prescient” and “cool and revolutionary.” As I saw more and more of these postings, I thought, WTF? But I let it go until I came across Duffy’s blog. That’s when I wrote this comment:
“Maybe the early release to bloggers will prove to be a good move on Rodney Strong’s part. But when I started seeing all these online reviews of Rockaway I really had to wonder. Why did all those bloggers give it free publicity? Don’t they get free wine every day? So why write about Rockaway? I haven’t had the wine (plan to review it tonight) and I have no idea if it’s any good, but it shows how easily some parts of the blogosphere can be manipulated into providing free publicity to wineries.”
That comment stirred up something of a s**tstorm. One person said it “smacks of some old media arrogance…” Another asked, “How exactly is this any different from WE or any other glossy getting samples and writing about them? Isn’t that ‘free’ publicity for the winery?” 1WineDude, who participated in the launch, wrote: “I did ask RS why they decided to do this, and my take on their response was that their PR / Marketing dept. was the driver behind it…” while Jeff, at Good Grape blog, said my comment was “misguided” and “made in something of a vacuum.”
Whew!
So let me spell out my discomfort with Rodney Strong’s approach, even while I concede it was clever marketing. Rodney Strong for years has been trying to get the High Scores and the resulting attention for their wines. Nothing wrong with that. My impression has been that, while their reviews (at least, from me) have been quite good, it’s never been enough for owner Tom Klein. I figure the order must have gone out to the marketing and PR people (just as 1WineDude surmised) to figure out a way around the mainstream wine media and garner some attention in a new way. And guess what? It worked! The problem from my perspective is that those who participated were manipulated, and happily embraced their manipulators. I don’t blame any of the bloggers for reporting on Rodney Strong’s unique marketing strategy, but the glowing, gushing and self-referential “Aren’t we special?” quality is, for me, a turnoff. As for WE getting samples, yes, I do all the time, but I don’t write headlines or columns or special blogs about them, I just review them along with everything else. And I note that quite a number of well-known bloggers, who must have been approached by Rodney Strong, evidently declined to participate. I think they saw the potential for themselves to be used and decided, wisely, not to allow it.
Update (Aug. 27) Apparently, the participating bloggers agreed in advance to write about the wine. If a winery told me they’d send me a wine only if I agreed to write about it, I’d strongly refuse.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:23 am
It’s an interesting point, Steve. There is no question that the winery is getting free publicity here.
And yes, there is some smarmy “wee look at me!” factor going on about the fact that we bloggers were included in Rockaway’s inaugural launch. At least, I know *I* was going for a bit of the “wee look at me!” factor, if only to piss off the old farts at the WS forums (just kidding… sort of).
It’s not manipulation, though – part of the pay off for Rodney Strong in this case is the near-instantaneous (and free) publicity, in exchange for the risk they take in involving the blogging medium.
I think inherit in your take on this (correct me if I’ve gotten it wrong) is that one could argue that wine bloggers shouldn’t be trumpeting the fact that they got included in this type of review at all, and/or should already be charging for reviews, etc.
I.e., if wine blogging (or an individual wine blog) is credible, just review the wine and get on with it.
My approach: if I like the wine, they winery deserves any publicity they happen to get from exposure on my blog. If they want to advertise, now that’s a different story.
This may just a case be where wine blogging and wine mags. differ, because the publication media are so different. But I certainly don’t feel manipulated.
As for the well-known bloggers who didn’t participate… the explanation that one is actually a little more… well, *complicated*, but I don’t think it had to do with a sense of manipulation…
August 26th, 2008 at 10:02 am
No doubt there is long list of “mainstream” news outlets who have had been used, especially when advertising dollars or freebies are involved…something called editoral equity so why would not that be the same in the blogging world? I’m suprised that you’re suprised. Its funny though if you post enough stuff some people come to view you as an expert.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:06 am
1WineDude: “I.e., if wine blogging (or an individual wine blog) is credible, just review the wine and get on with it.” Exactly!
Frank: There’s a difference between being sent a bottle and reviewing it [on the one hand] and declaring “Isn’t it cool and revolutionary that they sent me a bottle” [on the other hand]. It just seems a little unseemly to me. See 1WineDude’s comment, above.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Hello Steve-
I am one of the bloggers who participated in the early release program from Rodney Strong. I can clearly only speak for myself, but I for one did not and do not feel manipulated by the release to bloggers.
I take it as I do other samples: Any time I choose to review a sample, whether it came from a winery, from a store, or from an online outlet, I am giving free publicity to that organization. I am always clear to note when I have received a sample and from where I received it, since I review a lot of wine that I purchase myself as well.
Reviewing the wine that I purchase myself, I am also providing free publicity. I also review wineries I visit, wine shops I frequent, restaurants I dine at, etc. All free publicity.
How is that disimilar from any traditional media outlet that reviews a wine or a restaurant? The reviewed organization gets its name in print and gets publicity it didn’t pay for there as well.
Of course many of us noted the unique element of Rodney Strong releasing to us first, and an element of excitement to be included in this effort. It was a first. Why would we not note that? A different approach to marketing a wine certainly seems newsworthy to me, whether or not I was included in that approach.
Would you have preferred it be released on the same day to traditional media and bloggers? On a whole, with clearly shorter publishing times, bloggers still could have had the potential to review the wine before other media forms.
In terms of the wine bloggers who did not particiapte, well, at my best guess there are over 200 wine blogs out there. This was a small, concentrated effort. You’d have to talk to Jeff at Good Grape, as he worked to select bloggers and coordinate the release, to get the details, but last I heard, only one person that he contacted declined to participate.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Sonodora, thanks for your comment. I don’t really blame you or the other bloggers for being excited and flattered to be involved in the Rockaway thing. It was validation for blogging, and now that I’m a blogger, I share in that excitement and the possibilities that wine blogging opens up. I just found the tone of several of the bloggers to be a little overly triumphant. Maybe it’s just my style, but it just sounds to me like some of the posts read more like a press release from Rodney Strong than the kind of independent, skeptical reporting one expects from a blog.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I wasn’t privy to all of the details regarding how the participating bloggers were chosen, but I do know that it wasn’t based simply on ‘who would accept’.
To Frank’s point, certainly there are many, many blogs that imply expertise, but can’t back it up. But there are several others that can back it up, and others that, while they may not be trained wine experts or journalists, have no doubt tasted many, many wines and do have some skills when it comes to their palates. I think the Rockaway reviews represent the later. Some people who have wine expertise are *choosing* to blog.
***Potential Off-Topic Warning***
It’s interesting that blogging is often thought to require journalism skills and topical expertise. Neither are required to blog, and neither are required for a blog to be good (or popular). It’s just a different medium than the world of print. Conversely, not every blogger is a topical neophyte that lacks writing and reporting skills. The canvas of of the ‘blogosphere’ is just too complex for either extreme to hold true.
I target my blog to be somewhere in the middle. Sometimes I make the target, sometimes I don’t (the perils of being unedited…).
August 26th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Was the manipulation the winery sending preview samples to bloggers making it clear to the bloggers they were given the opportunity to scoop the print media? If so, this could be the first time the wine media were ever manipulated by a winery. Usually they are so impossible to influence.
I was looking at some wine futures at K&K and was struck about how the 2007’s all have Parker, WS and Tanzer scores. Already? They won’t go into the bottle for a year. This seems perfect territory for bloggers. How long will it be before all the bloggers are getting barrel samples from the wineries? Better yet, we send them a sample from the fermenter and get a published score before the must is actually wine.
Steve, I can just see your comment. “Deep murky purple color, medium yeast, fruit forward Welch’s style, long prickly finish, one seed….tasted three times (between pumpovers)…79 -99 points. S.H.”
(Hint to winery….send Steve a sample from your best fermenter just like the best barrel you send to the Spectator.)
August 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Forgot to mention (and I promise this is my last comment for this post!
, I think you’ll find that if wine bloggers continue to be included in similar future releases (i.e., premier of allocated brands, receiving releases alongside or before ‘mainstream’ wine media), the self-righteous volume will turn way, way down.
I.e., you don’t need to be “validated” every time – only the *first* time.
And while we no doubt cast a positive eye on RS / Rockaway for putting its faith in us, I can assure you if the wine had tasted like Yellowtail mixed with Petit Verdot, I’d have said it sucked and that RS needed to go back to the drawing board, and told my readers to steer well clear of it.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Hi Steve, I understand the unseemly part. I suppose because the blogging medium is still in its infancy they do not expect to be used by the industry.
I have meet more then my fair share of “traditional” wine journalists who have come to expect wines sent their way, along with dinners, events, hospitality, overnight stays.
So when you’re talking traditional media, the unseemly is accepted….the bloggers are just starting to get a taste of the benefits. It’s really a symbiotic relationship. It’s funny, but my word spell check still trys to correct me when I type blogger.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Now Morton, you’re not implying a winery would falsify a sample sent to a famous reviewer, are you? ; >
August 26th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Morton…..did you say this tongue in cheek?
“If so, this could be the first time the wine media were ever manipulated by a winery. Usually they are so impossible to influence.”
Thanks for the laugh!
August 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Frank, far from me to begrudge you a taste. Just be skeptical of carrying anyone’s water.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I wasn’t even going to dignify this with a response, but I would just like to state for the record that I was not manipulated, that I engaged in the following experiment: what would happen if a group of bloggers reviewed the same wine the same week? The wine was Rodney Strong, it was the first time a winery had done this kind of coordinated release to bloggers, and it seemed to me like an interesting idea. Bloggers have, in fact, been kicking this idea around for a couple of years now, and this was the first time that someone successfully managed to do it. Another similar experiment happened with Hugel the same week–and I don’t see the flap directed at those bloggers!
Not one of my readers complained. Many outclicked to sign up for the two allocated wines I described. I was clear about participation, and did a review post the Sunday following all the reviews. If this makes me seem gushing and over the top, you obviously don’t read your own publication very often, not to mention other wine publications.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:44 am
“I can just see your comment. “Deep murky purple color, medium yeast, fruit forward Welch’s style, long prickly finish, one seed….tasted three times (between pumpovers)…79 -99 points. S.H.”
Morton, I can’t stop laughing!
On another note, I’m questioning (and confused) by the “We’re making history” comment. As far as I know, I receive samples upon release and I don’t consider my site or myself a mainstream publication.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
No, I suggest we just falsify what we send to bloggers. They are new to this and are just learning the ropes. It would be dangerous to try to fool the experienced, mainstream wine media with all their careful due diligence.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Mainstream wine media and due diligence?
Did you happen to read about a recent Wine Spectator, (I would imagine they qualify as mainstream) Wine list fiasco? Perhaps about the Broadbent issue with conterfeit auction wines?
August 26th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Frank, I don’t normally explain someone’s comment to someone else, but I think we can safely assume that Morton’s tongue was firmly in his cheek.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Thanks Steve, I have to remember not to be too literal when reading stuff, those emotioncons help. You have a great blog! Funny when reading this, no one so far has commented on the fact that Rodney Strong has a $75 bottle of wine. Ouch man.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
$75 is the new $40.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
It’s all pretty funny for me.
I wasn’t even able to get their PR department/person to return a simple query Email when I was interested in their concert program. Actually wrote about their event, after having purchased a couple of tickets for Fourplay (the jazz band…). Then, I forwarded what was written about the event to their company, and still haven’t heard a peep!
Now I know why… They were busy packaging Rockaway wines for bloggers’ publicity, with their backs turned to the walls. Too funny.
The upshot?
When I was working for Bill Hambrecht at Belvedere Winery, vineyard manager Hector Bedolla took me to an Alexander Valley ranch – undeveloped – called Rockaway. Hector drove me to the pinnacle, where we could see in the far distance the top of the Golden Gate Bridge. (It was a clear day.)
I photo journaled the vineyards going in (still have the slides). My family was allowed to use an elaborate VIP picnic area for one of my daughter’s weddings, and I left a piece of my heart on that hill.
I can now only wonder…
August 26th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Okay, folks…
I would like to speak up about Rockaway a bit. I am the PR guy (name Robert Larsen) that initiated sending Rockaway Cabernet Sauvignon to a handful of wine bloggers. I work for Rodney Strong.
First, let me say that as a company, certainly as a communications person, we/I value all forms of media; traditional print, broadcast, and electronic. With Rockaway and all wines from Rodney Strong, we are excited to have people taste our wine and provide their opinions. Rockaway has now been sent to a number of traditional print journalists as well as the bloggers. The blogging community has demonstrated its credibility as a powerful communications group, one that can quickly get information to their audience. Lead times for most traditional media can be weeks, sometimes months. With something new, like Rockaway, it made absolute sense, with complete transparency, to send them samples and wish for the best. We were and are, after all, very excited about the quality we put in the bottle. And, admittedly, with genuine excitement about this wine, I wanted to get the word out.
Working with the bloggers was not a form of manipulation, nor was it intended to show favoritism; rather it was a real opportunity, having confidence in our product, to introduce ourselves to a new and real group of influential media.
The credibility of wine publications and wine writers is long established and recognized. They are, along with others (bloggers), arguably sommeliers should be included, part of a force that drives wine trial and ever-increasing awareness regarding the enjoyment of wine. The ways that people get information changes very fast, however, and sitting on the sidelines was not an option.
Ultimately, what’s in the bottle is what counts.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Steve,
Seriously, I mean, how dumb do you think people are to be manipulated by a winery.
I’m trying really hard to not hit below the belt here, but shall we talk about your employ, Wine Enthusiast magazine? This is the same magazine that named the Olive Garden management team as their person of the year for 2006.
You’re going to call me out? Where are your checks coming from? I do this for free.
To set the record straight, completely straight, one blogger, Tyler Colman from Dr. Vino declined to participate. He did so because he didn’t like the requirement to write. That’s fine. We moved on.
If you want any more details, though you’ve never asked, I can be reached via cell phone at: 317-490-5637 or email jlefevereindy.rr.com
Jeff
http://www.goodgrape.com
August 26th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
If you want to check the facts why don’t you just contact Jeff, The Good Grape or call the winery?
Why all the finger pointing?
August 26th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Jeff, Olive Garden was not my choice, although those who supported it made a compelling case for them encouraging millions of Americans to enjoy inexpensive varietal wine, which is a pretty cool achievement. At any rate, these decisions of awards are taken at a level well above my pay grade. I work for a very big company and there are some things that happen within it I can control and some things I cannot, and I don’t waste my time worrying about what I can’t. What I can control is the integrity with which I do my job in California. My criticism was not of the bloggers’ participation in Robert Larsen’s launch, and not of their reporting of it, and not of Rodney Strong’s strategy. It was of the hyperventilated way in which it was blogged. I think the bloggers were so thrilled and flattered at being approached by Rodney Strong that they were not as suspicious as they might have been at being used in a way that frankly in several cases is only one step removed from the winery’s press release. In my opinion if you’re going to be a wine writer/critic, you have to be incredibly skeptical and even dubious of wineries’ motives. I love all the wineries and the winemakers and everybody who works in the wine industry, but I guarantee you, they WILL use you if you let them.
August 26th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Based upon the intense amount of coverage for RS’ new wine, look for this trend to continue. And for good reason!!! Most of the time, the scoring media takes FOREVER a review to be published. But in this instance, RS is getting immediate and POSITIVE press on a wine that’s obviously very important as the new “halo brand” for the winery.
As someone who’s in the industry, I say kudos to them!!! Typically, the industry either holds back a release until it’s reviewed or they release a new wine/brand with no third-party endorsements and has to trust (gulp) the distributor/wine buyer’s pallets to conclude that the wine is “worthy” without having a scoring pub give it a 90+pt review to sell it.
Rockaway accomplised the following:
*generated positive press from the outset.
*created tons of free publicity.
I genuinely hope that the mainstream press does not put them in the penalty box because they were not the first individuals to get the wine. Review the wine on its own merits.
August 26th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
dmusing, you make some excellent points! Absolutely everything you say is true. I am just trying to encourage the new generation of wine bloggers (whom I respect and to whom the future may well belong) to be a little more skeptical. Just tell the facts and review the wine. No need for “revolutionary” and “bold and prescient” and “Making History.” Those are phrases from a P.R. release. If I’d written about this I would have said something like “Rodney Strong has done something interesting…” etc. I would have reviewed the wine and then I would have called Bob Larsen up and asked him some very tough questions. You can’t do this job if your inner investigative journalist is asleep at the wheel.
August 26th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Yes, you and I are in agreement here.
But as a wine marketer, if I can generate a slew of positive (even if the press is “over the top” taking the marketing spin hook, line and sinker) I’m adopting that strategy.
It doesn’t mean that the Steve Heimoff’s of the world are not important to the success of my wine (they certainly are) but giving the blog community a sneak preview of the wine with the promise that they write about it is a small price to pay!
Interesting topic. Keep it up!!!
August 26th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
dmusing, you’re just doing your job as a professional. But there is, or should be, a certain healthy mistrust on the part of journalists toward the P.R. profession. I say this even though some very dear friends in the industry are P.R. Maybe my error is to presume that wine bloggers consider themselves journalists. I would hope so…
August 26th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Teach, Dr. Debs, Teach!
Everyone should follow R. Strong’s example.
If they are brave….because the bloggers are individuals and could have easily panned the wine. Which would have been very bad PR indeed.
Steve’s reaction seems to be the roar of an aging lion ( the old school print media, not necessarily Steve as an individual) about to be unseated as the tribe leader.
Or just simple hurt pride that the bloggers were considered a more relevant contingent.
They should learn to share the throne, with grace.
To suggest that this was a ‘manipulation’ of wine bloggers is condescending.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Steve,
I think where you are going wrong here is in thinking that bloggers = pro wine reviewers, or that they will someday take up that mantle. A few might, but the vast majority are amātors (literally lovers of wine) and will gladly, perhaps even willfully, stay that way.
It’s my contention that as long as a blogger is completely open and transparent about his or her conflicts of interest, they pretty much cease to be conflicts of interest. If that’s the case, and as a blogger you are excited about getting a nice bottle of wine that you genuinely enjoy, it would be UN-authentic and disingenuous to not let that enthusiasm show in your blog post. Being real about that is what connects them to their readers. To lose that is to lose all.
Ultimately bloggers can’t be bought unless they want to risk losing their audiences. I don’t see that being the case here at all. Honestly I think people are smart. Given a set of facts they can calibrate their internal BS detectors quite well.
And in the interests of transparency and full disclosure, Robert Larsen is a friend and a member of my monthly tasting group. I also happen to think this blogger experiment was brilliant. Bastard beat me to it.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
amy, I knew this “aging lion” thing was going to come up, and indeed it has. First, let me assure you, as an “old school print media” person, I could care less that I wasn’t included in the “select group of bloggers.” My pride has not been hurt in the slightest. It’s not about “sharing the throne,” it’s about the ethics of blogging. Let me repeat: The Ethics of Blogging. Wine reviewers must have standards or else the integrity of wine reviewing will perish. If you feel lucky or fortunate or blessed that some winery sends you an expensive bottle of wine, then your judgment has been impaired. Wineries know how to make you feel good. Your job — permit me to say it — is to be a JOURNALIST not somebody who passes along information from a press release. I’ll retire one of these days and I want the coming generation to be tough. The hunger for recognition on the part of some of them makes me worry.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
God did I really just write UN-authentic? Yeah, I did.
That would be IN-authentic, natch. My Kingdom for the edit button!
August 26th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Josh, don’t sweat the small stuff. I got your sense.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Ah, Josh had to come along and post a reply that sums up my thoughts more elegantly than I could myself. Curse you, Pinot Blogger!
And I do agree with Josh that, as bloggers, it would be a disservice to ourselves and our readers if we didn’t reflect our enthusiasm in our posts.
Steve, I think it’s less about recognition as it is a desire for credibility…
August 26th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
1WineDude, lord knows I have drank from the cup of the desire for credibility. Permit me humbly to say that the stronger the PR representation from the winery, the higher the BS radar should be on the part of the media. Credibility is a longrange game. Those who sell out for short term advantage will not get it.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Totally agree, Steve – and your advice in terms of ensuring bloggers aren’t swayed by marketing is sound for any form of publishing / journalism.
I think you’d find that the wine bloggers involved in the Rockaway reviews have probably been approached in the past directly by hard-sell PR campaigns from other wineries. I have, and my “Spider Sense” was on red alert from word go. And with good reason – those wines sucked.
When I get invited to participate in a review process from a fellow wine blogger who is well-respected, I’m not on high BS alert. But that doesn’t mean the BS detector has been shut down altogether.
Drat, didn’t I say about 5 comments ago that I wouldn’t comment again? Ok, time for bed…
August 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The real problem with this posting is that it assumes the positive reviews flow from the early release to bloggers. Tell me, Steve, how you would respond if people challenged your reviews by assuming advertising in Wine Enthusiast is worth an extra two points for every wine you taste? In effect, how would you respond if people simply called you a damned liar, a bought-and-paid-for shill, a whore for the advertising dollar?
In the following quote you presume Rodney Strong can’t get good reviews from the magazines so it went to bloggers. The fallacy, of course, is that Rockaway is not just another Rodney Strong bottling, but a single vineyard reserve, more costly and more expensive. You fail to note that. That failure then allows you to combine lower Strong magazine ratings with high blog ratings for Rockaway and conclude the bloggers were fooled. Look carefully, because you left out what made Rockaway different, to make bloggers look the fools:
** “Rodney Strong for years has been trying to get the High Scores and the resulting attention for their wines. Nothing wrong with that. My impression has been that, while their reviews (at least, from me) have been quite good, it’s never been enough for owner Tom Klein. I figure the order must have gone out to the marketing and PR people (just as 1WineDude surmised) to figure out a way around the mainstream wine media and garner some attention in a new way. ” **
I conclude with this thought. If you do review the Rockaway, please do so blind along with several other wines. If you do not, your presumptions, perhaps only made to allow you to continue to look down on bloggers, will inevitably bias your palate far more than Rodney Strong’s new marketing scheme. Heck, you are already committed to a “good, but not good enough for Tom Klein” rating. How can we trust anything you write now?
The upside to all this? I expect we’ll get another shot at the Rockaway at The 89 Project.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
dhonig, first of all, I taste everything blind. Secondly, as I said, I have given high scores to Rod Strong wines and did again with Rockaway. Thirdly, as for your characterization of me as a liar and a whore, I will kindly assume that since this came in at night you’ve been drinking and may regret your remarks in the light of morning.
August 26th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Steve, read what I wrote again. I did not call you a liar or a whore. I asked how you would feel if people called you those names. You have answered the question. Why, then, did you feel free to (certainly a bit more gently) call bloggers the same?
I am glad to hear you always taste blind. Did you not say, though:
** “I haven’t had the wine (plan to review it tonight) and I have no idea if it’s any good …” **
Were you tasting that along with several others at the same time? Did you taste it “blind” all by itself?
Steve, this is the second time in a week or two that you have blatantly misrepresented what blogs or bloggers were all about, keeping out or “misunderstanding” key points, essential and basic facts, to justify your approbation or outrage. Blogs are here to stay. They are also populated, not by the mythical nerds in pajamas in Mom’s house, but with wine consumers and wine magazine consumers. Why have you decided to go to war with them?
August 26th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
dhonig, i don’t know that anyone who reads my blog is in pajamas in Mom’s house. I certainly try to treat my responders with respect no matter what they’re wearing and sometimes I actually post in my gym shorts! Anyhow for the enth time let me repeat I am not anti blog. I wish for bloggers to be suspicious of expensive winery PR campaigns. I tasted Rockaway blind, twice in 2 nights, and liked it considerably. That’s not the point. I’m not at war with bloggers, I’m holding them to a high standard they can disregard if they wish.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
You know something Steve, I expect you’re a terrific guy and that you really believe you are simply holding bloggers to a high standard. However, your biases are evident, not in what you write, but in what you leave out. Is it on purpose? Probably not. However, as somebody who blogs as a hobby, but who must by profession be able to step back an evaluate facts, argument, and analysis, I can tell you that you are doing bloggers, and ultimately yourself, a gross disservice. In two different posts about bloggers, this on and the one the other day about The 89 Project (http://89project.blogspot.com), you left out or misunderstood the very heart of the matter. Did you do so on purpose? Unlikely. Did you do so? Clearly. If we start with the assumption it was not intentional, that you are truly a good guy, we only get so far. We still do not know the source of your failures.
You call yourself “a blogger.” In that you have a blog, you are. But you are, first and foremost, a wine writer and reviewer. When you take on “wine blogs,” even if you do so on your blog, you do so as Steve Heimoff, Wine Enthusiast, not Steve Heimoff, blogger.
Even your last comment drips with condescension. What makes you think bloggers were not suspicious of the PR campaign? That you presume they were not also presumes their tastings were biased, in effect bought by the campaign. Are you truly incapable to seeing why that is insulting and condescending? Heck, when I asked how you would respond to such accusations about yourself you presumed I was drunk (having, of course, failed to actually comprehend what I wrote).
I have no desire to go to war with you. The very concept is absurd. I simply wish to point out that you have a tremendous blind spot when it comes to blogs. You will get in “a bit of a flap” whenever you write about blogs, until you come to grips with that weakness.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Steve, we already operate to a high standards. Ours are the same as yours. Please check your facts.
August 27th, 2008 at 5:26 am
as a blogger i’m with you Steve! It’s not that the bloggers dont’ have credibility, just what is the big deal about this Rodney Strong thing? I’m with and El Jefe who has commented elsewhere, that this seems like a lot of praise for sending out a few samples. Whoo Hooo, they sent expensive wine, oh and they sent it to wine bloggers! Why do they get a pat on the back for this, when so many others have done it for so long?
I work daily to make wine blogging more relevant, and I do not see this as anything more than another case of a winery waking up to the truth that wine bloggers matter.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:11 am
First of all, I am not a blogger. I do however, enjoy reading the various blogs and from a marketing standpoint, Rodney Strong used an absolutely a brilliant strategy. In my opinion blog’s will have an increasing role in disseminating wine information to consumers. Saying that, however, they must maintain their independence and truthfulness so they can considered to be trustworthy with their judgments. Many of today’s wine drinkers are also daily internet users. One of the reasons the newspaper business is suffering is related to fewer and fewer subscribers who are more dependent on the “net” for their daily news information. This will eventually show in magazines also. Why wouldn’t a winery sending out samples of their product to be rated make sure that a blogger who can review a wine and publish it electronically within days as opposed to a magazine review that might take 1 or 2 months to be posted will start favoring the blogger. Obama proved the power of the net this year in how he raised money for his campaign. I think what Rodney Strong did may be the tip of the iceberg.
I have over 40 years in this business, primarily in the wholesale end and the one thing I have always liked was
listening to how a younger person would approach a situation. Sometimes a new approach is the way to go.
I know people in my senior citizen age bracket that have no clue how to turn on a computer and yet on other side of the coin my 7 year old grandson is a whiz.
Maybe for wine blogs the future is now.
August 27th, 2008 at 8:06 am
dhonig, as I said in my Update this morning, apparently the participating bloggers agreed in advance to write about the wine. That was a pre-condition of their receiving it. To me, that is a violation of journalistic standards. I would never guarantee a winery that I’d write about their wine if they send it to me (much less give it a high score). Anyhow, when I blog at steveheimoff.com, I do so as myself, not a Wine Enthusiast employee. I have my own blog at the magazine.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Hey ryan, just a comment on the perspective.
Fundamentally it’s not a big deal that a wine is sent to bloggers for review.
But it *is* a big deal that a totally new allocated brand from a fairly major winery is given to bloggers in a targeted effort, with open dialogue between the bloggers and winery, knowing that bloggers will be the very first to get a crack at reviewing the new wine. I don’t play up every wine sent to me, but I did play up this event, because it is a first.
Steve, regarding journalism and integrity (and we know how I feel about that… I don’t consider myself a journalist ’cause I don’t get paid for it! ) – RS took a chance with this effort, they asked that we cover the release in some way/shape/form in exchange for us getting in on a first in the industry. There were no other stipulations – I could have panned them and the wine & still kept my side of the deal.
So I saw it as a fair trade-off. I don’t think it calls integrity into question, really.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:27 am
First of all, Steve, thank you for all of the attention that you have given wine bloggers. You obviously view us a legitimate threat to traditional print publications.
As one of the participants in the Rockaway release to bloggers, I take issue with your assertion that we violated journalistic standards by agreeing in advance to write about the wine. On the contrary, our agreement was the ultimate in integrity and transparency because we were committed to saying exactly what we thought about the wine…good, bad, or indifferent. And that is exactly what we did.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Steve,
The reason most magazines don’t guarantee anybody coverage is based on space constraints and/or interest based on their readership. Yet, you see sports teams brokering with their daily newspaper all of the time to get a beat reporter. In Indianapolis our newspaper does not cover the Triple A baseball team, much to the Indians chagrin. Why? Matter of reader interest and space.
With a blog there is no such space constraint, nor is there the finite-ness of a paid subscriber base.
And there is no violation of journalistic standards because there was no editorial restriction. As I noted on my blog and I would be happy to produce the same from email correspondence, the bloggers were free to write whatever they chose. Anything. If you hated the wine, hated Rodney Strong the winery, if they didn’t like anything they were free to do so with absolute liberty.
The point is integrity is very much intact and accounted for when you can voice your opinion freely.
Your points are many here, but in my very respectful opinion all of them are a bit leaky. In fact, I would posit that with your Wine Spectator defense and this post here that you’re doing a little yellow journalism pot-stirring, and that can be construed as a violation of journalistic integrity.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
** “I would never guarantee a winery that I’d write about their wine if they send it to me (much less give it a high score). ” **
Did anybody agree to give it a high score? Your parenthetical is quite accusatory. You do realize that, don’t you?
How does ‘I’ll write a review, but I can’t make any promises that it will be a good review’ violate journalistic standards? That is a seroius question.
As for the last comment, yes, I realize you are not officially blogging as a Wine Enthusiast employee. However, you are who you are, and are unable to separate your blog-self from your WE-self.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Steve,Steve,Steve you have engaged in the internet no embrace it. Facebook, My Space, Google, You Tube, and Blogging among others are more important then ever. Put down your saber and congratulate the community which you are a part of for gaining momentum. Stop hiding behind the critic should be a skeptic mantra… it sounds as if you are from the Northeast. What`s wrong with here is a bottle you must review it. No one said you have to review it favorably. As noted earlier it does seem like the old lion is roaring…don`t worry print media is not going away yet…people still need somethjing else to do while they`re in the bathroom.
August 28th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Steve – I dig you man, and I am stoked to meet up with you at the WBC.
But I think I could hook up a generator to you and power my house for a week with all of the backpedaling going on in these comments.
Sorry – couldn’t resist
Oh, yeah – and stop stealing my traffic, man!!!
Cheers.
August 28th, 2008 at 6:42 am
1WineDude, looking forward to meeting U2.
August 28th, 2008 at 9:46 am
U2’s going to be at WBC? I’m so totally there
Let’s chat live about your concerns, Steve. I don’t think our positions are really that different once you understand the full facts.
Cheers!
August 29th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Steve: I think you’re way off base in thinking that bloggers would get so excited over a sample. Believe it or not, bloggers get samples ALL the time (and of wines that cost $75 and above).
Bloggers get samples. It comes with the territory. Much like glossy magazines do
August 29th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Lenn, maybe I’m not expressing myself clearly. It was the patting themselves on the back that got me — the sense of “Aren’t we bloggers special to be part of this historic event.” There was nothing particularly historic or breakthrough or revolutionary about what RS did. It was just good marketing. And the bloggers were duped into giving them free publicity. I hope the hurt feelings go away at this point and that this will help the bloggers be more skeptical in the future.
August 29th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Steve,
I still think that you’re a little off base here. No one was DUPED. They knew what they were getting into. They made the decision that they were okay with giving RP a review in exchange for a bottle of wine. No one tricked them. No one duped them.
Was it the choice I personally would have made? No. But everyone has the right to make these decisions on their own.
And while “historic” might be a bit much, it is certainly special that the bloggers got the wine before the mainstream media.
I hope that the hurt feelings fade too (esp by October) but I can understand why people are so upset.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Lenn, then let’s agree that (1) they made a decision [to write in exchange for wine] that was not professional and (2) the expressions of “historic” “revolutionary” “bold and prescient” were hyperbolic.
August 29th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Getting the sample didn’t excite me. I got it from Jeff at Good Grape, really, not from Rockaway. I also agreed to the condition of writing about it because the condition was given by Jeff (as acting editor), who set the deadlines, etc. That’s what editors do (I thought).
Getting the sample before the traditional print media *did* excite me, and for good reason. That is a first for a big allocated brand from the major player in Sonoma.
My writing style on the 1WineDude blog is hyperbolic. That’s just a style choice on my part, I don’t expect everyone to like it.
As for giving RS/Rockaway free PR…
…there wine is worth, what, $80? …
…if I was Rockaway, I’d feel I’d got totally ripped off in terms of the buzz that I generated for them via my blog…
Cheers.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:37 am
[...] winery, which enlisted wine bloggers as the first reviewers of its new Rockaway wine: see here, here and here – oh, and here… and here for the [...]
August 29th, 2008 at 9:03 am
[...] the wine blogosphere, and hope that anybody confused or upset by the various incidents (see here, here and here for a few – and now here too!) can look to us to help restore their faith in the online [...]
August 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Steve,
You still don’t get it some 60 comments in. If I engineered the program and that’s good marketing, how can I dupe myself?
First, I’m an average marketer, secondly how much condescension does it take before you just say you’re simply smarter than other people? Third, I’ve subjected myself to a weeks worth of people questioning my integrity; what a bargain for me.
So, I guess I’m a great marketer for engineering the program, but really dumb for participating in same program.
And I thought George W Bush was the only person that used pretzel logic.
I respect your writing, but I don’t think you got this program upfront, I don’t think your analysis of the program is accurate, I don’t think you get it in hindsight and I don’t think you understand very much about blogging, either.
Of course, this is with all due respect, because I afford that to others even when it has been afforded me.
Jeff
http://www.goodgrape.com
August 29th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
There’s plenty to question about ethics when it comes to wine “journalism”. What about accepting trips, dinners and advertising? The acceptance of advertising from wine producers is one of the main ethical issues in wine writing today. It seems to me that getting upset about this issue with Rodney Strong seems a bit ridiculous when major wine publications accept $20,000 checks for full page ads from wine producers. If reviews can be taken seriously in publications accepting millions of dollars in advertising from wineries it seems taking a $75 bottle of wine is small potatoes.
I’ll admit it seems to me that good judgment was not used here. Taking samples is one thing, but accepting any other kind of control over how and when you publish is a bad idea that can only undermine the writer’s credibility. Wine blogging is still new and such growing pains will happen, but it still pales in comparison to the ethics issues in the traditional wine press.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Craig, a couple points. Magazines need advertising to exist. No ads, no magazines. Maybe that will happen someday, but it’s not happening now. So I have no problem with Wine Enthusiast going after advertising. Point 2: There is a bright line between advertising and editorial at my magazine. My bosses frankly would never even be tempted to tell me to give a good score to an advertiser. They know there would be hell to pay if they even tried. I have staked my reputation in this industry on the fact that I call wines as I see them, and advertising has nothing to do with it and never will. I think that addresses the issue of my ethics. Finally, I agree with you that blogging is still new and this episode reflects growing pains. I hope and trust that the wine blogosphere will emerge from this stronger and more thoughtful.
August 29th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Steve, you say:
** “My bosses frankly would never even be tempted to tell me to give a good score to an advertiser. They know there would be hell to pay if they even tried. I have staked my reputation in this industry on the fact that I call wines as I see them, and advertising has nothing to do with it and never will.” **
Why is it we should take your word for your honor, but you question the honor of people who participated in this program? Are you truly unable to see the double standard? Or are we merely supposed to accept YOUR honor, as well as your slights to the honor of others?
Yes, I sound a bit vituperative. Frankly, you deserve it, demanding that we all accept not only your place on the pedestal, but the stream of yellow liquid you are sending down from there upon our heads.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Craig,
With all due respect, I tend to disagree with you about your advertising comment. I might not understand your comment, so could you clarify how publications accepting money to perform a service (e.g. in this case, advertising) is up for an ethical debate? Money in exchange to provide a service is not an issue for ethical debate – it’s a business decision if we are strictly talking about money in exchange for a service.
If you are referring to [unproven] accusations that a producer receives better ratings by advertising or the unethical act of Journalists receiving gifts when their company policy clearly states it is not allowed (NYT policy on ethics: http://www.nytco.com/press/ethics.html), then that is understandable, but we should not mix the two.
Advertising ≠ unethical issues if Journalists follow company policy.
August 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Craig, your points are especially prescient.
Steve, you are being naive to think that advertsiing is not influencing editorial. Your employers have no need to ask you to give anyone a good score anymore, because they have built a revenue stream into their buying guide based on ratings in general, as entire pages of reviews with label reproductions are passed off as pure editorial. That’s not opinion; it’s fact.
As for how advertising influences editorial not connected to ratings, it will be interesting to se how many “Wine Star” award nominees are also advertisers. Sure cases will be made in breathless prose (not unlike some bloggers applied to Rockaway….) for every “nominee,” but the pattern in past years has been laugh-provoking. There are other ways t stroke advertisers than to give them 90-point scores.
Again, I have no doubt as to your personal veracity. Never did when I worked there or ever since. But be careful about defending your profession or even your magazine too broadly. Publishing is a business, and you roost in editorial on the West Coast is just not privy to much that goes on.
As for magazines needing advertising to survive, Bob Parker still seems to be making a good go of it witihout any ads or even graphics, yes?
August 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Tish, I run my own shop in a big company. All I’m responsible for is ratings. And my ratings are impeccable. Awards, advertising, it’s all a different department. If anyone wants to take me on in the ethics of my reviews, that’s a fight I’m happy to wage. You are a disgruntled ex-employee (fired, actually) and you’ve had an axe to grind for many years. You’re entitled, but what you say should be taken into context. As to Mr. Parker, he tastes open, not blind. I’m surprised the wine press hasn’t asked him how he can give scores to bottles he’s looking at on the table and whose histories he can look up in his database to make sure he’s consistent. As they say in bridge, one peek is worth a thousand finesses.
August 29th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Thanks Tish, I love being prescient.
August 30th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Steve, please read my comment again. I am not questioning YOUR ethics. I am pointing out that your scores are being used in a way that directly conflicts with the accepted publishing policy of identifying advertising vs. editorial. There is a huge difference.
If my reference to having worked there was not enough disclosure for you, fine. Sorry. I had no intent to conceal my connection (now a decade removed) to the magazine you write for. But I did not think it was so relevant that I needed to say more. Now you have put me in a position of having to correct your characterization.
I was not fired. LOL! I resigned in Jan. 1998, stayed through production of the 10th anniversary issue, then was given a going-away party (cake and Freixenet, I recall) and ten weeks pay. I was a perfectly benign ex-employee from for six solid years. What changed is that I wrote, critically but factually, about The Wine Enthusiast’s retail operation, wineexpress.com, in 2004 and was promptly threatened with legal action, which never materialized because everything I wrote was true (the pieces are still available on my website under “rants”). The only axe I ground then, and have continued to grind, was directed at the multifarious problems with wine ratings, and I have skewered WS and many, many other media and trade outlets over similar issues. Moreover, I have tried as much as possible to wield my axe humourously (wineskewer.com).
The points I made above — and on other posts of yours and on other blogs where I comment frequently — were made stricly from my perspective now, as professional speaker and observer of the wine industry. I raised those points becuase I feel they add some perspective to the broader issue of ethics in wine coverage. It is kind of odd that bloggers are getting all worked up over $75 Cabernet sampling/reviewing when major media are quietly perpetrating more dubious practices.
Again, I am not questioning your personal ethic one iota. But you are an honest player in a shady system.
As for Robert Parker, the point I was making had nothing to do with how he tastes/rates, but rather that his publication seems to have thrived without advertising. If you really think RP’s methods are suspect, perhaps you should do a post about that. It is obvious that your blog has commanded a lot of attention, deservedly so, because you pick interesting topics and approach them honestly.
I trust, moving forward, you keep your focus on that. The fact that your posts here garner much more attention than your posts over at the WE mag site is proof that you are an important cog in the constantly evolving wine-blogging machine.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
I am fairly new to the wine blogging world and as such was not included in the Rodney Strong giveaway. I work at a daily newspaper for the moment now and do some wine writing for them. Our ethics policy would preclude acceptance of a $75 retail bottle of wine (our cap is around $5). I have no problem with bloggers who disclose that they have received samples from wineries before posting their opinions. Wine blogging is an evolving thing. I think I trust many of the people who have posted here because I know their track records and their personal integrity. But for readers who don’t have the history, disclosure of methods and practices is essential.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
winenegress, your key phrase is “wing blogging is an evolving thing.” This episode has been painful for many people, but in the end, as we say in the gym, no pain, no gain. We all stand to learn from this.
August 30th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
What I have learned is that high school never leaves us even though we leave it. Drink well and often but not so often that “Goodyear” appears in raised type on your liver.
August 30th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“Point 2: There is a bright line between advertising and editorial at my magazine. ”
Steve, first of all I would like to say that I enjoy your blog. I also agree with you that there should not be a problem with a consumer-review publication accepting advertising—consumer periodicals in other industries do. The wine industry does not exist in a vacuum.
However, I can also attest that at the Wine Enthusiast and the Wine Spectator that line is brighter from your honest perspective than from your marketing department’s.
Most readers assume that the color graphics of wine labels interspersed throughout the wine reviews are chosen by Editorial to spotlight key producers. They don’t hear this conversation:
Marketing: Hello, Winery Naivete! We are pleased to let you know that your wine will be published in an upcoming issue with a very high score!
Winery Naivete: COOL!! (pumping fist)
M: Yes. Would you like us to print a full-color reproduction of your label next to your review?
WN: Oh, absolutely!
M: We’ll be happy to. That will be $300.
WN: Uh, oh? $300? (looking at a stack of bills) Uh, what happens if we, uh, choose not to? Will the review not get published?
M: Oh, we are Marketing. We have no control over what Editorial does. But I can tell you that your competitors have already signed up for label representation. Don’t you want your review to stand out like theirs?
This conversation happens all the time. It is a typical sales jibe. And while I’m at it, I might as well bring up this up … almost two years after we stopped submitting samples to WE, we received an email asking for a graphic of our label. When I called Editorial to ask why, they absolutely would not say why they wanted it. We did not submit a graphic. Turns out, the editors were writing a snarky short about dog labels for their year-end roundup. Something to the effect, “Who would bust out a puppy-printed primitivo for company? Fine for burgers on a Tuesday night, I guess.” They listed our wine as one of the label offenders, although they hadn’t tried one in recent memory. And they ended up using a graphic of Sineann.
I find no fault with advertising—it’s what makes the publications possible. I find no fault with free samples—there is simply no other way reviewers would be able to find and experience the sheer number of products out there. However, I have to shake my head at anyone who can be convinced that the two premier wine publications, the WE and the WS, are not skating on some pretty thin ice, ethically.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am
If we are calling into question the ethics of bloggers, why not address the biggest offender of them all, GARY V. who claims to be objective when he reviews wine but happens to directly profit from any review he makes by virtue of owning Wine Library. How can you objectively review the product you are selling?
Would we trust a car dealer to objectively review the cars he has in inventory? Or a restaurant to review its own menu?
I am really excited that there is an alternative to traditional media when it comes to learning about wine and BLOGGERS are that alternative, all I ask is that I know in what capacity they may be involved with the wine or winery that they review.
Cheers,
Jon
September 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
This has been such a fun brouhaha, I hate to see it disappear into the dustbin of history. You and Tom @ Fermentation have raised important questions for the so-called “blogging community”.
I know such comments — and the ones I’ve made on my blog and especially on Fermentation — do not endear me to many of my peers.
But I’ve been blogging to suit myself. Win a few, lose a few.
Trust me, when my import biz gets up and running — like when we finally get our container from Italy in a month or so — my “personal” wine-blogging activites and my “official” ones will be well separated. My partners demand it.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
[...] an interesting situation, made even more interesting by the recent flare up about perceived credibility issues in the wine blogging [...]
September 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
What exactly is the point of giving wine early to a blogger? They’re going to be able to publish before the print media even if you give it to them well after the print media. I’m sure all bloggers and wine writers are impartial. But, I’m sometimes swayed by “special” attention. How many bad reviews did the wine get?
October 31st, 2008 at 11:35 am
[...] The aftershocks of this marketing decision can still be felt. One of the most active critics of this approach has been Steve Heimoff, the West Coast Editor of The Wine Enthusiast. He has participated in a longwinded tit-for-tat on a variety of wine blogs since the Roackaway release earlier this year, much of which appears to me to be best described as “sour grapes”. Check it out for yourself ON HIS BLOG at: http://steveheimoff.com/?p=244 [...]