Big news

Y

Yixin

Yixin
Three Singapore-based investors have bought what reads like a controlling stake in The Wine Advocate, and Lisa Perotti-Brown, who lives in Singapore, will assume editorial oversight. Our paths don't often cross but I'll see if I can speak to her when we next meet. I had no inkling this particular permutation was in the works; all the rumours had been a small stake in return for an Asia-focused publication (akin to the AWSJ).

Loading…

online.wsj.com
 
Brad, thanks - WSJ's stupid gating...

I like this line from Felix Salmon, who's often a bit more interesting on art and wine than finance: "The idea that a 95-point wine is always better than an 85-point wine is an idea which deserves to die."

Sounds like SFJoe on multivariates, no?
 
originally posted by Yixin:
Brad, thanks - WSJ's stupid gating...
Click to expand...

Non-subscribers can see the WSJ article by going through Google rather than directly through the WSJ site. I can't tell if that requires being logged into a Google account - my university's email is through Google, so I'm always logged in.

The article's byline lists Disorder favorite Lettie Teague, by the way.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
Brad, thanks - WSJ's stupid gating...

I like this line from Felix Salmon, who's often a bit more interesting on art and wine than finance: "The idea that a 95-point wine is always better than an 85-point wine is an idea which deserves to die."

Sounds like SFJoe on multivariates, no?
Click to expand...
Amen, Brother Salmon.

If the deal is as he describes, the just deserts will be realized.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
originally posted by Yixin:
Brad, thanks - WSJ's stupid gating...

I like this line from Felix Salmon, who's often a bit more interesting on art and wine than finance: "The idea that a 95-point wine is always better than an 85-point wine is an idea which deserves to die."

Sounds like SFJoe on multivariates, no?
Click to expand...
Amen, Brother Salmon.

If the deal is as he describes, the just deserts will be realized.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what this means. I expect that Parker will have realized enough from the deal to insure him a wealthy and prosperous retirement. He is isolated enough by those who think him wonderful not to be bothered by critics and to enjoy his wealthy and prosperous retirement with the sense of achievement and a job well done (it will not matter to his sense of that whether it is accurate or not--if such a thing could conceivably be gauged).

The most promising aspect of this deal is that in a year or two, it may be the case that no one will think Parker's name worth mentioning at all in regard to anything, except as an historical event in the US wine market. I plan to start that policy now.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

I'm not sure what this means.
Click to expand...
I had anticipated your policy by one post, at least. I found Salmon's arguments about the consequences of scoring Chinese wine quite plausible.

I'm sure the former proprietor, what's-his-name, will not even be able to see the wolf from his door, much less hear him.
 
"The most promising aspect of this deal is that in a year or two, it may be the case that no one will think Parker's name worth mentioning at all in regard to anything, except as an historical event in the US wine market. I plan to start that policy now".

Jonathan, lovely stuff!!
 
It looks like the purchase of a prestige brand to make an impression in a young market at an early point on its learning curve, when prestige draws its highest premium. Without its founder, and with advertising, WA's basic character changes, and the owners have to anticipate that they will lose a large part of the current subscription base. The buyers' bet could be that prestige will draw in more than enough new subscribers to compensate, in their highly-populated, newly-affluent home market. I'd expect the WA to morph into an exclusive life-style e-zine, something like the Spectator.

After reading the last sentence in the WSJ article, I don't envy the writers' position. Salmon seems to suggest that scoring will cease (cf. Yixin's quotation above), which hardly seems likely.

Funny to recall, the WA's founder compared me to Ahmadinejad a few years ago because I said he was a good businessman.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
The most promising aspect of this deal is that in a year or two, it may be the case that no one will think Parker's name worth mentioning at all in regard to anything, except as an historical event in the US wine market. I plan to start that policy now.
Click to expand...

I suspect you may have started that policy years ago.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
After reading the last sentence in the WSJ article, I don't envy the writers' position. Salmon seems to suggest that scoring will cease (cf. Yixin's quotation above), which hardly seems likely.
Click to expand...

I think he is arguing for a diminution of influence, rather than cessation, and it reads more like a hope than a prediction. But with other standard-bearers such as Allen Meadows, Stephen Tanzer et. al. (including Claude), I think the 100-point scale is unfortunately here to stay.

Wine's probably the only consumer luxury good with such a misleadingly granular scale; I often ask clients to ponder why restaurants/watches/cigars (to name three typical co-hobbies) are not rated similarly. I haven't heard a really good answer.
 
originally posted by Yixin:
I often ask clients to ponder why restaurants/watches/cigars (to name three typical co-hobbies) are not rated similarly. I haven't heard a really good answer.
Click to expand...
Because no visionary has written about it that way yet?
 
In Lettie's article she quotes LPB desiring to have more control over the reviews. To me, this potentially means less coverage for certain less commercially viable regions. I've enjoyed David's writing the most over the years and I think a change like this has the potential to impact him the most, which would be regrettable.
 
originally posted by Steve Guattery:
originally posted by Yixin:
Brad, thanks - WSJ's stupid gating...
Click to expand...

Non-subscribers can see the WSJ article by going through Google rather than directly through the WSJ site. I can't tell if that requires being logged into a Google account - my university's email is through Google, so I'm always logged in.

The article's byline lists Disorder favorite Lettie Teague, by the way.
Click to expand...

"Ms. Perrotti-Brown will continue to review wines from Australia and New Zealand 'in the short term,' and is planning to add more reviews overall, including a new section on so-called 'icon wines,' the greatest wines produced in key regions around the world."

How exciting.

On another note: I had no idea the WSJ did that w/r/t non-reading through a link (or pasting the URL) but allowing reading if one does a simple Google search. What is the logic?
 
Within a year he'll be completely out. Either a cash buyout of his position, or forced out by the investors. They don't really need him anymore.
 
Word is that Chris Coad has been hired as their new correspondent in Asia as they plan to dramatically increase their coverage of cheap crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top