Big news

originally posted by Hank Beckmeyer:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, he's still closely associated with the publication's prestige, which is paramount, imo, so I imagine he'll continue to be influential, as long as he can stick it out. He retains a tax-deductible wine budget, reimbursable travel/entertainment expenses, and leverage with his favorite wine-making community. But I wonder how long he can tolerate not being in control.
 
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...

So, you know these shadowy guys in Singapore?

BTW, it is very doable to create a single score from a multi dimensional problem. One that is very predictive as well. Done all the time.

Just because these asshats don't do it doesn't make it a terrible idea.
 
originally posted by VLM:
BTW, it is very doable to create a single score from a multi dimensional problem. One that is very predictive as well. Done all the time.

Just because these asshats don't do it doesn't make it a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

What are they doing wrong?
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
originally posted by VLM:
BTW, it is very doable to create a single score from a multi dimensional problem. One that is very predictive as well. Done all the time.

Just because these asshats don't do it doesn't make it a terrible idea.
Click to expand...

What are they doing wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, they are pulling numbers out of thin air for a start.
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
How would it have to be done to be done right?
Click to expand...

I'm reading Nate Silver's book on this general topic now; very decent: informative, pretty well-written. Not too technical, but not excessively dumbed-down (except maybe to Nathan). But hard to compress to WD-scale.

I imagine, for one thing, you'd have to settle on something you can count by observation, not just "think of a number from 50-100."
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Reading Nate Silver's book on this general topic now; very decent: informative, pretty well-written. Not too technical, but not excessively dumbed-down (except maybe to Nathan). But hard to compress to WD-scale.

I imagine, for one thing, you'd have to settle on something you can count by observation, not just "think of a number from 50-100."
Click to expand...

Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

You'll need a big N. Tried to talk Eric Levine into this, he didn't bite.

Haven't read Silvers book, but from my understanding, his methods are pretty basic OLS regression.
 
originally posted by Yixin:

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.
Click to expand...

Restaurants are certainly rated on a numerical scale, be it 4 stars in the NY Times or 20 points in Gault-Millau, etc. Whether it's one of those scales or 100 is immaterial (and I have no doubt that somewhere, someone is rating them on a 100-point scale).

Cigars are on a 100-point scale the one time I saw Shanken's publication.

Jazz recordings are marked on a 100-point scale if you go to jazz.com.

As august a publication as the FT rates concerts, movies, art exhibitions, etc. on a five-star scale.

Watches probably are rated on a numerical scale somewhere, too, but assuming for the sake of argument that they aren't, the significant difference is that I can go to a watch dealer and examine the item I am contemplating buying before making the decision to purchase. Most people can't do that with wine.

P. S. Is it true that you are one of the Singapore investors? ;)
 
originally posted by VLM:
Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.
Click to expand...
Recently read an interview with Chomsky in which he did not agree that careful watching of the data will generate scientific results.

...ducking the flying blubber...
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
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.
Click to expand...
Suppose they keep the Chinese wines out of the US edition? Then, the morph is just (1) add ads and (2) the founder becomes an emeritus contributor. It still has the same stable of writers otherwise so not too different. I think it could retain its audience a good while like that.
 
If Singapore-based investors have bought controlling share, my guess is they are looking for growth, rather than just a reliable return based on the magazine's status quo. Taking in to account the ballyhooed up-ticking Chinese demand for fine wine, it's hard not to leap to the conclusion that the new owners will steer marketing towards Asia. Bob's name would be great for prestige there; it would be natural also to assign him the task of retaining as much of the US market as possible. In this vein, discussion elsewhere says he's tweeted that the US print version will be continued, without advertising.

But, true, I'm just swimming laps in the pool of conjecture here.
 
originally posted by VLM:
[...]

Haven't read Silvers book, but from my understanding, his methods are pretty basic OLS regression.
Click to expand...

I haven't run across a 'methods' section, yet, but this sounds right. His deal, I think, is not so much sophisticated technique, but acquiring sufficient insight into the process of interest to count and properly weigh the things that best indicate outcomes. Also, to tolerate uncertainty, and play the odds over the long-run. Also, find ways to build up N (e.g., poll aggregation).
 
originally posted by VLM:

Decide on the dimensionality. Get items to measure them. Item response or structural equation model. Expected a posteriori scoring on any scale you want ~N(µ,sd). Done.

You'll need a big N. Tried to talk Eric Levine into this, he didn't bite.
Click to expand...
Well, this would get you somewhere, but I doubt it's an interesting destination. From CT??? Talk about a dilute sample.
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
If Singapore-based investors have bought controlling share, my guess is they are looking for growth, rather than just a reliable return based on the magazine's status quo. Taking in to account the ballyhooed up-ticking Chinese demand for fine wine, it's hard not to leap to the conclusion that the new owners will steer marketing towards Asia. Bob's name would be great for prestige there; it would be natural also to assign him the task of retaining as much of the US market as possible. In this vein, discussion elsewhere says he's tweeted that the US print version will be continued, without advertising.
Click to expand...
Right. So, keep the US edition the same as it always was, and slap the names you bought all over your own reviews of Chateau Boiled Monkey Intestines (or whatever it is).
 
originally posted by Sharon Bowman:
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?
Click to expand...

It captures the audience who are looking for a specific topic as opposed to someone who comes to a website every day and is too cheap to pay for a subscription.
The term is porous wall, meaning it shuts some out but not everyone. Eventually clicks from Google searches will likely be going away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top