As a blogger I prefer to talk about wine (and tea) rather than blogging itself. But there’s recently been a few online discussions on where wine blogs stand and where they’re going that merit a comment. Jeremy Parzen of Do Bianchi argued whether bloggers should stick to positive reviews. (My view is that honest, non-personal and non-aggressive critical write-ups of bad wines add spice, context and credibility to a blog). Winewomansong discussed the difference between blogging and journalism. Tyler Colman a.k.a. Dr. Vino addressed the issue of bloggers’ income. His bottom line is, blogs don’t generate revenue but give you exposure and readership.
I’m perfectly happy about this latter situation. I blog here on Polish Wine Guide out of passion for wine and dedication. Sharing emotions and discoveries with readers has something fundamentally positive about it, and I wouldn’t give it up. To me, blogging is as much about ‘vanity’ as Jeremy Parzen puts it, as about the basic act of interacting and sharing with people. Vanity and altruism, in a way. And for the altruism part it doesn’t matter if you have hundreds, thousands or perhaps millions of readers.
Jancis Robinson can afford to charge readers of her website but what about mere mortals? © Financial Times.
But there’s the important part of paying the bills that readers don’t seem (or want) to notice. Worryingly, as the everything-for-free culture spreads on the internet, devouring wine journalism in the process, there is also an increasing pressure on wine writers to pay for the wines they review. The press travels of Jay Miller and other Wine Advocate and eRobertparker.com authors have been the hottest topic of debate in the last year (admittedly there have been some excesses there), and even receiving free wine samples is increasingly seen as controversial. On my Polish blog I am being regularly criticised for reviewing wines offered by producers and distributors.
I believe readers have the right to know about potential conflicts of interest (hence the Disclosure section under each of my posts where I make it clear who’s paid for the bottle, lunch, flight ticket etc.). Wine writing isn’t a perfect world, and I’m conscious of the vastly divergent standards of conduct adopted by my journalist colleagues. Disclosures help to cool down the debate, but there’s no hiding that the wine trade does exercise a powerful pressure on writers: after all, it’s the trade that decides who is ‘on the circuit’, participating in the numerous tasting events that provide the fuel for nearly everybody’s articles.
I do receive samples but over 50% of this wine was paid for by me.
In a perfect world, I’d entertain the wish of those more orthodox readers and pay for every single bottle and wine tour I write up here. This would give me and other writers much more independence and flexibility. But the same readers apparently don’t want to hear about paying for content. In a decade, we’ve grown to expect that the use of professional or semi-professional wine websites is free of charge. Even the happy few with an established reputation to charge for online subscriptions (eRobertparker.com, Jancisrobinson.com or, on a more modest scale, Quarin.com) aren’t exactly making peanuts, as far as I know. At the same time the circulation of printed (and payable) wine magazines is continuously falling.
The situation is different for the casual amateur wine blogger writing about his/her dinner bottles, but for every half-serious critic such as myself, the costs involved are high. Just being on the ‘free wine train’ as one blogger put it doesn’t provide you with relevant content. (And the train itself is rarely a holiday on the beach: in a week I’d typically have thirty wines to open including some fairly bad and boring). I’m pretty confident wine writers spend more on wine than anybody else. Citibank tells me that between January and July this year I’ve spent the equivalent of 1,600€ on wines that I thought would be interesting for you and me. That’s about 25% of my credit card bill. A trip like this one to Portugal, when it’s not offered by a trade organisation, will cost a four-digit sum. Finally there’s the very considerable cost of writing time spent away from actually earning money. How to pay for all this (I don’t mention trivialities like web hosting and administration) has been an increasing headache for all wine writers.
For those writers not blessed with a permanent position at one of the moribund wine magazines, there are two solutions: ads on the website or paid content. The former is adopted by e.g. Jamie Goode at the Wine Anorak, but I think the latter is far better: it avoids the mild conflict of interest behind any paid publicity in the press, and reinstates a healthy situation: those who make use of and (hopefully) enjoy a service remunerate those who provide it.
Tim Atkin MW: paving the way for wine writing renewal.
I think wine writing, where costs far are superior than those of political journalism or cinema reviews, needs urgent change. In this light I’m delighted to see one of favourite writers Tim Atkin MW finally addressing the issue. Tim runs a website as well as a blog, and he has been delivering the sort of competent well-researched content I mentioned above – for free. His 2009 Bordeaux and 2009 Burgundy special reports were available for free download from the website. With the 50-page comprehensive 2010 Bordeaux en primeur report Tim has introduced a £10 fee. Here’s what Tim says about his decision:
I took the decision to charge for my 2010 Bordeaux report after a lot of hard thought. I published reports on the 2009 vintages in Bordeaux and Burgundy, both of which were downloaded by more than 1000 people, for nothing on my site. Both involved a lot of work and incurred significant costs. Good wine writing, on the net and elsewhere, is expensive to produce. My competitors (Parker, Jancis, Suckling et al) charge people to subscribe to their websites, so I decided to do the same for my special reports. The rest of my site (www.timatkin.com) will remain free to access. I have been very encouraged by the reaction to my 2010 Bordeaux Report. It has been widely quoted by the likes of Farr Vintners, Bordeaux Index and Berry Brothers, and has been downloaded by just over 500 people to date. This doesn’t pay me a fortune, but it does offset the costs involved in researching, writing and publishing such a document.
I’m with Tim here. Paying for content is the only way for wine journalism to go on. It’ll be a tough decision for readers who’ve been enjoying it for free. But I’m confident it’ll help make wine writing, and your drinking, better.
Mr. Bonkowsky,
I agree with your opinion. I think an article written by a serious journalist should be paid by the people who want to read it. Something free is always equivalent to declassify the job. Pay for something you got free before can make a decrease of readers.This is good, We do not need people who is not really interested in wine. People who is interested in wine only because the wine is trendy is a damage for the wine system. We need less readers, but more serious, less journalists but more honest, less wine shop but more professional and so. And this new approach to the web can be a stone to build the process of reconsidering (from all the actors involved) the wine system.
Yours sincerely,
Francesco Bonfio
Dear Mr. Bonfio, your comment is much appreciated. I didn’t really mean to alienate readers. I would be happy to have more rather than less; similarly, I think more rather than fewer consumers of wine are not only beneficial but also necessary for the wine industry to develop.
But I do advocate a more serious relationship between readers and writers. It would be good if readers reflected upon such things as where wine writing is coming from and how it can be financed. Paying for content introduces a welcome element of seriousness and respect to the relationship.
Dear Mr. Bonkowski,
If we loose readers not really interested in wines and if we loose consumers equally not interested in the wine itself and at the same time we increase the serious readers and the serious consumers this will be a good thing. And the fact of the payment of a sum of money for a quality job can help in this matter.
I own two wine shops in Siena, Italy
Let me write a story really happened. Where: in a wine shop in Siena, Italy.Time: February 2002 Who: a customer and myself
The customer entered in the shop: “Good evening, do you have Brunello di Montalcino?” (the day before the two major news at 8 pm transmitted a report about Benvenuto Brunello 2002).
Me:”Good evening, Sir, Yes, we do. Can I help you in some way?
Customer: “No, Thank you.
After few minutes he asked me to package 6 different Brunellos 2007 just released. I did and the total purchase was over 300.000Lire (approximately 150,00Euros). He charged on his credit card and took the package. He was trespassing the door when he moved his face back and asked:”Are these wines dry?”. This is the kind of customers we do not need. People that bought just because they have the money and they heard the Brunello is a classy wine.
Tim is absolutely right to charge for his Bordeaux report. Aside from the hours of work spent on this, he is sending a clear message – his opinions are the product of several decades of serious wine journalism. They are valuable and he should profit from this.
Enough of these so-called wine writers who publish a blog and give everything away for free. They ruin it for the most experienced journalists who have been covering wine for many years and do so in a professional manner.
Happy to have your comment Tom!
Personally I have nothing against amateur bloggers. They add diversity to the wine scene, and some of them turn out to be pretty serious tasters too. But just as you, I think a new balance is necessary.
Sorry, the Brunello mentione were 1997 NOT 2007 obviously. And the customer was italian.
@Francesco Bonfio: I perfectly understand your frustration with this kind of customer. I’ve tutored wine tastings for people who ordered vodka from the bar in the meantime. Althogh the positivist in me has hope that your indiscriminating customer might actually like the Brunello he purchased, and that it could start a real interest in wine.
Thanks for the shout out. And glad to see Mr. Bonfio here. His insights and opinions are always informed and interesting…
When I write for Decanter.com or for Houston Press, I consider my work journalism and I treat it as such… when I write on my own blog, I consider it a journal about my life and how I feel and a document of what’s going on my life to look back on later… it just so happens that wine and Italian wine are a big part of my life…
I believe that as the blogging continues to encroach on the space once reserved by print media, blogging in general becomes increasingly institutionalized… and there is no doubt that bloggers need to start taking greater responsibility in what they write and how they represent themselves online and in person…
I’m not sure I know all the answers but I’m glad that we’ve started an international dialoge: Poland, USA, Italy, Great Britain… only good can come of it…
Thanks for that Jeremy. “institutionalized blogging” – I’m not sure: I actually see a strong tendency to the contrary, with bloggers representing themselves as the “alternative” authors or “anti-establishment”. But I every bit agree on taking responsability.
It doesn’t really matter what political position a blogger takes. The bottom line is: producing serious critical content costs money, and that money has to come from somewhere. At the moment it comes from the authors, who work 40 hours per week elsewhere to then work 10 or 20 hours per week on their blogs / websites. That just can’t continue.
You are lucky (I say that from lack of a better word) to have commissions from Decanter or the Houston Press. All writers who can strike a happy balance like that are lucky. But not all are, and it’s partly because the “for free” culture is udermining payable wine publications.
I know it is very risky beacuse of my weak english but the theme is so fascinating and important that I would like to express my point of view. All of readers will be so kind to excuse me.
a) write about all wines (bad or mediocre or great ones) and say the truth or to write only to say good things? It has been always a problem, since the times without internet. Luigi Veronelli has been the father of the wine critic in Italy. He generally has written about good wines, Very rarely he mentioned about bad quality wines. It is also true that when he started (end of sixties) the italian wine system needed to talk about good wines to help the growth of the quality of the entire production. All the rest followed this style and we had wines criticized very rarely. It is true that a wine writer is more reliable if he judge wines and publicize either bad or good wines telling the truth, but reliable to who? A very small percentage of readers pay attention to the fact that a wine is reviewed by a journalist who say good to good wines and bad to bad wines. The largest amount of readers just notice that that wine receive the honor to be mentioned and is enough for them.
b) to be paid or give articles free? Why this problem comes out now? It has been always a problem. Since Veronelli and then more and more. Producers send samples to journalists, now and in the past. No one italian wine guide, for their admission, buys the wines to be judged, scored and published. How a journalist can afford to buy the samples? And, on the other side, is it so important. Without internet, at least the readers had to buy the publications to read something. Now internet makes everyhing free. And nobody can fight against the free internet system. The option to ask to be a subscriber is a good thing also because it is also a way to make a distinctive difference bertween the professionals and the people that write on their blog for fun. No big room for the professional, by the way. There will be a selection, sad but we necessary. Waiting that the unprofessional will become tired.
Thank you for your patience.
No need to apologise for your excellent English
Regarding a), I think a culture of complacency or “buonismo” is actually doing a disservice to the wine consumer. Underperforming expensive wines, soulless big brands, manipulated, overpriced, uniformised wines should be criticised as such. It would be ridiculous if a cinema reviewer only gave positive remarks, so why expect the same of a wine critic?
b) The problem, I think, is not samples as a whole, but the fact that too many wine journalist are overly dependent on samples, press trips, winery hospitality, etc. Paying for content will give writers more independence and freedom. Sample will continue but the writer will also be able to buy a large proportion of wines him/herself and travel on his/her own. This will reinstate more balance to what is actually written. At this moment, largely unable to finance their own activity, many writers are practically prisoners of the wine trade PR and its system of “incentives”; as a consequence they avoid excessive criticism and grow to be complacent.
Pingback: Do Bianchi·
Francesco Bonfio have not only own 2 wine shops in Siena, but he’s a President of wine shops italian association Vinarius.
Thank you Mr. Crosta for this additional information.
I must say that I am very sensitive about conflict of interest. So I try to pay much attention when I send a comment to a blog keeping separate the istitutional role of President of Vinarius from my job. When I sign as “enotecario” (italian for retailer wine merchant) my thoughts reflet only my personal point of view. However, I have to admit that the matter of this post is very fascinating also for the association. I know for example that many, if not all, Vinarius members used to be very frustrated when a customer entered into the store with a xerox from Mr. Parker’s review or the Wine Spectator list of wines over 90 points. They find the wine guides as a competitor not as an help to increase the knowledge of the serious wine drinker. Fortunately this phenomenon is ending and more and nore customers are coming back to the wine shops asking for the “enotecario” adices.
I do not exclude that in future I may express the Vinarius point of view about this and other matters.
All readers enjoy their weekend.
Dear Mr. Bonfio, absolutely no conflict of interest here, and everybody is free to express their opinions.
What you say about wine merchants advising customers is very important. The wine merchant is a vital link. The consumer should see education in wine books or online publications, but the merchant has a different point of view that can also be beneficial to the consumer. Many good wines I have bought in my life were recommended to me by good wine merchants (including the Poggerino Chianti with stewed octopus that you did recommend to me in 1999! I still remember that). I think many consumers overlook that – and many retailers do not fulfill their role well, preferring to sell only high-scoring mediatic wine. This makes a good wine merchant who cares about his/her selection even more valuable.
Dear Mr. Bonfio, I confirm the Wojtek’s opinion, that absolutely no conflict of interest here, and everybody is free to express opinions. Thank You in advance for the future expression of the Vinarius point of view about this and other matters: 90 wine shops are a great reality…
Oh, my God!
I must have written in incomprehensible manner.
The conflict of interest I was reffering is between my person and the association. Since the beginning of my presidential task I always tried to avoid to increase my personal media visibility thank to the Association. I did not and I do not want to take advantage of my role. Also I tried to keep separate my opinion as enotecario from the official opinion of the Association. Obviously during my presidential mandate I released several interviews and I placed comments on various blogs but only when it was a matter of an “institutional thoughts” and in that case I tried to give the opinion of the entire or the large majority of the members. On the other side, when it has been a matter to place a comment as enotecario I signed as owner ot the wine shop
Excuse-me for my fault.
Francescoooo! Si sciolga. Guardi che qui e’ come casa sua….
@Francesco Bonfio: I very much respect your high standards, but like Mario Crosta I encourage you to speak up on this blog and anywhere else. We need your informed opinion and I really don’t see any issue about the fact you are also president of Vinarius. Actually Vinarius is lucky to have a president so active on social media discussions.
“Actually Vinarius is lucky to have a president so active on social media discussions”. Questo sì che e’ parlar chiaro!
@Mario Crosta.Grazie per l’incoraggiamento Ma io sono scioltissimo! Quando avrò qualcosa da dire interverrò, sia come enotecario sia come Vinarius.
Buona domenica a tutti
@ Francesco Bonfio. Lei non sa quanto sia felice, credo anche Wojtek. Mr. Bonfio’s experience and competence are very important for me and his opinions are always very helpful to understand the mysteries of the little big world of Italian wine.
@Mario Crosta. Thank you very much for the nice words. I simply try to do my best at the wine shop, in Vinarius and wherever I have to do something.
I am happy to pay for professional wine blog posts as far as they are justified, like for Tim’s reports or Jancis Purple pages. I believe Jancis Robinson has implemented the right conception by having some content available for anyone (free for all) and some that needs to be paid for.
The quality of your readers would definitely be better but you would loose the “ad-hoc” readers.
Ultimately, I think that one needs to have some authority in the wine trade in order to make his/her website/blog payable, which ever manner.
Have you considered having a separate blog where you would only focus on wine or would you stop writing here about tea? You see where I am going?
@Guillaume: this is an important point. Of course charging for content requires that the content must be somehow relevant to the reader. It should be the fruit of comprehensive research, expertise, and have a degree of usefulness e.g. as a buying guide. I wouldn’t remotely consider charging for my blog, which is irregularly updated, digresses into tea, oilve oil and other non wine-related matters, and basically is just written for fun (and will continue to be). My point was more about comprehensive websites such as those by Oz Clarke, Joanna Simon or Tim Atkin. (These are just examples). They include blogs but also weekly wine recommendations, tutorials, special reports etc. All this content (with the exception of Tim’s Bdx 2010 special report) is given away for free. That just isn’t sustainable in the long run.
I absolutely agree with you that authority is the prerequisite for anyone wishing to pay you for your work, but as you can see from the above examples, people who are leading authorities are still working for free. I also agree Jancis has struck a good balance, but again she’s one of the exceptions, plus Purple Pages aren’t exactly making millions of euros. (Note that except Jancis and Julia Harding, all authors of Jancisrobinson.com work for free).