Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2008 > August > 20 > Entry
Sting operation uses fake wine list to expose Wine Spectator ‘restaurant awards’
I’ve written extensively about Wine Spectator’s so-called “Restaurant Awards,” including just last month, after the most recent WS restaurant guide was released. (And, of course, two years ago when Marvin Shanken himself weighed in on the matter …)
Now, Robin Goldstein, author of The Wine Trials, has taken things to a whole new level.
Goldstein essentially set up a sting operation — and it appears the Spectator was caught hook, line and sinker.
Goldstein submitted a fake wine list from a fake Italian restaurant, paid his $250 — and got a Wine Spectator award. And he even included a bunch of low-scoring wines on his list! Here’s how Goldstein tells it:
Lately, I’ve become curious about how Wine Spectator magazine determines its Awards of Excellence for the world’s best wine restaurants.
As part of the research for an academic paper I’m currently working on about standards for wine awards, I submitted an application for a Wine Spectator Award of Excellence. I named the restaurant “Osteria L’Intrepido” (a play on the name of a restaurant guide series that I founded, Fearless Critic). I submitted the fee ($250), a cover letter, a copy of the restaurant’s menu (a fun amalgamation of somewhat bumbling nouvelle-Italian recipes), and a wine list.
Osteria L’Intrepido won the Award of Excellence, as published in print in the August 2008 issue of Wine Spectator.
It’s troubling, of course, that a restaurant that doesn’t exist could win an Award of Excellence. But it’s also troubling that the award doesn’t seem to be particularly tied to the quality of the wine list, even by Wine Spectator’s own standards. Although the main wine list that I submitted was made up of fairly standard Italian-focused selections, Osteria L’Intrepido’s “reserve wine list” was largely chosen from among the lowest-scoring Italian wines in Wine Spectator over the past 20 years.
This Wines & Vines story mentions the budding brouhaha, and says:
Wine Spectator executive editor Thomas Matthews was unaware of the apparent subtrefuge when Wines & Vines phoned today for comment. He declined to comment until the magazine had thoroughly investigated the apparent sting.
My hunch is, this is Mr. Matthews’ nightmare scenario. The credibility of the Spectator’s restaurant awards will almost certainly erode further, and may threaten to become a laughingstock. Safeguards will have to be put into place to guard against such embarrassment in the future, one would think.
That said, no one can argue with the list of Dayton-area restaurants that received the awards. The local recipients all have very fine wine lists.
If and when the Spectator responds to this story, we’ll bring it to you.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment |
Comments
By nobi yuno
August 21, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
The problem is that the vast majority of workaday restaurant patrons have no idea what Wine Spectator’s rules are. They just read that a magazine they’ve heard of has awarded a local restaurant a prize, and mistakenly assume that prize has some significance. In fact, it has very little significance. WS should call the prize a “Wine List Award of Excellence” - award the restaurant’s wine list explicitly, not the restaurant itself. That’s why the whole enterprise smells so scammy. You can point to the fine print all day long, but it will always be scammy until most normal consumers understand what the “prize” does and does not mean.By Randy
August 21, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
lol! This is what happens when corporate America’s agenda muscles their money-grubbin ways into an art-earth science world of viticulture and Winemaking. THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE!!!!!!!!!! To all those wineries who subscribe to the corporate “number structure”, you’ve been warned.By 1WineDude
August 21, 2008 10:13 AM | Link to this
A troubling development for WS. Excellent points made by lynn. I would challenge this statement though: “…people love to jump to the conclusion that the WS must therefor be staffed entirely by crooks and miscreants…” I don’t see that as the defacto position of WS’s critics in this case. They are just saying that someone within WS isn’t doing their job. The award of excellence is awarded to “lists that offer a well-chosen selection of quality producers.” This implies that WS can judge the quality of the producers on the list - if they aren’t doing that to some degree, then they are deceiving us on some level.By Ed
August 21, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this
Lynn, thank you for that feeble defense of what is really journalistic fraud. People buying the magazine have a reasonable expectation that if WS issues awards they may have some actual knowledge of or experience with the restaurant. If WS lacks the desire or resources to do their due diligence then why have awards?By Wini
August 20, 2008 9:33 PM | Link to this
This is stunning. Wine Spectator has been on a downward slide for some time and this will not help. Just cancel your subscription and trust your palate.By Dino
August 20, 2008 8:03 PM | Link to this
Lynn, Isn’t calling advertising, editorial content, a violation of journalistic ethics. That is what the WS Awards amount to because, the WS accepts money and copy and doesn’t go to the expense of verifying the copy. Ethics amounts to more than asking, “can I get away with it?”By Wine Supplier
August 20, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
Mr. Wine Importer: How exactly do you know that the Spectator scored your wines lower due to the fact that you refused to advertise with them? That is a pretty outrageous claim. I know that I, and everyone else who reads this blog, would love to see some evidence of this alleged score tampering by the WS. Unless you have some solid proof, those types of accusations are tired, unworthy, and fairly preposterous. I am responsible for the export sales to the US of a large Euro based wine concern and we have never advertised in the WS, yet have received incredible accolades in their publication and our Parker scores have been much lower than those given by the WS. I attribute this to the personal likes and dislikes of each person who covers our wine region for each publication - nothing more, nothing less. Can we stop with the conspiracy theories please?By Wine Importer
August 20, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
Spectator is all about making money at the expense of their integrity. Perhaps this latest hiccup will expose them for what they are. I learned the hard way as an importer of wine when I found that Spectator was scoring my wines 5 to 7 points lower than Robert Parker scored them. Why? Because I refused to advertise in their magazine.By lynn
August 20, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
First I should say how surprised I am to see how many people, most of whom have no idea what they are talking about, love to slam the Wine Spectator whenever an opportunity arises. Secondly, I should state that I have contributed as a freelance writer to the WS for many years, so I have had ample opportunity to observe both shortcomings and strengths in their various programs. Although I am sure Tom Matthews will at some point offer a response in behalf of the magazine, I’d like to offer my perspective on the situation, for whatever it may be worth. I have long been disturbed by the fact that holding a WS restaurant wine list award, does not in any way insure that the food or service is good, that the restaurant is in a desirable location, or whatever else I personally might consider important. But that has never been the clearly stated purpose of the awards. The awards ONLY seek to acknowledge wine lists that meet certain criteria that are clearly stated on the WS website. Nothing else. In this particular case, I would say the WS is guilty of foolishly assuming that anyone willing to submit a detailed wine list and pay the hefty entry fee is both honest and serious about their restaurant and its wine offerings. How silly of them. I can easily see how either a person or computer working behind the scenes in the WS office, might have been trained or programed to scan applications for the requisite criteria (which again are clearly stated on the website and which do not include anything about wine ratings), and NOT trained to cross reference listings with WS ratings. Why would the WS have any reason at all to suspect that someone would construct a wine list made up of wines with abominable ratings? I’d say that in light of the recent “experiment”, the WS will have some serious revamping of its restaurant wine awards screening process to do. But why people love to jump to the conclusion that the WS must therefor be staffed entirely by crooks and miscreants is beyond me. Maybe I am terrible naive, but I think it is more a case on not having any particular axe, real or imagined, to grind with the WS. Yes, as a consumer, I would like to see some changes made in their restaurant wine awards program. But as someone who is somewhat familiar with the people who work there and the way in which they work, I have to say that the silly slams, both personal and corporate, made against the WS and its employees, are in my opinion, unwarranted.