Wine Enthusiast Magazine
SubscribeI Am Not a Parasite — But I Do Accept Free Samples
by Jim Gordon
Author Jancis Robinson chastised her wine-writing colleagues recently for not having stiff enough spines. According to a Decanter article she told them at a posh gathering in Spain that they need to be more open about wines they like and dislike and resist vintners efforts to “keep us sweet.”
Ironically, the event itself was sponsored by La Melonera, a wine-related development project, and journalists attending were treated to two days of great wines along with discussions between winemakers from several countries and international journalists. It was unclear whether the journalists had to pay the 2,000 Euro fee, or were admitted free as is often the custom at wine industry events.
Robinson called wine critics “parasitical” according to Decanter, and urged them to be more humble and honest in their approach. As if to further punctuate her exclamation, a brouhaha erupted in France recently when a wine producer added $1,600 watches to the goodie bags that journalists were give to take home after a PR event.
Alder Yarrow took up the topic late last night in his Vinography blog, defining what a parasite is, and largely agreeing with Jancis. His take was pretty funny and appropriately self-deprecating.
But I think he stopped too soon in his dissection of parasites. Alder looked up three Webster’s definitions of parasite:
Parasite \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\ . Noun.
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism (in which one benefits at the expense of the other, without killing it)
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.
No. 1. Yes, some wine writers operate in exactly this way. They suck up to winery owners and importers, then get access to free lunches, free trips to exotic international wine regions, free samples and more. Some always write flattering things about who they meet and what they tasted, but by no means all of them.
No. 2. Yes, some wine writers do feed off the world of luxury wine to remain alive.
No. 3. Here is where I beg to differ. Because, ethics aside, wine writers do not fit this definition of parasite. Many do depend on wine industry support to make their livings, but what they give back is, in fact, very useful to the industry at large and adequate to compensate for what they take.
I’m making a very material assessment here. Wineries love publicity because it helps them sell their wine and make their profits. They wouldn’t spend so much time and effort on press relations, media junkets, sample-shipping programs and etc., if they didn’t.
A great review or article can “make” a brand. No question. A poor review can hurt, but not nearly as much as a rave review can help, according to scores of vintners I’ve talked to over the years.
A true parasite only takes away, and doesn’t give back. The relationship of wine writer to wine industry is much more symbiotic. The public can’t possibly access all the wines and regions that wine writers can with the help of the industry.
So when wine writers tout wines, recommend places to travel to, explain how wines are made, what foods they taste good with and so on, they contributing significantly to the economic health of the wine industry, even though their main goal should be to increase the enjoyment of their readers.
The question of how many free admittances, free samples, trips and other perks they accept is a whole other, and important, matter.
Filed under: Critics/Competitions, Industry Issues
7 Comments
7 Responses to “I Am Not a Parasite — But I Do Accept Free Samples”
Please Wait
April 24th, 2008 at 3:26:07 PM
Jim,
Your post, Like Alder Yarrow’s responds only to Robinson’s unfortunate use of the word “parasite”. But you also fail to address that the second half of her comment was an exhortation to humility.
She points out (and comments to the piece support her) that winemakers DO respond to critics by altering the style of their wines.
I would really like to see that second half of her statement see more play.
My contention is that if wine critics are to show humility, the first place to stat IS recommending wines IN SPITE of their own preferences because ultimate humility is exemplified in recommending something that you may prefer (or consider superior) but others might not.
This is like being a matchmaker: Your personal dislike of the two people you are pairing should not stand in the way of seeing them for who they are and recognizing that they would make a good pair. You can have – and voice your opinion – but in a way that does not denigrate the match.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:30:56 PM
We love to send you samples, especially if you actually taste them and comment on them. By accepting free samples you give us a lot of control over your critique since we determine what you taste and the sample doesn’t have to have anything in common with the wine we actually sell in the marketplace. $1600 watches? Très primitif!
April 24th, 2008 at 9:11:04 PM
In the ecology world, many relationships exist where it is hard to delineate the subtle differences between parasitism, symbiosis and commensalism. The latter defines a kind of relationship between two organisms where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or helped. Perhaps we shouldn’t take this analogy too far but the relationship between the three parties in this discussion, producer, wine critic and consumer is a complex one that is rarely parasitic and usually somewhere between symbiosis and commensalism.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:55:55 PM
I am responding so that I can officially state, on the record, that I will *gladly* review a wine if that wine’s producer also wants to give me a $1600 watch.
Especially if that watch will fetch $2000 or more on eBay.
Just sayin’…
April 25th, 2008 at 5:07:35 AM
I we posted on catavino.net earlier in the week, we were invited to the conference, but were unable to attend(journalist do get in free, bloggers too!)
We also talked more about ways that humility could be better used by the wine press, by admitting they are fallible and letting us into their world more. Blogging being the obvious choice to do this….
April 25th, 2008 at 5:58:44 PM
I spent 25 years as a mainstream journalist for west coast metro dailies. On the side, I often wrote about wine as a fun thing. Ten years ago, I decided to concentrate more on the wine writing. I brought the ethics from real journalism to my wine writing–at a daily newspaper you would be fired for taking free things. It was and is very hard for me to accept samples. I don’t generally take any freebies outside of what I need for a review/article. I am sickened by the abuse of freebies by so-called wine writers. If I come into a winery after them, I see the winemaker look at me as if, “what do i have to give you?” I try to attend tastings so I don’t have to ask for wine, or encourage winemakers to contact me when they are nearby so we can taste. I know the industry doesn’t pay much, but there are ways to get around it–try the state wine commissions. If you can’t afford to pay for it, at least be creative and less obvious than begging for a trip to Italy or France. Many of these writers totally embarrass me, and the truth is, they don’t care whether they do or not–they get to go to Europe!
April 25th, 2008 at 7:04:36 PM
Ok – I’ll take the watch and the trip(s) to Europe – If you insist :).