General States of French Media and...
A campaign promise of Emmanuel Macron in 2022, the General States of French Information were launched on October 3, 2023. At a time when the media is facing historic distrust, the goal set is to guarantee the right to reliable information for everyone... On the left, an excerpt from the Kantar Public Onepoint study for a French Media 2023 and on the right the famous book "On Television" by the world famous sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, published in 1996 and translated into 26 languages. For those who haven't read this masterpiece yet, here are roughly the three key points developed by the sociologist:
1- The tension between "pure professionalism" and "commercial activity". In other words, the commercial or political activities of a media determine its content.
2- The homogenization effect of information due to competition. In other words, articles are chosen based on financial interests: we prioritize what brings in money, so everyone talks about the same thing!
3- The grip of journalism on other fields. More subtle: if a media needs an expert on a subject that escapes it, it will not choose the most competent, but the one who is ready (sometimes unconsciously) to comply with points 1 and 2.
The more important the subject (politics, economics, public health), the harder it is to untangle these entanglements. But if the subject is secondary, like wine (except when it affects the health of our fellow citizens) then it's great at the bar! From the influencer to the venerable journal, it's a jackpot: the media becomes a Morris column, much to the delight of those who sustain it.
And the content? Secondary. Until the situation deteriorates. COVID was an example of this. Remember: the media was ready to invite any self-proclaimed scientist or expert, as long as they added fuel to the media fire; understand a skyrocketing audience and therefore advertising revenues. When the media finally had to explain that things were more complicated, that researchers did not know (by inviting those willing to speak on behalf of research and not on their own behalf), when the media had to accept a disinterested discourse to clean up the pseudo-scientific-media mess, it was too late, the worm was already in the fruit: listeners dropped out and stuck to their opinion, the one that feeds on the most primal instincts and fuels conspiracy networks.
... The Féret syndrome
Our small wine world is facing a challenging situation. For the first time, some of the big names in the vineyard are facing commercial challenges. The most fascinating aspect of this deep and complex crisis is that wine media are exacerbating it, just as news media contributed to the suspicious climate towards scientists during the pandemic! The comparison may be bold, but the underlying mechanisms are exactly the same. Due to their indulgence towards the vineyard and condescension towards consumers, and because of business models that create these relationships, wine media struggle to be convincing even when they're sincere. This makes their news a breeding ground for suspicions of collusion with the wine producers. The result: wine regions deprived of the essential cultural relay for its survival. Promoting knowledge isn't just a whim of critics seeking recognition, but the tool capable of preserving Wine. Beyond environmental and climatic challenges, there's the question of the rising cost of a bottle of wine, which a back cover in a magazine can no longer justify.
So when Féret publishers unveil a new wine critic approach that contains everything needed to disrupt the entire sector, it's time to react! What does Féret essentially offer to wine estates? Are you seated? Simply put, they allow the wine estates to choose the wine critic to rate their wines! For 160€ per sample (excluding subscription), the site allows the estate to select this critic who, by the way, is not required to give a rating (let alone provide feedback) or even disclose their name! It's topsy-turvy! As perfectly summarized in the Vitisphère article: "Tasters are chosen by the estates. Tasters who give higher ratings are naturally favored by the wine estates."
The independence of wine critic
While all of this seems like a big joke, many wine producuers will see Féret's proposition as a new business model where the tasting fee replaces advertising, a sort of marketing trick for the largest estates, with all the conflicts of interest mentioned earlier. It's understandable, but not entirely accurate. In reality, the issue isn't whether an estate should pay for a critic's tasting. What matters is how much and why, and we'll return to that.
Let's start by clarifying conflicts of interest. As old as the world itself! Because it's less about systemic flaws and more about individual weaknesses, conflicts of interest exist everywhere, whether tastings are free or not. But they're especially significant when the system promotes them (like advertising or any additional sales in the form of events, video, infomercial or medals). Corollary: conflicts of interest often lead to unequal treatment which, in the case of wine criticics, harms disadvantaged producers and also readers, who eventually tire of this homogenized critic, as Bourdieu reminds us (point 2).
In an ideal world, wine critics should be able to live solely from selling their work, i.e., their readers. But in reality, no one, professional or wine lover, is willing to pay the actual price for this work. It's not about cost or content. It's about the times. The age of Jeremy Rifkin's zero marginal cost (meaning free access). Who hasn't refused to pay a mere euro to finish reading an article online? That's how it is: people want information, wine to buy, estates to discover, but without paying. So, what's the solution?
Someone has to pay
Today, there are two ways to make a living from wine critic: advertising in all its forms or paid samples. In the first case, the worst scenario, everything is set up to favor conflicts of interest and create the greatest inequality between wines. Yet, producers prefer this system, often associated with calls for free samples. Ironically, the producer still ends up paying if they decide to participate in events or buy medals! Remember that media relying on this system have no other revenues (or very few) than selling these products (advertising, videos, infomercials, events, medals) and will therefore favor those willing to pay to retain them. It's easy to see that these products, especially the events, often gather the same core group of producers caught in this system. In the second case, the producer pays a fee per sample, which in theory is the same for all wines. That said, nothing ensures the producer that the media refrains from selling advertising, hosting events, or awarding medals! And if the amount per sample is significant, one might even imagine that large production structures, able to submit dozens of samples, are favored. The second business model, based on paid samples, is nevertheless the fairest, at least if certain conditions are guaranteed to the producer.
How much and why
The question is not whether or not to pay, but how much and why to pay. First and foremost, the lump sum amount for a sample must remain "marginal", in other words painless for the smallest potential producer interested in the tasting. On the one hand, this allows the latter to present several wines and to improve its visibility, and on the other hand, it avoids reaching too high amounts if a producer were to deposit a large number of samples influencing the final judgment. This finally allows famous winemakers to get out of the media spiral and to continue to exist without having to pay the high price in advertising or other additional sales system. Obviously, it is important to ensure that this lump sum participation is not precisely the start of a long chain of commercial solicitations, in the form of advertising or additional sales. There is no interest in paying twice, unless to enrich the media twice for nothing! In this area, wine competitions are vying with each other to always better convince the producer of its interest in communicating about its reward. Gold medals are no longer enough to convince, one invent the great gold medals, or even better one only distribute gold medals! In short, paying little and without additional sales to be tasted, is the guarantee for the producer and the reader, of a system without conflicts of interest, but not without risk vis-à-vis those who taste. Are the wine critics, as individuals, truly independent or do they benefit from favors influencing their judgment? Impossible to know.
An asymptotic ideal
Let's be clear, there is no perfectly independent wine critic, or more precisely who could guarantee total independence. Unless tasting (at blind of course) a small number of samples several times in different orders, from several mixed bottles, submitting their notes in an envelope and under the control of a bailiff who would transfer the content to the edition so that the notes are directly published without proofreading, there can be no wine rating without some biases. And these biases are mainly human. The ideal wine critic is therefore not a point to reach, but a guideline to get as close as possible to. The ideal critic is an asymptotic critic. To begin with, as we have said, we must eliminate all possibilities of bias linked to the commercial organization system. Then it is up to the reader to make his choice among the critics, with full knowledge of the facts. Which is not the simplest, because the latter is rarely informed of the connivances between the press and the producers. This is where the producer plays a significant role, becoming both judge and party! Judge, because he is able to recognize the tasting qualities of a critic, his seriousness, competence, and impartiality. Unfortunately, he is also a stakeholder in this judgment, being himself the subject of the critic. Hard to imagine a producer raving about a critic who rated him poorly! On the other hand, producers recognized by the criticism have this power. That of guiding the reader to the fairest critic, offering all the guarantees of equal treatment, with a minimum of bias and maximum skills. It's in their best interest.
All that for this
Some will argue that wine critic is a matter of subjectivity and that, despite all ethical precautions, it will always be a personal affair, if not of ego. We have already addressed this idea, that of an overblown critic whose judgment is an end in itself, often materialized by a numerical score (this too, we have extensively addressed). Let's recall briefly that critic is there only to sharpen the reader's curiosity and enlighten their tasting. It is not a commandment, let alone a lesson. The role of the critic, to borrow the words of the writer Sophie Divry, is to identify "[in a wine] what has been done, how it was done, and does it work". Rather than a preference imposed on all, it's a reflection offered to each individual, the result of an intellectual mechanism based on experience, knowledge, and education, which work and curiosity can enrich. Critic doesn't tell you what you should taste, but why you should taste it.
Some will reduce wine critic to its power of influence. After all, why does a producer present a wine if not to boost sales? To hell with ethics! The producer is pragmatic: an influential critic means an empty cellar. But by only looking at the outcome without caring about how it was achieved, the producer ends up being confused with the critic... In other words, a score, before being representative of the critic, reflects the domain. This partly explains why some domains accumulate scores like ornaments on a Christmas tree, thinking that quantity will make up for quality.
The increase in the number of critics is not good news for the industry. What seems like pluralism on the surface is actually a fragmentation of wine culture, where everyone tastes as they see fit, without worrying about the consequences. Let's say it one last time: promoting wine culture is not a rear-guard fight, but the means to ensure wine's survival. Before choosing a taster you like, choose a critic who respects you, whether you are a producer or an wine enthusiast.
Olivier Borneuf
La Tulipe Rouge