Many wine enthusiasts who habitué online are wont to throw-off glancing, sneering asides at eRobertParker.com and Winespectator.com for the affront of charging access to online content.
I am no different; I have done it, too.
This “walled garden” approach to online content is the source of derision for people used to getting everything for free. Even the New York Times is now free, goes the argument.
Dare I say it, though – eRobertparker.com, Winespectator.com and Jancisrobinson.com may have it right.
There has been an ongoing discussion in the wine space online about blogging, the current relevance of traditional wine media, bloggers being paid (or not) and, generally, where is this Internet thing taking us.
To answer this question, one really need look no further than the top 50 or 100 blogs on the Internet – every. single. one. of them has a team blogging approach with a lot of content and multiple contributors, and every single one of them is on an advertising supported model, these blogs consider themselves media companies not unlike, well, a print magazine.
However, here is the rub when you translate this model to the wine world – there are not many wineries advertising online, certainly not enough to go around for wine online properties, not until a bunch of wine marketing people get the gospel.
So, if you want to build an audience online and create a wine-related media property that rubs two nickels together to make a dime– you are left with basically one option – charge for it.
The natural reaction to this is, “Are you crazy?” “Who is going to PAY for content UNLESS you’re eRobertParker.com or Winespectator.com?”
I do not have the most ready answer for that one, but I do know that you are starting to see the movement in the wine space with aggregation of content by wine writers, mostly with a mix of traditional wine writers co-mingling with online wine writers. Appellation America is an easy example, but there are others – Organic Wine Journal, Enobytes.com and even sites borne by individual bloggers like Lenndevours.com and Catavino.net who are adding writers to diversify the types and frequency of content on their site.
This blog aside, which has no plans to add additional writers, I can tell you what I would do if I was a wine enthusiast and an investor who wanted to do some gambling on the next generation wine site – I would start doing an acquisition roll-up strategy on some of these wine sites. Or, I would start picking off writers to create a best-in-class site that speaks to an audience that wants wine information in an accessible way, without the lifestyle artifice. Bonus points if it is designed in a way that is not akin to staring at a solar eclipse.
With that in mind, let the Rupert Murdoch parlor games begin.
Who are candidates on my radar that I would want to potentially acquire?
First, I would hire Michael Steinberger from Slate.com to be Editor-in-Chief and I would pay him what he wanted. Second, I would hire Paul Lukacs to be Editor-at Large and likewise pay him what he wanted. Third, I would hire Jay McInerney to play the role of Hunter S. Thompson and then, only then, would I go shopping.
On the shopping list:
• Wineloverspage.com (kills it on traffic, good online cred., but site needs major interface work)
• Organic Wine Journal (Good start, needs content)
• Wine Review Online (perhaps the best collection of writers with the lowest profile online)
• A copy editor
• A strategic alliance with CellarTracker
Overall, I cannot fault eRobertParker.com and Winespectator.com for their subscription models online. Business is business and the wine business is a laggard adopter of most innovations, addressing the online wine audience with appropriate marketing being one them. Both Parker and Shanken have time to wait things out before they make additional moves to ensure continued dominance in their respective spaces, from offline to online, but, yes, there is room for another entrant who builds online out.
Who is going to be the Rupert Murdoch of the online wine information space?