Gawt damned! Is there a shortage of Geritol? Why are the old folk all so cranky?
The independent consumer advocate, market maker, and wine critic, Robert Parker (and staff) has taken some lumps and made some swings in the past few weeks-- Mostly surrounding ethics (his and others).
Like him or not, or agree with his palate or not, Robert Parker has earned my respect. He was a pioneering, extremely successful, self-made, consumer advocate in an industry that pre-Parker was filled with some serious BS (not that we are now free from serious BS). Parker is arguably the world's most influential critic in any market. But-- disagree with his opinion (or that of his staff) and prepare for a low blow to your credibility and expertise.
On eRobertParker.com, (of which I am still a paid member of actually just canceled tonight- This B is finally gettin' a TIVO!!!) his bulletin board the "Mark Squires' Bulletin Board" has long been critical of those who disagree or speak up. Threads deleted, dissenters kicked off, and questions and threads erased (some of my favorite bloggers have been booted for disagreeing with the Wine Advocate. Some have never been heard from again.)
In the past few weeks, the transparency of the Wine Advocate has been questioned, and the responses have been quite entertaining (if watching seniors beat their chests is fun to you). For a publication that declares transparency, and the highest of ethical standards, some trips, dinners, and cavorting have seem to have raised some eyebrows and and people have tried to ask if these are in violation of their high ethical standards.
Usually I keep my nose out of stuff like this, but some of Parker's recent comments on wine blogs and the upcoming Wine Bloggers Conference were offensive, hypocritical, and a sign that Parker, the independent consumer advocate, is perhaps primarily the Parker advocate.
In a thread attacking wine bloggers (which is fine with me, everyone is fair game), Robert Parker personally weighs in on the upcoming Wine Bloggers Conference, Wine Bloggers, and the wine industry buying favor of the sea of bloggers.
What bothers me is not his criticism, but that he declares "blobbers" as misinformed, distorters of the truth, and spreaders of falsehoods all over the net. But he says this right after he falsely insinuates that the wine industry is picking up accommodations, travel, and providing even more than a "sloppy wet kiss" to throngs of unwashed at the upcoming Wine Bloggers Conference. Then he knocks the bevvy hungry sponsors that have been snubbed by the Wine Advocate (who only reviews the creme de la creme of the wine world) and who must bottomfeed to find other outlets, and then also that wine bloggers must be in bed with the CA wine industry... But isn't this a distortion of the truth and the spreading of falsehoods to his paying customers to try and protect his value? I guess Bob won't be the keynote at the conference this year.... (PS- I wish someone would pick up my travel, the Dirty South Wine revenue stream has all been going to charity).
Like it or not, no one has the influence of Robert Parker (today). But--The market of consumers that is actually still growing, are less familiar with the Wine Advocate, and far more apt to listen to free commentary of Gary Vaynerchuk, Alder Yarrows, Alice Feiring, Lyle Fass and dozens of others before plopping down money for a subscription to Parker.
Are things coming unwound at the Wine Advocate?
And does anyone who reads a wine blog really care?
