Interestingly, I think there are some fascinating parallels with the movie business. One of the most influential movie critics of all time was Roger Ebert. His column in the Chicago Sun-Times and his show At the Movies with Gene Siskel was enormously powerful. The show premiered in 1986 and lasted 24 seasons. Their rating scheme - thumbs up or thumbs down - was very simple, yet helped inform millions of viewers on whether to see a new release. After his death in 2013, many critics discussed the vacuum in film criticism. Ebert was a critic for the masses - someone who uniquely bridged the high art of film and the popular tastes of the time.
These critics were wrong. In the early 2010s, Rotten Tomatoes, the review aggregator site, emerged as the go-to source for movie reviews. The site features two scores: one critic score that is derived from qualified reviewers, and one audience score that is based on user reviews. These reviews are incredibly influential. As one executive, Lionsgate President of Theatrical Marketing, Tim Palen put it:
"Rotten Tomatoes isn’t new, but its omnipresence is. The scores are even part of the local TV news on Friday going into the weekend."Rotten Tomatoes critic scores often sink or elevate a movie. I believe we'll see the same thing in the wine industry, as sites like Vivino leverage thousands of reviews to deliver one single score to consumers.
As in movies, sometimes critics and audiences disagree. A great example is Hail Caesar!, a 2018 film that earned a 86% critic score and a 44% audience score. Another one, The Promise, suffered a 50% critic score and 92% audience score. Both films were successful financially, proving that critics and popular tastes may differ, and both have a role in influencing consumers. Vivino should adopt this approach - which is already used by WineCellar - and allow for diverging opinions of both critics and audience members,
Great points, Mike. I also think the critic will retain influence moving forward despite changing market dynamics. In expanding your analogy to film, I wanted to compare and contrast the role of the critic in wine with the critic in film.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to consider that a critic’s score may be more significant in the wine world than in the film world. As you mentioned, movies that have completely bombed with critics have still managed to perform well at the box office. However, I do not think the same is applicable to wine. Two buck chucks and other highly affordable wines excluded, I think a poor review of a premium or ultra-premium wine poses a major threat to sales, mainly due to the fact that I still do not feel that critics and consumers are on the same playing field. Personally, despite the proliferation of consumer reviews, I still believe critics are the gatekeepers and still place way more trust in them given the guarantee that they have developed their palates for wine tasting, are well-versed with wine history and production, and are more appreciative of the craft of winemaking than the average consumer. While it may be argued that film critics possess the same level of expertise within their field, I feel more comfortable trusting the public when it comes to film since the goal of moviegoing is entertainment and I often see films for their entertainment value and not necessarily their creative merit. I am sure much of the general public feels the same, especially given the low box office numbers of many critically-acclaimed films in comparison to, for example, superhero blockbusters.
I also find wine critics to wield more influence because their reviews may not only impact the sales of a particular vintage, but of the public’s view of an entire brand. If a consumer associates the 2012 vintage of a particular wine with a very low critical score, I doubt they will be inclined to give other wines from that company a shot. I don’t think that film studios face this burden at the same level. Even if one film is rated poorly, they can recoup with their future films because the films often have no correlation and can be made by different writers, directors, and more. Meanwhile, all of a company’s wines are typically produced on the same land by the same winemaker, and the views on one wine may cast a large shadow over the remaining varietals or vintages in the portfolio.
Thanks Joe and Mike for your comments. I was also very interested in the wine review world following the Alder Yarrow session. The role of the wine critic struck me as outdated following the departure of Robert Parker. In particular, I was struck by the fact that critics are still refusing to move their reviews on the other side of the paywall. It is hard to see consumers really paying for this information in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as Joe pointed out, wine is very different than movies. Generally, people have the similar movie preferences (e.g. a blockbuster movie will be like by a high proportion of the masses) while wine preference is very individualized. Because of this, my mind went to Netflix and its system for recommending shows and movies. Each person’s home screen is entirely different personalized. Why shouldn’t wine be the same?
That’s why I was not surprised to learn that Vivino is introducing a new “personalization” feature this year that provides the equivalent of Netflix’s “match” percentage (https://harpers.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/26632/Vivino_to_launch_new_personal_match_rating.html). Vivino seems best positioned to take advantage of this given they are one of few that has the scale and data to implement the proper algorithms and deliver insight recommendations. It seems as if it is just a matter of time where are buying patterns are predicated more on this “match” score than any critic score in my opinion.