Using Points to Flog Wine

We all want the best wine that we can afford, right? Nothing wrong with that, its just human nature! By the same token retailers and wineries want to flog as much wine as they possibly can and in the easiest manner possible, once again human nature. It’s these two desires working in tandem that is the basis of the deeply rooted (bad pun and ambiguous meaning intended) use of the 100 point rating system and one of the main reasons it will not be replaced any time soon (unfortunately.)  

Those are strong words but this article will back them up with facts.

The 100 point rating system has many failings, some are them are listed below.

1. Numeric objective scores for a subjective analysis which revolves around one person’s taste does not make rational sense. ‘That Mona Lisa is worth 99 points but that Jackson Pollock Blue Poles is a big and brash new world style so it only rates 94 points.’ Get the picture?

2. As many different reviewers will rate the same wine, it’s perfectly natural that retailers will use the highest score possible in their advertising. For example, Jeremy Oliver rated the 2001 Dead Arm Shiraz 16.8 points and Robert Parker rated it at 98+ points, now which rating do you think will be used in retail advertising? As a result of retailers always using the highest possible score with almost no regard as to who scored it, more and more highly scored wines find their way into adverts which congests the pyramid at the apex. As this happens there is less and less differentiation at the top and the whole scoring system becomes less credible. It’s getting to the point where unless you can advertise a wine at 93 points or above many people think the wine must be crap and not worth buying!

3. Unfortunately this has a flow on effect as it makes it harder to retail wines that have not been noticed and blessed by a critic. Many wineries think these score are positive as it gets them noticed and to a certain extent they are correct but it creates a false sense of security. One good rating is not enough to hook an audience and keep them. These ratings are like a short term fix for an addiction. In the long run it does nothing to foster good long term marketing plans by either wineries or retailers. Once the fix has worn off consumers are off looking for another one. The purchasing public that relies on these scores to make their purchasing decisions have no long term loyalty and just flit from one recommendation to the next, this is especially so in ‘fashion markets,’ particularly the US.

4. Whilst I am reluctant to use the “P” word, there is no doubt that Mr Parker has a strong preference towards certain types of South Australian red wine styles and when he rates these the resulting numerical scores are frequently high, in my opinion many are way to high. The fact that these wines are getting high scores is why Parker is suddenly catching on in Australia. The retailers love the high scores and as a result are using them with increasing regularity in their advertising so more and more consumers are reading the scores and by default Parker gains further influence and it becomes a merry go round of ever increasing proportions.

There is no doubt that there is no substitute for a well written tasting note to give you the true picture about a wine, especially if you take the time to understand the author’s style and preferences. All a number provides you with is a score that may be next to meaningless. For example, a consumer sees that judge Critic X has rated a wine at 95 points in their monthly publication and think it must be a pretty good wine so they buy a bottle to try and find they hate the wine. Why? Because it’s a bruising big wine and they prefer a little subtlety. If they had read the tasting note instead of concentrating on the score they may have purchased a wine with a lower score they enjoyed far more.

Whilst I was writing this I had cause to speak with Rick Burge of Burge Family Winemakers. Amongst other things we discussed this topic and Rick said “if they introduced a 1,000 point system it wouldn’t surprise me if before long all the better wines would be crowded into a band between 994 and 1,000. The 100 point system is plain stupid; imagine rating a work of art or a meal out of 100.” Now what was I saying?

It could and will be argued by some people that if the consumer has a very good knowledge of the judges or commentators palate buying on points may be ok but it is still far from fool proof. For example I think I know Halliday’s palate pretty well but the more I see his tasting notes the less attention I pay to his scores as the more I get to known him the more I realise my palate only aligns in certain areas, not all. The moral of the story is that if you want to buy on points, you'd better know and trust the person making the rating". Better still; forget the scores, especially in retail advertising. If a wine looks like it may be of interest to look for some complete tasting notes on the web, normally there are a few of them around. Make up your mind based on what you think the authors are saying about the wine, not how well they did in the last meaningless exam.

Copyright © Ric Einstein 2003