WINE RATINGS 101

Introduction

This article looks at the history of ratings with a particular focus on Napa Valley, the impact of ratings on wine pricing and demand, and the shortcomings of the system.

History

The system of applying numerical scores to is a relatively new phenomenon. The first such system was originated by American wine critic Robert Parker in the late 1970s and coincided with a rapidly growing interest in wine amongst American consumers. With access to an increasing assortment of wines from around the world, consumers embraced the grading system, along with condensed wine reviews, to make more informed buying choices. Parker rated wines on a scale of 50-100 points.

Wine Spectator magazine followed with its own scoring system in 1980. Since then, a large number of wine publications and wine critics have adopted their own ratings systems, including Wine Enthusiast , Wine & Spirits , International , The New York Times and , amongst others. Most use some form of numerical scores, some grade on the basis of stars.

The two most influential wine scoring systems remain those of Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate (published bimonthly) and Wine Spectator (published monthly). Despite a significantly lower readership for his publication (50,000 subscribers compared with around 350,000 for Wine Spectator ), Robert Parker is still regarded as the world’s leading wine critic.

Ratings Methodology

The Wine Advocate and Wine Spectator ratings’ methodologies have many similarities. Both use a 50-100 point scale (although the bandings are slightly different) with the ratings reflecting how good wines will be when they reach their peak, regardless of how soon that will be. Official tastings are conducted blind, with tasters knowing only the varietal and . Both publications assign a particular editor to each wine region and that critic determines the ratings and reviews for wines in that region. Finished wines are given a single score. Barrel tastings are given a preliminary score quoted as a range in parenthesis e.g. (90- 93). have no obligation to submit their wines for review and some actively choose not to (although, in theory, the publication could purchase the wine on the open market). Both publications emphasize the importance of the tasting notes in conjunction with the scores.

The Wine Advocate’s Scoring System: Component Breakdown

Each wine starts with a basis of 50 points. The wine’s general color and appearance merits up to 5 points. The aroma and bouquet merits up to 15 points. The flavor and finish merits up to 20 points. The overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement-aging merits up to 10 points, giving a maximum score of 100 points. Source: The Wine Advocate

The Wine Advocate’s 1100000000----PointPoint Scale

Rating Description 96 -100 • An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character 90 -95 • An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character 80 -89 • A barely above average to very good wine with no noticeable flaws 70 -79 • An average wine with little distinction except that it is soundly made 60 -69 • A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies 50 -59 • A wine deemed to be unacceptable Source: The Wine Advocate

Wine Spectator’s 100100----PointPoint Scale

Rating Description 95 -100 • Classic: a great wine 90 -94 • Outstanding: a wine of superior character and style 85 -89 • Very good: a wine with special qualities 80 -84 • Good: a solid, well made wine 75 -79 • Mediocre: a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws 50 -74 • Not recommended Source: Wine Spectator

Napa Specifics

Until very recently, The Wine Advocate’s long-time Napa wine critic was Robert Parker himself. He visited Napa each October for a three-week period and tasted as many as 100 wines in a single day in peer-group blind tastings. He also met with winemakers and wine brokers for tastings. In February 2011, Parker handed over the reins to Antonio Galloni, who also covered Italy and Burgundy for The Wine Advocate . (Parker will not withdraw from Napa completely, but will instead begin a series of reports on older Napa through vertical and horizontal tastings.) Galloni’s approach involved more frequent visits to Napa (3-4 times a year), with a much greater emphasis on , and smaller tastings. Each December, The Wine Advocate publishes its Napa Valley report, which scores the vintage that is about to be released, along with some barrel ratings for the following vintage. Following the recent sale of an undisclosed stake of the The Wine Advocate to a group of Asian investors, Antonio Galloni announced his resignation from the publication on February 12, 2013. At this moment, it is unclear which critic will take over the magazine’s Napa beat.

Wine Spectator’s long time Napa critic and local resident is Jim Laube. Wine Spectator’s approach is to ask wineries to drop sample bottles at its Napa office when the wine is released, which explains why Wine Spectator ratings typically lag behind those of The Wine Advocate . Wine Spectator conducts tastings throughout the year and prints scores and reviews when it sees fit. It seldom provides barrel scores unless it is doing a feature on a particular or winemaker.

Broadly speaking, Robert Parker and Antonio Galloni were seen as more upbeat critics of Napa wines than their rival. This is certainly born out by the data, as demonstrated by the chart on the following page. The share of Napa Cabernets that The Wine Advocate rates as 90 points or above well exceeds

that of Wine Spectator (by an average of 25 percentage points between 1990 and 2009). Parker and Galloni have also assigned a larger number of perfect 100 point scores to Napa Cabernets (34 compared with 2 over the same time period) and shown a greater tendency towards grade inflation.

Wine Advocate & Wine Spectator: Key Napa StatisticsStatistics at a Glance

Wine Advocate Wine Spectator Napa critic Antonio Galloni (resigned) Jim Laube Tasting frequency 3-4 visits to valley per year Tastings all year round Publication of ratings Late Dec edition of Wine Advocate Ad hoc throughout year Barrel ratings Yes Rarely Number of Cabernets reviewed (1990) 61 200 Number of Cabernets reviewed (2009) 412 430 Percentage scoring 90+ points (1990) 52% 31% Percentage scoring 90+ points (2009) 84% 54% Percentage scoring 90+ points (1990 -2009 average) 60% 35% Number of 100 point wines (1990 -2009 total) 34 2 Source: The Wine Advocate & Wine Spectator

Napa Cabernet Wine Ratings

90 % % 90+ wines (Advocate) No. reviwed 600 80 % 90+ wines (Spectator) No. reviewed (Advocate) 500 70 No. reviewed (Spectator)

60 400

50 300 40

30 200

20 100 10

0 0 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

Source: The Wine Advocate & Wine Spectator

The Power of Scores

There is no doubt that wine ratings have a significant impact on the marketing, demand and pricing of wines. There are clear examples of dazzling Parker scores effectively launching brands. Many wine retailers display wine scores prominently in the marketing of the brands they carry. Bordeaux producers, which set their en primeur (futures) prices after Parker has tasted and rated their wines in barrel, will incorporate this information into their pricing. E n primeur campaigns that are backed by strong Parker

scores are typically priced more aggressively and sell more quickly, even in instances where the weather statistics do not corroborate Parker’s view of the quality of the vintage.

Criticism of the Model

As with most ratings systems, the wine scoring system has been subject to vociferous criticism over the years. Here’s what the skeptics say:

1. The scores represent the view of a single expert. Wine is an experiential product, and no two palates are the same. 2. It is impossible to objectively score hundreds of wines over a short time period, à la Robert Parker. 3. Many tastings are conducted non-blind, providing clear bias. 4. Napa wineries have altered their flavor profiles to accommodate Parker’s taste for big, bold, higher alcohol wines, creating more homogeneous wines, to the detriment of the consumer. 5. Wine Advocate ratings inflation, driven by Parker’s desire to trump other critics, makes cross- vintage ratings comparisons worthless. 6. Vintages are rarely re-reviewed. The major critics taste at or before release, estimate when the wine will reach maturity (often more than a decade henceforth) and never review the wine again. That’s a huge leap of faith. 7. Expert ratings are downright flawed. A number of studies suggest that critics assign completely different scores when the same wine is covertly poured multiple times 1.

8. Conflicts of interest lead to biased outcomes. Wine Spectator accepts paid advertising and gives paid advertisers a ratings boost 2. ( The Wine Advocate does not accept paid advertising, at least not for the time being.) 9. The proliferation of wine critics and their scoring systems confuses the consumer more than it informs.

The Future

Many of these criticisms have elements of truth to them, but the fact remains that wine ratings continue to offer consumers a quick, albeit imperfect, guide to wine buying. With that said, many higher-end wine buyers (consumers and trade) no longer view a superstar wine rating as a sufficient condition to warrant a purchase. They also want to know about the fundamentals - the terroir, the winemaking, the brand story, the financials, the experience of visiting the winery – to know whether a particular wine is worthy of their time, investment and enjoyment. The recent upheavals at The Wine Advocate will no doubt add to the debate over the power of scores.

______

1. For example, see Hodgson, R.T. (2008): An examination of judge reliability at a major U.S. wine competition. Journal of Wine Economics , 3. 2. Reuter, J. (2009): Does advertising bias product reviews? An analysis of wine ratings. Journal of Wine Economics, 4(2).