Wine Enthusiast Magazine
Subscribe
I was befuddled this morning when I read a blog post about “shelf talkers”, the printed marketing material associated with bottles of wine at the retail store. Shelf talkers typically contain the name of the wine, a description, and associated ratings. You’ll often find our ratings on these shelf talkers, which are created to aid buyers in their decision making process.
Wine accessory guru Robert Dwyer, accuses Costco of using deceptive marketing by selectively listing higher scores on shelf talkers and also listing scores for previous vintages. Though I respect Robert and consider him a friend, I have to respectfully disagree with his points. Given that his piece received 30+ comments, it seems like an issue with legs.
To me, it’s only logical that a retailer do everything in his/her power to sell wine. These days, that has lot to do with ratings. A retailer like Costco has no ethical obligation to serve as a library of ratings. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they took on the task. Plus, providing customers with a laundry list of ratings only serves to confuse. Cherry picking the best is a solid solution. If I were Costco and a wine received an 81 point rating from another publication and a 90 point rating from Wine Enthusiast, I would report the 90 point rating. My goal is to make money by selling wine, no? If people feel slighted by the fact that retailers don’t include all of the reviews then they should do their research. Visit the store with our iPhone app in hand, you’ll have thousands of ratings for reference.
This type of selective disclosure is used all the time. When you saw the trailer for, let’s say, Inglorius Basterds (great flick by the way), you may have seen reviews that read something like: “A classic Tarantino genre-blending thrill ride, Inglourious Basterds is violent, unrestrained, and thoroughly entertaining” But you probably won’t see this review on the screen: “The lack of substance in the plot is counter balanced by violence of epic proportions.” Deceptive? No. Marketing? Yes.
The problem is that there is still consumer confusion about ratings. When a retailer is selling a 2005 Napa Valley Cabernet but reports the ratings for the 2004 and the 2003, there will be people who misread the shelf talker and think that the previous ratings apply to the new vintage. All a retailer can do be clear that the ratings are for “Previous Vintages”, and then it’s up to the consumer to read carefully. Frankly, there are consumers who don’t care about vintage variation. They are brand loyal and only care about pedigree. Those who feel differently can ignore the previous vintage ratings if they choose. I don’t fault a retailer for reporting them.
Do you use shelf talkers to shop for wine? Do you feel that the practices I mentioned are deceitful?
Filed under: Opinions and Commentary, Wine Retail
8 Comments
8 Responses to “Selective Shelf Talking: Deceitful?”
Please Wait
September 17th, 2009 at 4:19:46 PM
It is deceptive if you mention reviews for vintages other than the one you are selling. Not everyone will notice the different years.
If you were buying a car, and the dealer kept explaining the features of another model that you weren’t interested in, even saying “your model may not have these features” it still is misleading.
It is not up to the consumer to “read carefully.” It is up to the dealer to be honest and forthright. Hence the movement towards larger type, more transparency, simpler language in “the fine print.”
September 17th, 2009 at 5:53:01 PM
Well said, Larry! I agree with you. To answer your question, Erika, I used to use shelf talkers to guide my wine purchases but after reading Robert’s blog post last week I have started to look at the shelf talkers much more critically. I now see them, as you suggest, as marketing material not reference material. I have begun to notice that, most often, the vintage being praised is not actually the bottle that I am holding in my hand. That disappoints me and I still consider it misleading – it is advertising for a different product, not the one that is offered for purchase. But now I am aware of this practice and do my own research.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:45:19 PM
@Larry and @Sheila Thanks for your additional comments here. I appreciate them.
Erika- Thanks for continuing the conversation on this subject. I consider you a friend too, and respect you even when we disagree.
An important distinction between what Costco/Wine.com do with shelf talkers and other forms of advertising is the source of the message. When I see a paid ad, I fully expect to hear only the best attributes about the product. However, when I see signs at a retailer that relay presumably unbiased third party opinions, my natural inclination is to see them as helpful reference materials. It wasn’t until I did some research that I realized the typical nature of these signs and how they’re cherry picked to show the wine in an unrealistically positive light.
That said, I fully agree that these examples are less egregious than (1) the outright fabrication (or “mistake” as it’s sometimes called) and (2) the no-vintage write-up that a reasonable person would infer is for the wine being sold. These are both far more misleading and troubling.
I have a question for you as a representative of Wine Enthusiast. Since your ratings are used on shelf-talkers, would it bother you if someone took a Wine Enthusiast ad and cherry picked an individual tasting note?
Say this wine that received the absolute lowest rating Wine Enthusiast will publish online (evidently 80): http://buyingguide.winemag.com/item.aspx/4295021321#xr=80
“Overtly floral and jumpy, with potent aromas of perfume. Heavy in the mouth, with odd, bland flavors of applesauce and spice. Soft and sticky.”
…becomes:
“floral…with aromas of perfume. Heavy in the mouth…flavors of applesauce and spice. Soft…”
…and the 80 point rating isn’t mentioned. How would you feel as the publisher of that rating and tasting note if it was selectively leveraged to sell wine? I don’t think it’s much different than when a retailer cherry picks the positive historical ratings you’ve given a wine and suppresses the negative. It doesn’t accurately depict what you’ve thought of the wine. If I bought the wine based on the good things I read on the shelf talker that were attributed to you and I didn’t like the wine, I’d be less likely to trust your ratings and tasting notes in the future.
Robert Dwyer
The Wellesley Wine Press
September 17th, 2009 at 11:15:28 PM
A more apt and less “inglorius” metaphor would be if a Blockbuster aisle included a rave review for Godfather 2 directly under a copy of Godfather 3, largely thought to be a very distant third in the trilogy. Marketing is not just lying cleverly.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:36:02 AM
Thanks everyone for the insightful responses and analogies.
@Larry and @Ian For you and I the differences between two vintages of a wine may be as different as two car models or the sequel to a movie but there are a lot of people with more basic wine knowledge who ignore the vintage and focus on the brand. For some, a Cakebread Chardonnay is a Cakebread Chardonnay. There is also something about a certain brand that conveys an image for them or impresses. For these people, the previous vintages are helpful as long as they are clearly listed as associated with the other vintages only. If the previous vintage ratings were disguised as applying to the current vintage, I would certainly take issue with that.
@Sheila I’m happy you’ve discovered a bit more about how shelf talkers work and have adjusted your buying practices accordingly. Whether marketing pieces or not, transparency and clarity should always be paramount.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:56:09 AM
@Robert Yes, the thing is that shelf talkers really aren’t unbiased opinions as you realized. They are created with the intention of exciting a customer to make a purchase.
That’s an interesting point you raise on reviews and it is a fine line. I guess there is a difference between manipulating something and selectively leaving something out. I think the difference is one completely misrepresents the intention of the critic while the other is preserving the real score, only selecting items that put the wine in its best light. One is an outright lie and the other is leaving out the complete picture for the benefit of sales.
Unfortunately, what you’re referencing is not illegal, just grossly irresponsible.
September 21st, 2009 at 3:47:37 PM
Erika,
Thanks for the mention of PALATE PRESS: The online wine magazine, and for the ongoing conversation. I even appreciate the criticism, for “there is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” [Brendan BehanIrish author & dramatist (1923 - 1964)]
David Honig
September 28th, 2009 at 1:44:43 PM
Erika,
Having recently shopped for a mixed case of good but moderately priced wines from around the world, I was continually frustrated by shelf-talkers touting an earlier vintage. To my mind, this is a form of bait-and-switch advertising. It also looks tatty when the tags are so old they’re getting ragged around the edges.
As far as not displaying other, lower ratings, I have no problem with that. Consumers should indeed do their own research, but keeping an old score on the shelf for later vintages that might not be nearly as good strikes me as deceptive.
Jane Starwood