This weekend’s Financial Times carried a full page reader offer for 2004 Chateau Langoa-Barton with the by-line “Awarded 90 points by Robert Parker, this wine is not to be missed”. The rating of 90 recalled to mind an article by professional cynic John C Dvorak who describes a 90 point Parker rating as “the chicken shit ranking”.
Spin the wheel, close your eyes and stick the tail on the donkey!
Parker’s rating system has rightly been described by Dvorak as both “genius” and “ludicrous” (see full interpretation below) but I’m more interested in the relevance of Robert Parker to the modern consumer rather than the much commented upon limitations of the 100 point scale.
Today, the world of wine comment and wine criticism is a vastly different place than that occupied by Parker in his prime. Then Parker was seen as the consumer advocate in a landscape dominated by vested interests of the trade. Now, as consumers, our knowledge is deeper and richer; our exposure to choice is unprecedented; and our access to information about the wine we drink is limited only by our connectivity.
Most importantly, it’s my contention that the way that we are making our wine choices is moving away from the recommendations of professional critics towards endorsement by peers who share our tastes.
Take the impact of social media as an example. Since I signed up to twitter I’ve been exposed to wine recommendations from winemakers, enthusiasts and hobbyists. I’ve made connections with people who’ve been enthusiastic about the wine I’m drinking and followed reciprocal recommendations – if they like what I’m drinking, chances are our tastes are similar so why not give their recommendations a try?
I don’t need a rating system, I don’t need an intricate tasting note (140 character limitation anyone?) but what I do need is conversation, believability and passion. This post is not a rallying cry for the democratization of comment as God only knows there’s an awful lot of drivel out there.
However, now that the consumer has access to the means of production they have become content producers in their own right. The networks we are creating, the information we are trading and the new opinion formers we are associating with must provide a genuine challenge to the likes of Parker who continue to run an old school paternal approach to their content – “You pay, we let you read our stuff but hey, don’t bother trying to talk to us we don’t want to know what you think”.
I’ll leave the last word to the inimitable John C Dvorak’s and his personal interpretation of the Parker points system:
100 - No such thing. Theoretically impossible as far as I’m concerned. It means total perfection. Used by Parker to get attention and mock the industry.
95 -99 Great wine that should be purchased under any circumstance. Fabulous product that an idiot could spot.
91-94 Not absolutely sure how good these wines really are but they could be great. The difference between 91 and 94 has nothing to do with the wine and everything to do with the confidence level of the taster. Unfortunately, over-confident “greatest wine ever from this Chateau” tasters such as James Suckling (Wine Spectator) always boost the number too far. Whatever the case, these wines are recommended. Parker is always more accurate in this range than Wine Spectator.
90 This is the chickenshit ranking. It means the tasters are scared to rank this wine higher — they may be wrong. On the other hand they can’t take a chance on ranking at as a 89 either. This rating really means: try it yourself and YOU be the judge.
86-89 Gosh, the wine is drinkable. It might be good. We may be wrong. Beyond that who knows?
81-85 You have to be real thirsty and hard up to drink from this group. The 85 rating means you can probably choke it down in a pinch.
75-80 Wouldn’t want to even open a bottle!! below 75 Can we be sued for saying what we really think?
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. Parker is relevant mostly to older male wine aficionados. His scores are not relevant to the Millenial generation ( most of whom do not know who he is). And there have been many articles about the female consumer being sold on stories (about the winery) and relationships (with her local retailer) more than scores.
Lets broaden this out and ask are wine journalists as a breed important these days? I’m saying this having just bought a wine from a recommendation by Jancis Robinson in this weekends paper so I’m contradicting my own stance somewhat. But that said there’s still something slightly archaic about the approach to wine in the print media (certainly here in the UK) and you just get the feeling that too many choices are determined by vested interests and I end up doubting the integrity of the author.
I think Robert Parker’s influence is still quite strong. His high points can still sell lots of wine, as well as raise the price of other wines.
There is a growth of more educated wine consumers, who are relying more on peer reviews and such, but I believe the percentage of these individuals is still low.
The average consumer is still overwhelmed by all the choices available to them so many still rely on points to help make their decisions. Or animals on wine labels. Retailers know how much importance those wine scores still have and that is why they use them.
Maybe one day Parker’s influence will be in the past, but that time is not now.