The Wine Blogging Review Coalition (WBRC) is dead simple, and it need not be anything more than that, at least now.
After receiving insightful comments on the post I wrote yesterday about the idea of creating a cooperative form of wine reviewing, I think it might aid the conversation if I expand a bit.
Actually, I think what I want to do is contract a bit, because it is more helpful to say what the Wine Blogging Review Coalition IS NOT (at least as I have imagined it), more so than what it is.
1) The WBRC is not about certification by its participants; though, I think certification is important for reasons that I will explain.
2) The WBRC is not something that is intended to address individual credibility and integrity. This is not a zero sum game where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The WBRC is a vehicle that rides shotgun with our individual endeavors, with an eye on the future.
3) The WBRC is not for Steve Heimoff who has a gig with Wine Enthusiast thankyouverymuch. And, I should note that I think Heimoff and Matt Kramer are two of the more erudite wine writers in the US write now. So, no offense, Steve.
4) The WBRC is not trying to drive any type of standard or consolidation for wine bloggers—I am completely happy with beautiful chaos.
5) The WBRC is not something I’m committed to do unless I have a coalition of the willing (mercy on my soul for the colloquial political reference)
Here is what the WBRC is and the problem(s) it solves, but first, just a bit of context:
Wine Blogging is like a Boy Scout troop where every 12-year-old kid in the troop wants to be an Eagle Scout. We are all Chief with no Indians. This would be fine if we were talking about knitting at the sewing circle, but wine is one of the hottest consumer categories in the country right now. We are stronger together, then individually.
Somehow, we have to get over our individual Id and coalesce around the pack leader. I am not saying I am the Pack Leader; there are others more suited who are working on their Eagle Scout badges, if that makes sense. Absent leadership, somebody has to step up, though.
That said, many have noted that wine blogging does incent purchase activity. We know that all three tiers of the wine industry read blogs, we know that wineries are increasingly viewing bloggers as influential and that wine blogs are predominantly read by a very small collective audience that wield influence greater than their size. We know that wine sales are happening at a rapid rate online; we know that people buy wine at retail by the point. All of these things are acknowledged truths.
So, what is wrong with lining up your centerfielder to shade towards left field if you know you have a right-handed pull hitter at the plate?
What wine blogs are not (and lets be real here), are a credible vehicle in mainstream wine culture. It is a simple fact.
God bless Alder at Vinography or Gary Vaynerchuk, but their micro-influence does not even begin to compete with Parker or the Wine Spectator, at least not yet. Any one of my wine-loving friends that buy futures and Silver Oak and have cellars do not know and do not give a rip about wine bloggers. There are many of these people—many more than the people that “get” wine blogging.
Now, I am not talking about trying to boil the ocean here, what I am suggesting is a simple start on a path to greater legitimacy. In addition, again, this is not about my palate versus your palate who has chops and who does not, this is bigger than next month especially if you buy into the future and the democratization of content.
In my humble opinion, a wine blog review cooperative with some baseline of standards is a healthy start to creating a vehicle that can act as a legitimate fourth estate in wine reviews.
The Wine Blogging Review Coalition is:
1) Very similar to Wine Blogging Wednesday with the following differences:
* Wines are provided as samples
* Review participants are limited
* The site is sponsored
* There is an under-current of capitalism because the site is sponsored and the blog reviewers receive stipends
2)The WBRC is a way to start to build some collaboration with a small set of bloggers who review wines using a standardized language—be that stars, be that points, be that word count, whatever …
3) The WBRC is a way to aggregate content and reviews for wineries and associations that do not get frequent reviews otherwise …
4) The WBRC is a way to aggregate content and reviews for retailers who would like to merchandise and the wineries that would like for them to merchandise.
5) The WBRC is a way to save foolish advertising spends by international organizations and associations that are spending money in ways that can yield better results.
6) The WBRC is an entry-point to help tame blogging and social media for the uninitiated
7) The WBRC reviewers have a baseline of credibility with a minimum certification from a governing body; a certification that most wine bloggers could pass with little challenge. And, I would add, based on a separate conversation string, that WBRC reviews follow some form of journalistic guidelines for integrity and ethics.
8) The WBRC is a way for bloggers to earn a stipend for their work, while working with complete independent editorial voice
9) The WBRC is owned by no own, it is a cooperative “owned” by the participants.
So, that is the gist, with full transparency, over two posts and about two thousand words. Please add additional comment, as I have provided more context. My next step, depending on what the comments bring is to do a visual schematic and invite more participation.
Thanks for reading Good Grape!