No, I assure you, these were not received as samples (not that I would complain if they were), but I like this photo of mine.
The subject of wine samples seems to be a hot topic among wine bloggers and other wine writers, especially when it comes to journalistic integrity. Much has already been written on this angle/aspect of the debate elsewhere and, as I am late to the pool party, I won’t attempt to crash it by jumping in at this juncture.
However, an interesting discussion on samples recently presented itself at an event I attended. A public relations representative posed the question of the assembled writers as to their opinon on unsolicited samples.
Some writers noted that they were happy to receive the samples regardless of whether they had been expected or not, while others were less enthused. The PR person had received feedback from a blogger who claimed to dislike receiving unsolicited samples and praised those PR folks who gave him/her the right of refusal before packing up a case and sending it along. Yet, this same person admitted that unsolicited samples received the same care and treatment as solicited ones — being logged and eventually drank (and possibly written about).
Consequently, the PR person was torn between being a good citizen and potentially denying his/her clients possible press or brazenly sending samples — bidden or not — all in the name of PR. Certainly, this is not a major dilemna, but something for those in PR to ponder in the course of their day to day activities.
If there was any consensus, it was that writers want PR people to at least do their homework and understand the writer’s beat. If s/he only writes about bargain wines, don’t send samples of premium wines priced at $50.00 and above. Yes, they are nice to get, but beyond personal consumption, they will not be useful as writing topics. It’s not a new story, but one that is sometimes forgotten in the rush to get samples out the door.
My own opinion is that, in general, I prefer to receive a request prior to getting the samples to ensure that I really do want them and/or that they are of interest to my writing agenda. Yet, I can’t deny that the occasional mystery arrival of wine feels a lot like Christmas or your birthday, but perhaps a bit better — even it its not what you asked for, it always fits.
Ah, the great sample conundrum that plagues writers, PR types and wineries. In my case, because I review virtually everything on the West Coast, I get tons of unsolicited samples. There was a time when those samples would be returned to sender since we were buying all the wine we reviewed, but that is no longer possible given the attitude of the competition so we now accept samples but do not solicit them broadly or limit ourselves to samples.
Still, this debate, and its relatives (should one review wines that show poorly; should one charge wineries to display their labels or logos alongside their reviews; should one offer sidebars on those wineries or interviews with the winemaker for a price) will always be with us.
Here is my answer–and it might be worthwhile extending this discussion with yours as well.
–Different kinds of publications have different needs. I review thousands of wines per year in print so I accept everything that comes in the door. If I don’t need it, it gets donated to Special Olympics for their fundraisers or to a few other good causes.
–Writers who do not review broadly and thus have no need for hundreds of samples should make that clear. And under those circumstances, there is really no reason to avoid soliciting samples needed for the article to be written.
–TRANSPARENCY. It seems to me that writers owe their readers the truth about how wines are received and how they are reviewed. Transparency may not remove questions about bias but can, at least, provide an framework for the consumer to understand how opinions were derived. At that point, the consumer can decide for him- or herself what is good and acceptable practice.
BLIND TASTING–To me, tasting wines blind (that is to say without the labels showing and without knowing which wines are included) is the best way to guarantee an unbiased set of judgments to the readers.
PEER TO PEER TASTINGS–In most cases, the best way to judge wines is in comparison to their peers. Now, to be sure, comments about a wine enjoyed at dinner are not inappropriate so long as the context is identified. I have a long-standing pet-peeve with writers who review wines they taste at lunch with the labels showing and the winery or the distributor sitting their with them telling those writers about the wines and buying thme fois gras and caviar and luxury entrees to go with the wines. Any wine could look good in that company.
MONEY–There are publications in this world that charge wineries to tell their stories. I see no way that such a practice can be acceptable when one is reviewing their wines supposedly without bias.
===
So, thanks Tracy, for starting your new venture with a look at this topic. Keep up the good work.
Charlie, thank you for your insightful response. You raise a number of interesting and important points.
I know that when I did my brief stint in PR for a large wine importer and was suddently on that side of the business, I was surprised to find out that the labels accompanying the scores and tasting notes were paid for by the producer or importer. While I understand that a publication is as much about advertising as it is about content (if not more so), I think the issue of transparency comes into play here as well. I would imagine that most consumers/readers are unaware that these are paid placements.
I agree that blind tasting and peer-to-peer tastings provide further objectivity in reviewing wine and, while this is not something I have previously done, I will definitely seek to be better about it going forward.