quote:

Here is our description of an Award of Excellence:
Our basic award, for lists that offer a well-chosen selection of quality producers, along with a thematic match to the menu in both price and style.

There are many holes in this “Award of Excellence” description. Yes this hoax’s wine list does qualify for the award of excellence. It has a well-chosen selection from top producers (but they were the worst wines from those producers but he had a LOT of good producers’ crappy wine). He matched the theme well (absurdly over priced wines probably matched his overpriced food, and a fake restaurant theme matched perfectly with the fake wine list theme).

It is good to heard both sides of this story but basically what WS is trying to say is as long as your carry “quality producers’ wine on your wine list it doesn’t matter if you have crap wine or not. It just has to match. Interesting, it sounds more like they are giving away awards for the producers chosen, not the specific wine chosen.

quote:

Originally posted by JimmyV:

quote:

I gave CC a 1 star. Treveni 5 stars in Palm Beach.

Yaaaayyyy!! The system at work. As I said on another thread on this topic, unless and until WS changes the system, this is the best we can do. Everyone here seems to have an opinion on restaurants that don't deserve awards, but hardly anyone takes the time to warn your fellow wine lovers. If we all spent 1/10 of the time we spend here chatting over at the restaurant section adding comments, this website might actually have a meaningful restaurant section.

I'll get every one of these places in northern Palm beach County. Should be about 10 or so.

Maybe Rothko, MLV etc. can get the ones central and south county.

At least we'll get a start on it.

It's simply dishonest to call something an "award" when there's a $250 fee involved. If you want to sell advertisements, sell advertisements -- no sin in that. But legitimate reviewers like Consumer Reports not only don't charge to rate a product, they accept no free review samples and anonymously buy the product like a consumer would, and then they test it. There is an effort to separate designations like "Best Buy" from any type of financial motive. That's apparently not what you do. Calling these "awards" is fraudulent. Call them what they are -- paid advertisements.

The one hit wonders keep rolling in. I find it fascinating some of the information they have that's not been posted here before.

Why don't all of you losers go back to eBob or Goldstein's blog site where you came from to begin with? You'll find a more receptive lynch mob there.

Wow, I've never seen so many new people on one thread.

Rothko, I'm betting several of them are the same person.

quote:

Originally posted by wineismylife:
Rothko, I'm betting several of them are the same person.

Ditto

No way WIML. I have a hard time believing people would be so duplicitous.....

Jcocktosten has had the excellent idea to start a thread in the Travel and Entertainment section. (Maybe Dining and Cooking would be better.) I think it would a good idea if the WS staff pinned a thread in either section so forum members could comment on the restaurants that won awards.

In accusing Robin Goldstein of "malicious duplicity” and calling him an “unscrupulous person,” Wine Spectator has subscribed to the “best defense is an offense” philosophy. You have accused Goldstein for his “elaborate hoax,” when it appears that the award itself is something of a hoax.

Goldstein was a clever investigative reporter and was his own Deep Throat. He outed your award ruse, but rather than print a gracious and sincere apology, you have blamed Goldstein for uncovering the scam.

You wrote, “We assume that if we receive a wine list, the restaurant that created it does in fact exist.” One basic rule of journalism — and Wine Spectator is, after all, a magazine and you, Mr. Matthews, are an editor — is not to assume anything.

Most journalists, if they had continued to be told that a restaurant was closed, would be suspicious and wonder whether the restaurant was closed for good -- or perhaps had never opened. But then, the awards really have nothing to do with journalism but with marketing, sales promotion and generating a nice revenue stream.

This year, nearly 4,250 restaurants received one of the three levels of awards. Do that math: 4,250 times the $250 entry fee for both new restaurants and renewals is a hefty chunck of change. And oh yes, you keep the $250, whether or not a restaurant is selected -- though I wouldn't be surprised if every restaurant this side of Olive Garden probably got the award as long as the check didn't bounce.

Your award submission guidelines state, “Your cover letter explaining your restaurant’s wine program: The cover letter must be on your restaurant’s letterhead with telephone and fax number and must be in English.” Was there a required cover letter with phone and fax numbers, and did the magazine actually keep calling Milan — or did you simply take the site’s word for these numbers?

Comments on this thread and other blogs have implied that people were getting entirely too worked up about this matter. Was your now clouded award program on the order of, say, phony weapons of mass destruction? Of course not. Wine/liquor industry insiders might have known or spectulated that the Wine Spectator Awards have been a pay-to-play scam, but the publication’s readers — people who buy wines and patronize restaurants — do take such awards seriously. They are your readers, and you have let them down -- seemingly without remorse.

Wine Spectator should be grateful to Robin Goldstein for demonstrating flaws in your awards system and tighten up the procedures in order to restore your magazine’s credibility.

quote:

Originally posted by wineismylife:
The one hit wonders keep rolling in. I find it fascinating some of the information they have that's not been posted here before.

Why don't all of you losers go back to eBob or Goldstein's blog site where you came from to begin with? You'll find a more receptive lynch mob there.

Actually, I learned of this because a Web site for journalists linked to it. In our line of work, there is a clear "separation of church and state" between advertising and editorial content that's meant to serve the readers' best interests. So naturally, some of us there find Wine Spectator's $250 fee an affront to everything we believe in. An "award" ought to be freely given without any financial reward to the publication. Ads ought to be clearly labeled as such. It's simply a matter of being honest with readers whether profit influences the ratings. It's an extremely important distinction, and if you can't see that, you'll have to explain why.

If you have something of substance to argue, other than whether people have the right to an opinion that differs from yours, attack on point. Otherwise, you come off as an Internet bully who is intolerant of true discourse.

You may see this as a wine issue. But in my field, we take particular offense to lapses like Wine Spectator's because people tend to judge all of us by the mistakes of a few. And those who cross that line need to know that their peers deeply resent their malfeasance and the tremendous difficulty it causes the rest of us. No doubt there will now be some obligatory shots at the media by people who've never spent a day working in it. This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.

quote:

Wine Spectator should be grateful to Robin Goldstein for demonstrating flaws in your awards system and tighten up the procedures in order to restore your magazine’s credibility.

May I be the first to say BS!! Robin Goldstein is a real turkey!!

I have to agree with WIML here would you one hit wonders just go away???

quote:

Originally posted by CRS:
This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.

CRS -

I gather, then, that you take Goldstein's phony "data" very seriously (speaking of the "Under $15 expose"), and would apply the same lack of credibility there? Just wondering....

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
Jcocktosten has had the excellent idea to start a thread in the Travel and Entertainment section. (Maybe Dining and Cooking would be better.) I think it would a good idea if the WS staff pinned a thread in either section so forum members could comment on the restaurants that won awards.

I re-posted in Dining and Cooking - I was not paying enough attention when I posted originally

Unconstructive hate from the holier than thou crew- how dare Wine Spectator be a business and make money?! Look in the mirror folks- the magazine has extreme breadth & gives you the tools to make up your own mind regarding the particular restaurant. With every restaurant award, there is a profile (which, by the way, is free to non-subscribers) that provides an address and website- it's fair to say that the lowest tier award will at least have a decent selection...could they be more difficult in terms of scrutinizing lists? Of course, it's a work in progress...but a very good start. Where else can you find a wine-centric library of restaurants in a comprehensive, almost exhausting fashion? If you disagree w/ a selection (or tasting note, for that matter) fine, but at least it starts the research process rolling...

and if you only find value in top selections where visits are made, fine- their Grand award winners are almost irrefutably top notch & their interviews & analysis of them certainly have merit...

Either way, move on- if you don't like the issue then don't buy it...but the success of wine spectator as a BUSINESS is irrefutable, and there is something for everyone in terms of what it offers from a wine standpoint; take that which you don't like w/ a grain of salt. It's a magazine about wine, not curing cancer.

quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:

quote:

Originally posted by CRS:
This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.

CRS -

I gather, then, that you take Goldstein's phony "data" very seriously (speaking of the "Under $15 expose"), and would apply the same lack of credibility there? Just wondering....

I see Wine Spectator as a mainstream publication that ought to be playing by mainstream rules. If we fixated on whether every blog on the Wild West of the Internet applied those basic standards to their work, we'd soon need something a lot stronger than wine. Wine Spectator needs to clean its side of the street. What the other guy did is irrelevant, unless they believe his blog is on equal footing with Wine Spectator in terms of credibility, audience and clout.

Re James Molesworth's explanation, "We have said before, very clearly, that the program judges the list itself..."

But you gave an award to a restaurant that does not exist -- regardless of the criteria that the make-believe wine list supposedly met. Whether or not Robin Goldstein has a new book to promote, WS messed up badly.

I cannot help but think: "The emperor has no clothes on." "I am not a crook." "I did not have sex with that woman." There is absolutely no excuse for recognizing a restaurant that existed only on the Internet, and every time WS tries to justify sloppy and unjournalistic procedures, you dig yourselves a deeper hole.

quote:

Originally posted by CRS:

quote:

Originally posted by Dom'n'Vin'sDad:

quote:

Originally posted by CRS:
This may come as a shock to the uninfomed, but there are many of us who take any transgression by any publication very seriously indeed because it affects every publication's credibility.

CRS -

I gather, then, that you take Goldstein's phony "data" very seriously (speaking of the "Under $15 expose"), and would apply the same lack of credibility there? Just wondering....

I see Wine Spectator as a mainstream publication that ought to be playing by mainstream rules. If we fixated on whether every blog on the Wild West of the Internet applied those basic standards to their work, we'd soon need something a lot stronger than wine. Wine Spectator needs to clean its side of the street. What the other guy did is irrelevant, unless they believe his blog is on equal footing with Wine Spectator in terms of credibility, audience and clout.

Jim Molsworth, Mathews et al.

Lets lock this thread and get these one hit wonders out a here.

quote:

In our line of work, there is a clear "separation of church and state" between advertising and editorial content that's meant to serve the readers' best interests.

HA HA HA HA HA! That is rich!

That might be the claim of your industry, but history shows MUCH differently.

quote:

Originally posted by Florida Wino:
Jim Molsworth, Mathews et al.

Lets lock this thread and get these one hit wonders out a here.

Yes! Let's cut out their tongues!

Why do you feel threatened by an opposing viewpoint?

New person here!

Let's try to keep it simple.

First: One successful fraud indicates the potential for many. Hence, we must question the credibility of this publication. If one guy can do it, so can many.

Next: How much time and effort does $250 buy? You can't blame Goldstein for the way WS does their job. You can, however, question the value of your $250 investment into their "awards" process. And the price of your subscription.

Really folks - is it ok with you that this fraud was successful? Is it ok with you that the content and credibility of WS can so easily be shattered? Does this not bring into question every subjective judgment printed in WS? Regardless of the scruples or intent of Goldstein - WS was too easily duped. So, too, are we for defending a weak system that, in the end, is designed to guide where we spend our money.

Many of you attack Goldstein. Why? Goldstein's effort simply provides you with the opportunity to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Is the "Award" real? Or simply a clever illusion? Goldstein found a way to give us a peek behind the curtain. Now you can decide - real? Or illusion?

Again - one fraud suggests many, and how much effort does $250 buy? Are you getting your money's worth (both readers and award applicants)? Can you trust WS to guide where you spend your good money?

The man behind the curtain is revealed - take a look.

Why do you feel the need to protect the world from your imagined faults? Why do you think he is such a scammer? Hang onto your wallets folks.

quote:

The man behind the curtain is revealed - take a look.

he is still an idiot, fraud, and deceitful.

quote:

Originally posted by Foghorn Bullhorn:

quote:

In our line of work, there is a clear "separation of church and state" between advertising and editorial content that's meant to serve the readers' best interests.

HA HA HA HA HA! That is rich!

That might be the claim of your industry, but history shows MUCH differently.

I would say you're likely less informed on that than I am. I've not only spent more than 30 years in editorial, but my dad worked on the advertising end. I know for an absolute fact about the gulf between the two on honest publications. My dad certainly believed his commissions would have been initially higher had that separation vanished, but he was savvy enough to know the gains would have been short term because a publication must view its audience as its priority or there won't be anything to sell to advertisers when the audience goes away.