A Second Open Letter to Wine Spectator, re Dining Awards (2008 edition)


Mr. Marvin Shanken
Publisher

Mr. Thomas Mathews
Editor

Mr. James Molesworth
Writer

Dear Mr. Shanken, Mr. Mathews & Mr. Molesworth:

I am writing to follow up on the letter I sent to you in July, 2007. In case you forgot that letter, here is a copy of it: Open Letter to WS, 2007

In that letter, I asked that you consider changing the policies and procedures of your Dining Awards so all of the Award winners’ wine programs truly represent Excellence, at all levels of Award winners.

After reading the 8/31/2008 edition of Wine Spectator, which contains your 2008 Dining Awards winners, it has become readily apparent that you did not heed my counsel, as well as the advice of many of your very informed readers. These readers have throughout the year, time after time, mentioned serious flaws and weaknesses in the wine service at many of your Award winners.

Wine Spectator has developed the excellent reputation it has because of the passion of its managerial staff, which is you. The articles contained in WS are well written, informative and authoritative.

I would love for your Dining Awards program to garnish the same respect that the rest of your magazine does. It currently falls inexcusably short.

I’m sure this is something that can be expeditiously fixed.

In the spirit of professional courtesy, I’d like to offer my help to start the process to make the Dining Awards have the same authoritative presence that your tasting notes, biographical references, regional reports and other articles have.

I’m sure your informed readers will have more to add to my recommendations, and we should solicit and welcome them.

Here is my proposed list of improvements to the Dining Awards:

1. Name Change – Why don’t we change the name to the Wine Spectator Wine List Awards.? This more accurately reflects what we are evaluating. Dictionary.com defines dining as “din•ing, noun
–verb (used without object)
1. to eat the principal meal of the day

Eating is not drinking wine.

2. Award level name changes – Why don’t we change the award names? Instead of calling everything excellent, why don’t we consider changing the levels to Award of Merit (old Award of Excellence), Superior Award (old Best of Excellence Award) and let’s leave the Grand Award alone.

This way we don’t have to listen to the people like me who insist that many of the current Award of Excellence winners are not truly Excellent. An award of merit is more accurate and deserving.

3. Expanded criteria – We must have our judging system be more than a cursory read of submitted wine lists. Why don’t we give a subjective score, as we do with our wine ratings?

The following is a revised system that I believe is fair, comprehensive and easy to administer:

a. Wine list (max 60 points)
A1. Number of selections (max 20 points)
A2. Diversity of wine regions (max 10 points)
A3. Ability of selections to pair with menu (max 10 points)
A4. Proper sorting by region, varietals, grammar, other (max 10 points)
A5. Updated frequently (weekly?), with servers informed at all times of out of stock items (max 10 points)

b. Stemware (max 10 points), with the maximum given to applicants who provide appropriate sized stemware for red and whites, and offer large bowl stems for all by the bottle reds.
c. Shipping, storage and serving conditions (max 10 points), with the maximum given to those who take all safe guards to ensure that the wines served were refrigerated at all times throughout the distribution process, and are served at appropriate temperatures for both reds (62f) and whites (52f).
d. Knowledge of staff and proper training (max 10 points), with the maximum given to servers who know the products on the list, have actually tasted many of them, and can accurately and easily recommend appropriate food pairings with them.
e. Quality of food, and menu choices that are wine-friendly (max 10 points), with the maximum given to restaurants that serve menu options that are appropriate for wine. I know this may seen controversial for Wine List awards, but what is the purpose of having fine wine that you can’t drink with the menu selections (i.e., delicate Red Burgundy with super spicy Tai food, etc).

I’m sure that your informed readers will offer more comments on these initial recommendations. We should be wise and listen to them this time.


4. Random, periodic inspections – We should conduct random, annual inspections of our Award winners, to ensure that they are maintaining the standards that earned them the award.

5. Application fee increase – We should substantially increase the application fee to be considered for an award from $250 to $1,000. The increase in cost will weed out those with marginal lists and will enable us to generate the additional margins to pay for the increased screening and monitoring we adopt above.

I would love to work with you to start the process to make the Dining Awards be recognized with the same authoritative recognition that the rest of Wine Spectator has. I eagerly anticipate the day when the renamed Wine Spectator Wine List Awards have the same credibility for wine that James Beard, Michelin and Zagat have for food.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Tom

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cuffthis,

quote:

Wine list (max 60 points)
A1. Number of selections (max 20 points)
A2. Diversity of wine regions (max 10 points)
A3. Ability of selections to pair with menu (max 10 points)
A4. Proper sorting by region, varietals, grammar, other (max 10 points)
A5. Updated frequently (weekly?), with servers informed at all times of out of stock items (max 10 points)

Interesting but the problem is that there are many suggestions that WS might receive from readers and some of those would be contradictory. For example, why does diversity of regions matter at all? Does it mean that an Italian or Spanish place that specialized in regional food and wines could never have an excellent list, no matter how deep, aged, or obscure its selections? So "excellence" can only be found in places that are "international" in scope? If so, back to your nomenclature - it can be called the "Award for a Long Wine List". I've never believed that simply having a long list of wines merited any special note - I'm only going ot have one or two so what do I care if there are two thousand?

Second, why would the ability of the wines to pair with the food merit only as many points as proper grammar and proper sorting by region? Again, if they list a Multipulciano as Chianti Classico and in fact it's a perfect pair with the food, it gets zero points for incorrect listing and 10 for pairing, so regardless of the wine quality, it's mediocre? The weights are way wrong here. I'd even forgo grammar - it's a pet peeve of mine but there are lots of Chinese and other ethic restaurants where barely passable English has no bearing on the food and/or wine quality.

On another note, food pairing is fairly personal - get six sommeliers and ask for a food and wine pairing and you're pretty likely to get six different pairings. In fact, WS periodically does something like that as an article and the soms invariably have their own individual preferences. So I'm not dismissing it, but it's not a straightforward call. Lots of people say Chianti is a good pair with lasagna and tomato dishes. Some people argue the point. Which rules?

Finally, why increase the application fee? If the list purports to be a public service, or a service for the readers, the fact that people have to buy in calls into question its entire credibility. Seems that no application fee would be fairer and a better service for readers.

Shipping, storage, etc., is another thing that would be almost impossible to verify. The restaurant would have to verify the distribution/importation claims and WS would be trying to verify the verification of the restaurant. A laudable goal but good luck. on the other hand, rating a restaurant on its own handling and serving of the wine is completely fair.

Again, and excellent wine list can be defined in many ways. I would not even consider its length in making my evaluation of its excellence. But it would be interesting to tap the collective wishes of the masses regarding this. it might end up as a sort of Zagat award of excellence tho.

Mr. Hudson makes a valid point with the currently misleading name of the WS awards program; and, if other readers have been as vocal about the flaws in the WS awards program, it is insulting to its readers and subscribers for WS to not address those concerns in the very least.

GregT,

This is why I raised this issue.

My rating system is simply my initial thoughts. I'm sure that it will evolve after others readers comprehend logical responses such as yours.

Remember, WS was able to design a tasting evaluation (score) that is consistent and comprehensive in its design, merit and implementation. I am entirely confident they can do something similar for Wine List Awards.

If they want to.

Tom -

I complained about a particular WS award-winning restaurant that was just terrible once (bad service, management, wine storage, etc) and got a response from WS. WS mentioned in their response that they have no intention of visiting winners of their lower awards. Way too many restaurants to visit. It has to be based soley on a wine list out of practicality.

They did, however, mention that they pay attention to reader feedback about restaurants. Don't know if they really do or how much they weigh any feedback the following year, but that would be a way for them to include actual restaurant dining experiences... albeit second-hand being that of the readers.

Once upon a time I was high on this soap box clammoring for a change of ways. One of my suggestions was actually implemented. That is, a way for WS subscribers to add their own comments, a la Zagat's, to alert fellow readers about restaurants that do not measure up in reality the way WS assumes they do on paper. But if you go to the restaurant search engine and look up the restaurants on line, you will see that hardly ANY restaurants have received reader comments and ratings. We can complain to Marvin all we want here. But the bottom line is that WS has given us the opportunity to praise the restaurants we love and call out the ones that are pulling the wool over WS's collective eyes. Yet no one seems to avail themselves of the opportunity. Until people start taking WS up on their offer to chime in, I just can't take criticism here on the Forum seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by JimmyV:
... That is, a way for WS subscribers to add their own comments, a la Zagat's, to alert fellow readers about restaurants that do not measure up in reality the way WS assumes they do on paper. But if you go to the restaurant search engine and look up the restaurants on line, you will see that hardly ANY restaurants have received reader comments and ratings...

I think the lack of comments may be related to the fact that you said only WS subscribers can write comment, a factor that limits the audience greatly. As well, these comments don't show up on the paper edition so its reach is limited.

The bottom line is this is more of a fun award not unlike the annual "Top 10" lists or "Best Of" awards of other publications.

Even if you try to turn this into a serious award, there are too many variables to consider and weights of each variable can vary greatly depending on individual preferences.

For example, what's important to me but not in your proposal is QPR (which is a factor in WS WOTY award). You can have a 1,000 page wine list from every country in the world, but if everyone wine is marked up 300+%, then I'm either BYOing it or ordering one of the cheapies thus making their grand cellar irrelevant.

Other than the most extreme wine geeks, most dine out for the food, not the wine. If you're really serious, then WS shouldn't be your only reference (e.g., read restaurant reviews); otherwise, it's caveat emptor.

quote:

Originally posted by JimmyV:
Once upon a time I was high on this soap box clammoring for a change of ways. One of my suggestions was actually implemented. That is, a way for WS subscribers to add their own comments, a la Zagat's, to alert fellow readers about restaurants that do not measure up in reality the way WS assumes they do on paper. But if you go to the restaurant search engine and look up the restaurants on line, you will see that hardly ANY restaurants have received reader comments and ratings. We can complain to Marvin all we want here. But the bottom line is that WS has given us the opportunity to praise the restaurants we love and call out the ones that are pulling the wool over WS's collective eyes. Yet no one seems to avail themselves of the opportunity. Until people start taking WS up on their offer to chime in, I just can't take criticism here on the Forum seriously.

I think if you are spending time browsing the restaurants on line, I can't take YOU seriously.

J/k

If they've got that as a function, I consider the case closed. If you are gonna go spend money on a restaurant and want to vet it first... sounds like that's the place to research (and sound off).

quote:

Originally posted by Stevey:
what's important to me but not in your proposal is QPR (which is a factor in WS WOTY award). You can have a 1,000 page wine list from every country in the world, but if everyone wine is marked up 300+%, then I'm either BYOing it or ordering one of the cheapies thus making their grand cellar irrelevant.

I agree. Pricing is an extremely relevant criteria that is lacking from my proposal, as well as WS current evaluation system.

quote:

Originally posted by Stevey:

I think the lack of comments may be related to the fact that you said only WS subscribers can write comment, a factor that limits the audience greatly. As well, these comments don't show up on the paper edition so its reach is limited.

I know that the restaurant search function is open to non-subscribers. But I do not know if the ability to post a review is also open. So my comment that "subscibers" can post reviews must be considered a guess only. In any event, WS is running a business. It makes sense for them to limit certain privileges to people who pay them a fee. I am not sure that reviews from the site users would be all that meaningful if they could be posted by any Tom, Dick or Jane. WS should try to encourage the thoughts of people with at least some interest in, and knowledge of wine, and limiting reviews to subscribers (assuming they do that), is a good way to start. Otherwise, the reviews and comments would in fact be no different than Zagats.

Quite simply, folks...if you have a beef with a restaurant, post your thoughts on WS's designated restaurant site. Blasting away on these forums is only going to attract the attention of the 150-200 regular users. But your thoughts in the main search engine could benefit thousands. WS has shown that it is not about to alter its process, flawed as we all know it to be. They have said as much by stating yet again that they have no intention of actually visiting the vast majority of establishments that receive awards. That fact is astounding, but isn't about to change. We DO visit the establishments, so WE should take the wheel and tell the world what we think.

quote:

Once upon a time I was high on this soap box clammoring for a change of ways. One of my suggestions was actually implemented. That is, a way for WS subscribers to add their own comments, a la Zagat's, to alert fellow readers about restaurants that do not measure up in reality the way WS assumes they do on paper. But if you go to the restaurant search engine and look up the restaurants on line, you will see that hardly ANY restaurants have received reader comments and ratings. We can complain to Marvin all we want here. But the bottom line is that WS has given us the opportunity to praise the restaurants we love and call out the ones that are pulling the wool over WS's collective eyes. Yet no one seems to avail themselves of the opportunity. Until people start taking WS up on their offer to chime in, I just can't take criticism here on the Forum seriously.

Jimmy

This is a well kept secret. Never knew there was a feed back feature.

Kindly provide where I can go to edit same.

TIA

Right next to the "Forums" tab at the top of this page is a tab for "Dining & Travel". Click on that and scroll down to "Free Restaurant Search". This is a search engine that allows you to find all of the restaurants listed in the magazine. Search by state, or city and state. You can even narrow your search to filter for particular features (like "Corkage Allowed"), or by level of Award won. Once you find the restaurant in question, click on it to get all of the information provided in the magazine (and a bit more), links to an interactive map that will show you this particular restaurant and others nearby. And most importantly, there is a space where you can see ratings and comments from other users, and add a rating and comment of your own. If more people took the time to post about their visits to these restaurants, the "Award" conferred by WS would become meaningless, and the actual "first person" experiences of unbiased wine lovers would predominate. C'mon folks. Tell us about the stemware, the service temperature of the wines, whether the corkage policy listed is accurate, whether the wine list really is priced as WS says, and whether the selection and price are award-worthy. WS refuses to darken the doorstep of most of its award winners. But we eat in these places every day. Here I am back on my soap box calling on Forum users to spend a little time posting in the Restaurant Search area. If you can spend 2 minutes telling us "What you are drinking last night", spend the same amount of time telling us if the restaurant you went to last night is worth visiting.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JimmyV,

Bravo! I applaud your intentions!

What must be changed first is WS acknowledging that the program is flawed and is agressively attempting to revamp it...and that will take a lot of selling on WS' part. Even so, WS might think that their program is already perfect and needs no such overhaul.

I'd be interested to know how many restaurants paid their fee and did NOT get an award.

Another point - diners/tourists/travelers DO read customer reviews on Google, Yahoo, and other travel sites.

Last point...I know of one restaurant that got an award with a list full of misspellings, inacurate years (2099!), and even listing wines in their wrong regional category. I sent a note to Mr. Mathews and got a uppity-pompous reply actually making it my fault. I don't pay much attention to the award anymore.

I found it, but I need to pay for the service!!! Like I need to pay to critique a resturant, but do not on Yahoo, Yellow Pages, or Zagat.

Now what is wrong with this picture?

quote:

Originally posted by asv:
What must be changed first is WS acknowledging that the program is flawed and is agressively attempting to revamp it...and that will take a lot of selling on WS' part. Even so, WS might think that their program is already perfect and needs no such overhaul.

It's a great revenue source as it is...

Dear Lentini and JimmyV,

Thank you for pointing out the reader rating and comments feature in our Restaurant Awards. We very much want to have more readers share their detailed feedback on the award winners.

To clarify, the Restaurant Search is indeed free, but we do limit the comments to subscribers and the subscriber's name is displayed with the comment. This is because, as JimmyV pointed out, we want to ensure the feedback is meaningful and coming from valid sources.

The search can be found here:
www.winespectator.com/Wine/Dining/Restaurant_Awards/Res...Page/0,1245,,00.html

To answer asv's question: The Restaurant Awards issue states that this year, 319 of the 982 new entries -- or nearly one-third -- failed to earn our basic award.

Dana Nigro
Managing editor, WineSpectator.com

quote:

To answer asv's question: The Restaurant Awards issue states that this year, 319 of the 982 new entries -- or nearly one-third -- failed to earn our basic award.

Point to consider, how many of the old ones failed to maintain status, or were dropped all together?

I know of a few here in Palm Beach that I'd love to see dropped. They are failures!! Service, lists, knowledge!!