I have reviewed my top 10’s web sites and blogs (which contain most of their tasting notes, commentaries and reviews) and scored them using the following criteria and scores:
1.
Quality of web site (look, functionality and ease of use):
up to 15 points
2.
Ability to inform the consumer (regular updates on news and
events): up to 15 points
3.
Ability to educate the consumer (depth and breadth of
content): up to 15 points
4.
Ability to entertain the consumer (so the information and
education is easy to assimilate and enjoy): up to 15 points
5.
Quality of tasting notes (content, style, intelligibility):
up to 15 points
6.
Overall impression: ability to communicate with their target
audience: up to 25 points.
Therefore,
I am scoring more than just their tasting notes. I am critiquing their overall
ability to communicate effectively with their audiences. My scores also reflect
how they compare to each other so out of this will emanate a ranking. I
recognize that they are often covering different areas and different consumers
and with different resources but consumers like rankings so they will be
useful.
The
overall scores will be allocated as follows:
Classic (grade A*)
|
91-100
|
Outstanding (A)
|
81-90
|
Very good (B)
|
71-80
|
Average (C)
|
61-70
|
Belly wash (D, E,…)
|
Below 60
|
In
the results, while I add up the scores for each criterion and given a grand total,
I think the individual scores against each of the six criteria are more
meaningful because each site has different strengths and weaknesses, and may be
targeting different consumers. My results will show, for example, which sites
are best for information vs education vs entertainment.
Consumer groups / target audiences
Having
reviewed the 10 sites at length, the critics seem to be targeting four types of
consumer groups: 1) the trade; 2) expert amateurs; 3) enthusiasts; 4) novices.
I
know I am generalizing with these groups but I do think they are useful. The
target audiences, to differing degrees, want to be informed, educated and
entertained. They should determine what and how the critic communicates. I
refer to these groups throughout my review.
The Trade: The trade represents
the body of professionals in the wine business those who typically import and/or
supply wines to the restaurants and consumers. They will subscribe to many of
the 10 critics identified above.
The Expert Amateur: The expert amateur - I presumptuously put myself in this
category - is the marketing man’s dream. We probably read or subscribe to all
10 of the critics. We will not only buy Decanter, La RVF (Revue de Vin
Francais) and WS but will trawl the bookshelves looking for yet another tome
(think Clive Coates’, Allen Meadows’ and Jasper Morris’ books on burgundy or
JLL’s on the Rhone Valley) which explain not just the wines but every contour
and nuance of hills, growers and vineyards. Our idea of a holiday is to go on a
wine tasting and gastronomic trip to rural France (in my case places like
Gigondas, Cote d’Or, Chateauneuf-du-Pape or Hermitage). We have voracious
appetites and want to be constantly informed and educated. We are big tasters
and drinkers of wines (to justify another important purchase, I cheekily remind
my wife that I don’t indulge in cars, drugs or hookers, I do wine). We want to
know it all now and they want more tomorrow. Maybe we are wannabe wine
professionals who just don’t have the bottle to take the plunge.
The Enthusiast: The enthusiastic
amateur takes an interest in wine and could take out paying subscriptions.
He/she would prefer to buy their wine in a specialist boutique where they get
specialist advice and more focused customer service.
The Novice: The novice is the person who watch Saturday
kitchen and buy their wine at one of the major general or wine supermarkets
(Tesco’s, Sainsbury’s, Majestic).
Results
I
will release the reviews over the next few weeks starting. I will post them on:
· Twitter: @dberesford12
Disclosure: my preferences
As
I often reproach the critics for not offering up their personal preferences
when tasting and scoring wine, I want to declare my preference for critics.
I
like irreverent and contrarian critics, commentators and mavericks who challenge
the status quo and refuse to subjugate themselves to conventional wisdom. I
like writers who can embrace a wide range of tastes and styles and recognize
and appreciate wines with a sense of place, not just those who espouse international
formula.
I
don’t look for perfection and definitive conclusions in tasting notes. But I do
look for colour and passion in the writing, not just knowledge and experience.
I want to be stimulated too. I want the writer to reveal the life and soul of
the wines. I am as interested in the context (stories, history, food, people,
sport – their whole culture) of wine as much as what is in the glass because
this conveys so much more to me than the simple recital of intricate flavours
and aromas. Drinking wine is about the
whole experience not just smelling, tasting and dissecting it. Great wines
should pose as many questions as answers as they are constantly evolving.
Therefore,
before I pass go and offer you my monologue, please remember that these are my
personal, subjective views. Feel free to take them with a pinch of salt, in the
same way that I treat the critics’ tasting notes and scores. This posting is
meant to be a mix of the humorous and serious. I greatly admire the work of all
of them, which is why they made my top 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment