File this under: Head-scratcher.
I just read the current “Summer” issue of the Quarterly Review of Wines (QRW). Generally a pretty good magazine, the slim glossy magazine isn’t easily categorized—it’s not wine Spectator with an emphasis on ratings and lifestyle, it’s generally less proletariat oriented than Wine Enthusiast, and it’s not as incisive as Wine & Spirits magazine. And, like its brother-in-arms, Wine News, it has news items that have long since become old hat information for those that read and write blogs.
QRW is a hodge-podge, skewing more towards profile pieces on wineries, written from the inside out—that is they typically come off as flattering, if not fawning, from the wineries perspective and not analytically constructive from an independent third-party perspective i.e. general journalism. In journalism circles, it’s something of a “House Organ” – defined as a periodical that is published by a business for its employees or customers. In this case, a magazine written by the wine industry for the consumer.
While I’m not explicitly in tune with HOW the editorial is written for QRW, I have noticed a trend that is questionable.
Every article written by QRW that is attributed to “QRW Staff” as the writer (akin to a movie directed by Alan Smithee—the pseudonym for a movie director that wanted to be disassociated from the movie) is pretty much a puff piece—a puff piece to the extent that I’m not sure that this editorial isn’t written by an in-house p.r. rep. and provided spec. to the magazine.
Take for example the article in the current issue called “No Mean Feet” about Barefoot Wine.
Barefoot is a winery owned by E&J Gallo and generally has a $4.99 - $5.99 price point, it’s found in most supermarkets with annual production of 2M cases
Some excerpts from the article:
Barefoot Wines, for those unfamiliar with the brand, has virtual cult status with the young, consumers from 21 to 29.
Hmm … maybe this is true, but it flies in the face of a ton of other research that says that Gen. Y is drinking at a much higher price point and predisposed to imports. At any rate, Barefoot Wines doesn’t have a Myspace.com page that I can find. So, if this cult status is true, it must be completely self-manufactured by the consuming public, something I’m somewhat dubious about.
Check out this quote and see if this reads like anything that was directly quoted from somebody’s mouth:
“It’s inaccurate to say I’m enthusiastic. In fact, I’m passionate, fully vested, personally attached, a complete believer in Barefoot wines, and for the charitable assistance we offer. We are doing 1,000 barefoot events just in 2007, and I’ll be at many of them. There are now nine Barefoot regional operations in most major markets and growing.”
Now, read this descriptive piece, patterned after a magazine profile piece akin to Vanity Fair magazine:
In 1995 Jen Wall, a native of California, became winemaker, “much better,” she says than being the MD she planning on becoming after graduating from the University of Santa Cruz. Wall is an attractive thirtysomething woman, with an extrovert’s good cheer. She has handsome features, with a high brow and engaging attentive eyes. If she weren’t stomping grapes, you’d gladly let her take your pulse and hear your heart.
Hmm … we now know it’s written by a male on the alleged “QWR Staff.”
Next comes this piece of fodder straight from E&J Gallo acquisition press release boilerplate:
The best thing that could’ve happened to barefoot was that Gallo bought it. As with everything they buy, Gallo works on a laissez faire attitude, which is to say leave it alone, if they ain’t broke … Gallo, who knows good things when they see it (Louis Martini, MacMurray, Bridlewood Estate, among other winery purchases) infuses money, technology, and marketing/PR into every winery they buy. They make the new winery better. Mike Martini, Kate MacMurray, and David Hopkins (Bridlewood Estate), and Jen Wall would all agree
Methinks that this author is very intimate with these other winery owners, flush with a fat bank account, or somebody on the inside at Gallo. The above paragraph is simply not one a journalist would write, an E&J Gallo p.r. intern, yes. A journalist, no.
The next sentence says:
Anyone looking for good, everyday wines – and who isn’t? – at great prices ($5) should try Barefoot.
Journalistic balance?
The advertorial, er, article ends with this capper:
Most of the “barefooters” we know tell us that Barefoot introduced them to wine, and that it made a lot of difference in their lives. “Best of all,” says “Barefooter Beth,” as she refers to herself, “Barefoot is the only wine I started with that I can still drink today; I’ve outgrown all the others.”
Unnamed sources, too. “Barefooter Beth???” Barefoot is the only wine she hasn’t graduated from? Puh-leeze.
I picked up a bottle of the Zin last year because I was piqued by the on bottle stickering that gave it a positive review from a Beverage Institute in Illinois and, frankly, I dumped the whole damn bottle down the sink.
With this treacle, masquerading as fair and balanced journalism, it’s no wonder that the transparency of blogging is becoming a more influential mode for wine information.
Will the real writer of this article please stand-up: “QRW Staff” or “E&J Gallo” p.r. intern? Or worse still—QRW advertising sales staff.