This is a post in response to an editorial in Vitisphere. The author has since responded here.
I was a little shocked when reading the editorial on the most recent Vitisphere which concludes with the following:
“Enfin, il faudra accepter une certification des acteurs de la critique, de la notation, par une Autorité, sinon les technologies du numérique pourraient imposer la dictature d’une démocratie virtuelle. “
Roughly translated: Finally, we must accept a certification process for agents of criticism, of scoring, by some Authority, otherwise digital technology could impose a virtual tyranny of the masses.
The Tyranny of the Masses?
My natural instinct is to say that this is ridiculous. Ultimately, consumers know what they enjoy and they are the best people possible to decide what to buy. But let’s give the editor a chance. What are the potential downsides of a world without authoritative wine criticism? And what are the downsides of a “dictature d’une democratie virtuelle”?
I suppose there is a risk that we create a world where winemakers try to make bland and inoffensive wines that nobody hates (but nobody loves either). As I’ve discussed before, I wouldn’t want that. And it’s not an unrealistic proposition. Vast volumes of wine are already made this way.
Music that goes on the radio is often chosen in a similar fashion where the single release is rarely the best song on the album. It’s frequently just the least offensive song that is still a little catchy (but not too catchy!). There are stories about this where people organize a test group to listen to a CD and they intentionally pick the song with the most average score instead of the song that some people love and some people hate.
And when you see projects like Design A Sam Adams Beer, you see that some beverages are literally being ruled by a virtual democracy. And it is sort of preposterous.
But then the editorial sort of pines for the good old days when everybody’s pockets were full of francs and everybody’s glasses full of delicious wine. At one point, it feels like he’s even blaming the decrease in wine consumption on the absence of an authoritative voice in wine criticism:
“Et au 3ème et dernier acte, disparition de l’art de la critique du vin… Perdu par la multiplicité des références, des origines, des prix, le consommateur perd confiance et se protège en réduisant ses achats de vins !”
Roughly translated: in the 3rd act, the disappearance of the art of wine criticism… lost in a sea of choices, of denominations, of prices, the consumer loses confidence and protects himself by buying less wine!
This seems like a pretty zany argument. The reason people drink less wine in France is because they have less confidence in their ability to pick a good wine? I’m doubtful. It seems more likely that consumption is dropping because people are afraid to get a PV (moving violation) for drink driving. Or because mixed drinks are more fashionable than a glass of wine at most night clubs. Or even because there are more choices of what to drink today than there were 20 years ago. The point is there is no reason to think that dropping wine consumption rates in France are a result of lack of confidence in wine buyers.
And what’s more, I don’t think the rise of blogs and the downfall of authoritative wine criticism do anything to undermine consumer confidence. If anything, the notion that everybody can publish an opinion online should give confidence to consumers. Whereas consumers would be intimidated in a world full of famous wine critics that they haven’t had time to read, they should be liberated in a world where the only thing that matters is what you and your friends think when you open the bottle tonight.
Anyway, I’m puzzled by the logic.
My experience with egalitarian publishing
One of the best things that ever happened to me was the customer interface on Naked Wines. Customers who drink my wine can leave a review on the web site. It’s as simple as that. The majority of them don’t consider themselves bloggers or gurus or experts. They just review wines. And most of them simply say Yes or No to the question “Would you buy this wine again.” And then some of them write in detailed comments.
I used to think that I would never let a critic influence my winemaking style. But once the clients became critics… I changed my tune. When thousands of people are tasting my wines and hundreds are leaving detailed comments, I’m actually very keen to hear what they have to say. Obviously, I still make wines based on my own inclinations. But I’ll take it into account that two hundred people were happy with the 2009 Trah Lah Lah that was a little less tannic than the 08. It gives me confidence in the future to make a blend that’s a little less harsh.
Obviously, I shouldn’t make a bland and inoffensive wine just to appeal to everybody. But at the same time, there’s nothing wrong with taking the pulse of the people who are actually drinking your wine. And I’m glad that these people can share their own opinions, independent of what “recognized” wine authorities have to say.
Who gives authority to the authority?
And the last logical flaw in this editorial is about who gives power to the “Authority” that certifies critics.
“Pour éviter le drame, journalistes et éditeurs, du papier ou du numérique, devraient se réunir pour redonner un sens au journalisme du vin, redéfinir l’art de la critique.”
Roughly translated: To avoid tragedy, journalists and editors, be they paper or digital, should unite to bring back some meaning to wine journalism, redefine the art of criticism
If all wine writers get together to agree on who should write about wine (and how we should write about wine), doesn’t that include all the bloggers and social media voices that the author is denigrating in the rest of the editorial?
And why do we even need to redefine the art of criticism? Will that actually help consumers enjoy wine more? Or increase their confidence about picking a bottle at the restaurant? Personally, if I were a normal consumer, the idea that there are certified wine specialists whose opinions matter more than mine would terrify me far more than the notion that everybody has different opinions and you just like what you like and you shouldn’t feel guilty for not reading all of the “expert” opinions that have been published before picking a bottle and enjoying it.
No, I’m fairly confident in the tyranny of the majority. I like this brave new world we live in.