Skip to main content

27 replies

Which shelf-talker practices are honest, which ones are shady?

P pmontyMember
There seems to me to be a spectrum of shelf-talker practices in wine stores, both on-line and in the stores themselves, which range from honest and helpful to cynically dishonest, but with many gradations somewhere in between. Which of these do you consider honest, marginal or dishonest?

1. Lists scores for prior vintages but omits this one, even though it has been scored. You see this in Costco a lot. For example, they are selling a 2002 CdP or Brunello, and the high scores for the 2001 and 1999 are offered but no mention of the low 2002 score.

2. Selectively list scores from whichever publication was highest. It's pretty common to see the higher of the Spectator, Tanzer or Parker scores be the only one listed. Costco and some others go a little further by mining Wine Enthusiast, Wine & Spirits, and others for scores.

3. Using the high end of a barrel tasting range as the score."Parker 94" listed when actually he gave it a 91-94 range as a barrel score.

4. Saying "Robert Parker" when the score was given by a different reviewer at the Wine Advocate. You often see "Parker 94" for a Spanish wine reviewed by Jay Miller in the Wine Advocate, for example.

5. Having an in-house critic assign a score. BevMo is the main example with Wilfred Wong, though some people say that the guy has some credentials as a wine critic. More typically it's something like where a shelf-talker will say "Wine Club 94 Points" or "95 Points, Joe Blow, Wine Club Bordeaux Buyer."

6. Cherry-picking the highest score for a wine which was reviewed multiple times. Most often the case for Bordeaux, given how many times the wines are re-visited by critics. For example, a 1986 Latour has gotten WS scores ranging from 90 to 96 points at various times, and so a retailer might just say "WS 96," rather than listing all the scores or the most recent one.

7. Giving the higher barrel score when the wine has been scored in the bottle. For example, saying "Parker 90-92" when the wine has already gotten a subsequent 89 score in the bottle.

Give me your vote -- honest, marginal, dishonest -- about the ethics of each of these, assuming that they were done knowingly rather than accidentally, plus any thoughts. Also, feel free to add in any other practices you've seen for discussion.

My votes:
1. Marginal, only honest if there is no score yet for the vintage on sale
2. Honest
3. Dishonest
4. Marginal, but a very minor gripe
5. Honest, if reasonably disclosed
6. Marginal or honest, depending on the circumstances (was the high score pulled out of the middle of 5 retastes, or did they just use the initial or most recent score?)
7. Dishonest
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

purplehazepurplehazeMember
quote:
Originally posted by P Monty:
My votes:
1. Marginal, only honest if there is no score yet for the vintage on sale
Dishonest. Your questions stated that the vintage HAD been scored. Otherwise, agree with you as long as there is no smoke and mirrors..
2. Honest
Not dishonest.
3. Dishonest
Agree.
4. Marginal, but a very minor gripe
Disagree. The reviewer's name is critical. Anything otherwise is a lie.
5. Honest, if reasonably disclosed
Agree
6. Marginal or honest, depending on the circumstances (was the high score pulled out of the middle of 5 retastes, or did they just use the initial or most recent score?)
Marginal unless the difference between scores is negligible. (1-2 points) Otherwise dishonest as hell
7. Dishonest
Agree.


PH
W wecMember
If knowingly doing so then:

1) Honest - If consumer is knowledgeable, they should be able to infer the low score. (The retailer is not forced to disclose all information.)
2) Honest - Very common practice that I have no problems with.
3) Dishonest - The wine never received that score.
4) Dishonest - Assuming they knowingly did so, you can only say that they are dishonest.
5) Honest - Almost equivalent to point 2.
6) Marginal
7) Marginal
P papeduneufMember
1. Lists scores for prior vintages but omits this one, even though it has been scored.

Dishonest. It is intentionally misleading, and preys on the less informed.

2. Selectively list scores from whichever publication was highest.

Honest. Just normal marketing.

3. Using the high end of a barrel tasting range as the score."Parker 94" listed when actually he gave it a 91-94 range as a barrel score.

Either ignorant or dishonest.

4. Saying "Robert Parker" when the score was given by a different reviewer at the Wine Advocate.

Ignorant.

5. Having an in-house critic assign a score.

Honest, as long as there is adequate disclosure.

6. Cherry-picking the highest score for a wine which was reviewed multiple times.

Honest, but misleading. Bad policy.

7. Giving the higher barrel score when the wine has been scored in the bottle.

Honest, but misleading. Bad policy.
P papeduneufMember
The practice that bugs me the most is putting up a review and score for a higher scoring vintage than the one on the shelf. Often the difference in quality is huge.I believe that the merchants are counting on the customer to not notice the discrepancy or not understand.

I have heard that the practice is illegal in California. Is that true? It should be everywhere.

In small stores I point out to the staff shelf talkers that don't match. In supermarkets I remove them.
glennkglennkMember
#4 is the one I see the most and it’s annoying. I can see a lot of casual wine drinkers getting suckered into another 91 pt Jay Miller special because the tag said Parker.

2 more you can add to the list:

1. I see a lot of Parker non-blind scores from the Hedonist’s Gazette get posted like they were from the WA. This is not a huge deal because it’s still his review, but full discloser is the best way to go.

2. One particular wine shop by me displayed the Dominus review and score over the Napanook bottles. They did something similar with the Pontet-Canet and their second label. I mentioned it to one of clerks and they just played dumb. Pretty shady.
P pmontyMember
quote:
2. One particular wine shop by me displayed the Dominus review and score over the Napanook bottles. They did something similar with the Pontet-Canet and their second label. I mentioned it to one of clerks and they just played dumb. Pretty shady.
That is 100% dishonest. It's fine to say "this is the second wine/label of Wine X which got 95 points" and use that as a plug, but anything beyond that is out of bounds.

Here's another one similar to what pape du neuf mentions: When there is a shelf talker for a NV Champagne or sparkling wine, giving some score several reviews back.

Then again, it's pretty tough to apply reviews to NV sparklers, since it can be difficult or impossible to know which batch it is you're buying and how that corresponds to the various times the wine was reviewed. I guess the ethical thing to do is use the most recent score, but this is so confusing that I'm somewhat understanding if the store is using an older score.
P pmontyMember
All "score whores" stuff aside, I think almost all of us, if we're honest, can admit to factoring shelf talkers into buying decisions from time to time. And there is nothing inherently wrong with it, any more than it is wrong to go see a movie or eat at a restaurant after seeing favorable reviews from generally reliable sources.

If I'm at Costco and see some $25 Bordeaux in the bin, and the shelf talker says it got 92 points from RP or WS (being careful to avoid the deceptive traps like the ones discussed above), I might get a bottle or two, whereas I wouldn't have it was some wine I hadn't heard of and there was no information on hand (I don't have WS or RP on my cell phone or anything like that). Sure, ideally I would have tried it at someone's house or a wine bar or in a tasting first, but I can't have done that with every single wine I buy, so I let the critics help me select new things to try to some degree.

Which is why it's worth knowing how to avoid tricks that stores play with their shelf talkers and which stores cross the line too far in the ethics of using them.
D davetongbbpMember
quote:
Originally posted by P Monty:
1. Lists scores for prior vintages but omits this one, even though it has been scored. You see this in Costco a lot. For example, they are selling a 2002 CdP or Brunello, and the high scores for the 2001 and 1999 are offered but no mention of the low 2002 score.

Dishonest only if poor scores are omitted with the intention to mislead. As for Costco I don't believe that's the case - they just seem to post whatever scores they have to hand. For example I have seen wines such as BV Tapestry and GdL with shelf talkers including the abysmal WS low 70s scores.

Many wines score the same give or take a point or two year in, year out. Posting previous vintage scores in most cases is fair enough.

quote:
2. Selectively list scores from whichever publication was highest. It's pretty common to see the higher of the Spectator, Tanzer or Parker scores be the only one listed. Costco and some others go a little further by mining Wine Enthusiast, Wine & Spirits, and others for scores.


You seem to be on an anti-Costco rant. I've seen this almost everywhere *except* Costco. I only ever seem to see WA and WS scores there, with the occasional WE. Never seen Tanzer or W&S quoted. Makes no difference really - you either give credence to the scorer or you don't.

quote:
3. Using the high end of a barrel tasting range as the score."Parker 94" listed when actually he gave it a 91-94 range as a barrel score.


Dodgy. Understandable in some contexts (eg computer lists), but still dodgy.

quote:
4. Saying "Robert Parker" when the score was given by a different reviewer at the Wine Advocate. You often see "Parker 94" for a Spanish wine reviewed by Jay Miller in the Wine Advocate, for example.


More likely to be inattentiveness than anything else. For most people Parker == WA. Makes no difference to me.

quote:
5. Having an in-house critic assign a score. BevMo is the main example with Wilfred Wong, though some people say that the guy has some credentials as a wine critic. More typically it's something like where a shelf-talker will say "Wine Club 94 Points" or "95 Points, Joe Blow, Wine Club Bordeaux Buyer."


Know your critic. WWong "bites nards" (TM). Most other wine shops (K&L, TWC) don't usually give scores, just notes.

quote:
6. Cherry-picking the highest score for a wine which was reviewed multiple times. Most often the case for Bordeaux, given how many times the wines are re-visited by critics. For example, a 1986 Latour has gotten WS scores ranging from 90 to 96 points at various times, and so a retailer might just say "WS 96," rather than listing all the scores or the most recent one.


Iffy, but understandable.

[QUOTE]7. Giving the higher barrel score when the wine has been scored in the bottle. For example, saying "Parker 90-92" when the wine has already gotten a subsequent 89 score in the bottle.[QUOTE]

Again, iffy if done deliberately. Most likely just not updated.
R redguyinabluestateMember
quote:
Originally posted by P Monty:
All "score whores" stuff aside, I think almost all of us, if we're honest, can admit to factoring shelf talkers into buying decisions from time to time. And there is nothing inherently wrong with it, any more than it is wrong to go see a movie or eat at a restaurant after seeing favorable reviews from generally reliable sources.

If I'm at Costco and see some $25 Bordeaux in the bin, and the shelf talker says it got 92 points from RP or WS (being careful to avoid the deceptive traps like the ones discussed above), I might get a bottle or two, whereas I wouldn't have it was some wine I hadn't heard of and there was no information on hand (I don't have WS or RP on my cell phone or anything like that). Sure, ideally I would have tried it at someone's house or a wine bar or in a tasting first, but I can't have done that with every single wine I buy, so I let the critics help me select new things to try to some degree.

Which is why it's worth knowing how to avoid tricks that stores play with their shelf talkers and which stores cross the line too far in the ethics of using them.


P Monty: I don't disagree with you that shelf talkers aren't helpful from time to time, especially if the tasting notes are posted as well. I just feel that some wine merchants (stores and internet) seem to be praying on the uninformed by some of the questionable practices that you listed above. I guess it is a pet peeve of mine, as well.

As far as the score whore thing, I was just trying to stir up the pot a little bit. Wink
P pmontyMember
quote:
You seem to be on an anti-Costco rant.
The two items in which I mentioned Costco were ones which I personally described (at the bottom of my post) as "honest" and "marginal." In the main part of my post, I was just laying out some practices for people to consider, not saying they were all bad.

But I have definitely seen Costco do the trick with the off-vintage often enough to reasonably suspect that it's intentional. You'll see some 2002 Brunello where the shelf talker says "1999 WS 94, 2000 WE 90, 2001 WA 92." You know that they were searching around for the best scores from all the publications for those prior vintages, and you know low scores (probably in the 70s) are already long since published for the 2002s, so it's not likely that it's inadvertence. But it's not an outright lie, either, which is why I thought it marginal.

They do occasionally put out a low score for a wine, as well, though, which is interesting.

As far as inadvertence or laziness, I did specifically phrase the question as to whether these things are ethical or not if they were done knowingly.
B bernoMember
1. Marginal. If someone's dropping a fair amount of money on a wine, they should know a vintage will most likely matter. We do not do this at the store I work at, but consumers should be smart enough to see a 2002 bottle and a 2001 rating.

2. Honest. Many people are rating whores. A lot of people don't even read the notes.

3. Dishonest. Wine.com does this, Caralina Wine Co. does this. Nearly a bait and switch.

4. Honest. eRobertParker.com A WS rating has the initials of the person rating it, but on a sign or website, it's a "WS 97 pts."

5. Honest. If that certain critic is trying to unload some crappy wine by puting his/her own rating on it, he/she will lose that company business.

6. Marginal, if the wine received a higher rating and is the most recent, fine. If it initally received a high score and lost its luster, dishonest.

7. Dishonest
B barbsMember
Costco is not doing it. It's the distributor sales rep. In addition to the POS material, I had a rep tell me that a Malbec was a limited production of 600 cases ( Then how could there be a pallet at a location?) Molesworth just rated this and there were 8075 cases imported. The point becomes, you have to do your own homework.
D davetongbbpMember
quote:
Originally posted by mneeley490:
I see a lot of #5 lately. Shelf talkers that say, "Joes Favorite!" or "Sarah Highly Recommends". Usually many more names than I see working the floor.
Who are these people? Joe's the guy out on the loading dock, and Sarah does the books for the store.


The Wine Club does this. They usually have 4 recommendations from each of their 3 branches.
L lizardkingMember
I think most of it depends on the intentions of the owner(s) or workers. What if half of the time the only scores they can get are the ones from wrong vintages, etc? Is it better to put nothing, than to say: "hey, the last vintage of this stuff was pretty good". To me that means that its possible the winemaker or vineyard is good, and I have a better chance of choosing that wine instead of randomly picking, or god-forbid, even ask a worker for help. I mean, how many wine-savy people really work at BevMo and the like? I cringe when I hear people ask for advice from the workers at these places sometimes, they know, generally, little to nothing about the wine they sell. I think Costco is pretty honest with their scores, but it all depends on the information available, and the resources. I can't see most large companies putting forth the extra money to search and print every time a wine gets revisited.

Of course this is all for large retailers, for small wine shops, I believe if they put some scores out they better be right!!

So, the philosopher in me says: depends. If they intend to rip you off, then it is dishonesty. Otherwise the consumer doesn't know enough about the circumstances that the workers, managers and owners are in to say whether or not their decisions are dishonest.
R randysloanMember
quote:
Originally posted by P Monty:
Lists scores for prior vintages but omits this one, even though it has been scored.


Not good form if a poor current score is being left out, but I guess not really shady as long as it's clear which vintages got the scores mentioned. If the current vintage hasn't been rated, it can actually be a helpful practice.

quote:
Selectively list scores from whichever publication was highest.


Seems okay. I don't blame them.

quote:
Using the high end of a barrel tasting range as the score.


Dishonest. Barrel scores shouldn't have any place on a shelf-talker.

quote:
Saying "Robert Parker" when the score was given by a different reviewer at the Wine Advocate.


Doesn't bother me.

quote:
Having an in-house critic assign a score.


Again, it doesn't bother me though it seems fair that a "Who is Wilfred Wong?" type explanation ought to be prominent too. In much the same way if a store clerk starts making bogus recommendations it ends up hurting business, bogus scores are going to hurt too.

quote:
Cherry-picking the highest score for a wine which was reviewed multiple times.
I've noticed this A BUNCH with online auction sites. The most current review should be used.

quote:
Giving the higher barrel score when the wine has been scored in the bottle.

Again, barrel scores should have no place on a shelf-talker with the one exception if barrel scores are the most recent information and they are labeled as such.
T toscaMember
I work in a government run liquor store in BC and this is a practice that used to cause so many problems in our stores. We ended up banning sales reps from putting up their own shelf talkers altogether. All talkers in the store now have to go through the marketing department to be approved and put up by a product consultant in the store (me). The following restrictions have been placed on them:

-No incorrect vintages
-No reviews from obscure sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle, JoeBlow County Fair, or Bob's wine club.
-must not exceed a certain size 3x5inches
-Accolades for previous vintages must refer to those vintages only
-food and wine pairing is ok
-No blanketing of tags without helpful information such as scores or pairing info
-Staff write ups are ok but they are usually identified by a product consultants choice tag. No score given.
-Date and source of critic score must be dated and quoted

It seems to be working yet there are very few in the stores these days.

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×