Sour Grapes

By Nick Fox

The news that Wine Spectator magazine was scammed into giving an Award of Excellence to a non-existent restaurant has been greeted with guffaws by schadenfreude fans and with fury by the magazine’s editor.

But longtime readers of the Dining section might have seen this coming. Five years ago Amanda Hesser wrote that the magazine granted the award, the lowest of three levels of recognition by the magazine, without actually inspecting the restaurants involved. Restaurants submitted a wine list, a menu and an explanation of their wine program. (Like the wine writer Robin Goldstein did with Osteria L’Intrepido, the fake restaurant in Milan.) “The basic award is not that hard to get,” the magazine’s executive editor, Thomas Matthews, told Amanda.

She wrote:

Of the 3,360 awards granted this year, from a pool of 3,573 entrants, 2,808 received the basic award. Only the winners of the Grand Award, the magazine’s top award, of which there are 89 this year, are ever inspected; 3,271 restaurants simply sent in copies of their wine lists and menus, a cover sheet describing their wine programs and a check for $175 — and walked away winners.

The fee has gone up to $250. More than 4,000 awards were granted this year, so Wine Spectator made more than $1 million in fees.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

PS August 21, 2008 · 1:58 pm

When I first read about this, I thought it was kind of funny, but after reading Amanda Hesser’s article and the response by the Wine Spectator article, I don’t think Goldstein’s accomplishment is all that great. This is what I especially don’t like (if true) from the WS editor:

“In the case of Osteria L’Intrepido:
a. We called the restaurant multiple times; each time, we reached an answering machine and a message from a person purporting to be from the restaurant claiming that it was closed at the moment.
b. Googling the restaurant turned up an actual address and located it on a map of Milan
c. The restaurant sent us a link to a Web site that listed its menu
d. On the Web site Chowhound, diners (now apparently fictitious) discussed their experiences at the non-existent restaurant in entries dated January 2008, to August 2008.”

It seems like WS did its due diligence in trying to see if the restaurant is real. I especially think the fake Chowhound reviews are in poor taste. Spammy comments pollute online communities; people other than WS might have gone looking for this restaurant and found nothing. While you may disagree with WS criteria, it’s not like they led anyone astray in thinking they would actually visit the restaurant.

Dawn August 21, 2008 · 1:59 pm

It’s true, I used to fax said wine lists and pay such fees for a restaurant I worked at year after year. Unfortunately in today’s NYC saturated marketplace restaurants will do anything to stand out, even pay a fee for an “award”. You can’t really blame the restaurants, since many guests will tip their wallet towards a place merely because it has an accolade. (It’s a little similar with Zagat now that their voting is online, but that’s another story.) Anyway that’s what it’s come to, but I agree, shame on you Wine Spectator.

alexander August 21, 2008 · 2:10 pm

But wait. Why was the Wine Spectator “scammed”? Have not consumers been scammed all along by Wine Spectator for believing the “Award” meant something?

Thomas Matthews August 21, 2008 · 4:52 pm

I hope my response to this wine list scam was made more in reason than in “fury,” but anyone who has ever been mugged or deceived will understand the feeling.

I suggest that anyone interested in learning more about our Restaurant Awards visit our
Web site (www.winespectator.com; look in the Dining & Travel section). We are very transparent about the criteria for the awards and what they represent. Anyone who takes the time to read them will know exactly what the Awards mean.

Our goal is to encourage restaurants to improve their wine programs, and to point our readers towards restaurants that take wine seriously. The fact that more restaurants join the program each year, and that more people read Wine Spectator each year, suggests we are succeeding.

Thomas Matthews
Executive editor

Observer in Vancouver August 21, 2008 · 5:15 pm

3,573 entrants got 3,360 awards. 213 came away empty handed. Kind of like finishing lower at Annapolis than John McCain.

Can anyone take Wine Spectator seriously after learning these numbers?

Charlie Cook August 21, 2008 · 6:26 pm

It’s more than $1 million in fees these “awards” generate. 4,000 awards means thousands of other restaurants submitted and did not make the cut. You don’t automatically get an award.

Morton Leslie August 21, 2008 · 7:13 pm

Damn straight Alexander. People who read “The Ultimate Buying Guide” probably assumed that it represented something other than paid advertising. The reason this has become a big story is that the unless you read the fine print somewhere in a back page most you assume the “awards” were more than sending in a menu, a wine list and a check for $250. How about all the individuals who followed their “Buying Guide” recommendations?

Neil Elliott August 21, 2008 · 8:02 pm

What’s “Wine Spectator”? Is that a magazine or something?

Peter Steinberg August 21, 2008 · 8:09 pm

What a great business model!

Why should the Pulitzer people have all the fun? Maybe I’ll start an award for excellent books.

$50 gets you “short-listed”
$100 makes you a “finalist”
$250 and you “win”
$1,000 and you get a “lifetime achievement” medal.

If it does well, maybe I’ll even be able to afford to eat at Osteria L’Intrepido.

Peter
//www.FlashlightWorthyBooks.com
Where we’ll soon be “awarding” our “Annual Medal of Excellence” on a weekly basis. 😉

AGN August 21, 2008 · 8:17 pm

This is one of the most ridiculous awards systems I have heard of. The basic award appears to be just a stamp on a piece of paper, having nothing to do with enjoying a glass of wine in a restaurant: quality of the wine, of the accompanying food, and of the service.

It’s impressive restaurants care so much about these awards, as I, as a diner, do not. I would much rather rely on good word of mouth, Zagat, and on-line reviews (as unreliable as some are, there is truth in large numbers).

WS is angry not because it was “scammed,” but because this story has revealed that they have been scamming diners for all these years. Lots of loss of reputation to make up for!

Jack at F&B August 21, 2008 · 8:47 pm

The main discussions on this subject are here:

//dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=178480

and

//www.vinography.com/archives/2008/08/wine_spectator_restaurant_awar.html

Personally, I think these awards mislead consumers; most consumers don’t realize that it’s really a paid advertisement, with only the bottom 10% (if that), not getting an award.

Hassan Azarm August 21, 2008 · 9:13 pm

Wine Spectator is a sham of a marketing machine that has been responsible for jacking up wine prices in the last two decades….

Their wine ratings are suspect at best, and how many times we have all bought wines based on their ratings and have been burned, Bordeaux 1995 is a good example….

This is a hype magazine mandated to persuade people with little or no knowledge of wine to go and spend a fortune to experience what that does not “exist”….

Incidentally their recent “faux pas” on “Non-Existant Restaurants” is in line with their record on wine tastings/ratings/recommendations….

mlgorman August 21, 2008 · 10:48 pm

What a joke Wine Spectator and it’s readers are. Phony snobs and liars…..

MM August 22, 2008 · 1:06 am

The WS editor states that they are transparent about their awards – well perhaps the criteria are stated somewhere but how many people are aware of them? For this to be a completely honest process, the restuarants should not have to pay and WS should do something better than call to ensure that the restuarant exists. Even if a place existed, what would stop them from fabricating their wine list? Seems like lazy research and an easy way to make a few $$ for WS.

Alvaro Covarrubias Lara August 22, 2008 · 4:18 am

Except for the magazine’s editor, no one cares if the restaurant exists. The bottom line is that this fake wine list was made-up of some of the magazine’s worst-rated wine yet still won the award.

Domo August 22, 2008 · 5:51 am

These aren’t awards, they’re paid endorsements. The magazine is nothing but a penny saver for elitists.

paul Margulies August 22, 2008 · 7:40 am

As someone who was once profiled by the Wine Spectator, I’ve often thought that the ratings and awards systems of WS and others were total nonsense.

Years ago, as a sommelier in NYC, I created wine programs and wine lists for many restaurants. In a few cases, a few months after I created the lists, the restaurant would submit the list, menu and check. Without exception the restaurant would “win” an award, mostly in the second tier. I’d have a sad laugh to find that the credit for the wine program was given to the current manager, or in one case, the coat check girl.

The Wine Spectator listings, in my humble opinion, are a joke.

JIm August 22, 2008 · 7:40 am

Memo to the “Cork Dorks” of the world.
It’s all about advertising revenues and placement fees with the Spectator. Want proof? Restaurants that want to be rated had to pony up $250 to even be considered.
I love this story exposing some of the fraudulent “awards” the Spectator likes to pass out. I have over 40 years experience in the marketing and supplier end of the wine business and all Robin Goldstein’s story did was publicize something that industry people have known for years. Sorry I don’t buy this we are holier than thou crap damage control coming from the Spectator.
“If you want to play, then be prepared to pay.”
A full page ad in the Spectator will make your wine taste like the Holy Grail.
That should be the Spectator’s mantra.
I should also add I do read the Spectator and they do have many interesting stories and they do try to educate readers about the wine industry, particularly when they focus on a geographic area of the world. Just remember to take all their ratings and so-called awards with a huge dose of salt.

Ron August 22, 2008 · 8:42 am

Cheers to commentor #3. Scamming W.S. may not be the greatest achievement of all time, but at least it draws more attention to the ridiculously flawed view of the wine world that W.S. promotes. Nothing but useless “scores”, awards and empty content.

Rochelle Bilow August 22, 2008 · 8:44 am

Mr. Matthews –

If it is really your magazine’s intention to simply encourage restaurants to take their wine lists seriously and to point readers toward said restaurants, I commend you.

I do think, however, that for such a nebulous goal, the steep entry fee should be elminated. As it stands now, it appears (though I realize that may not be the intent) that your organization is focused solely on profit.

The Hungry I August 22, 2008 · 9:00 am

Goodstein did a great service here. There is a pizza joint near me that had a small typical Italian foods menu. Eventually they added some wines to the list. The place was nothing special and even their pizza wasn’t that good. One day a big sign went up proclaiming they had won a Wine Spectator dining award. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out how they pulled that off. Now I know how.

bruce August 22, 2008 · 9:09 am

And do you think the WS rating system is based on integrity? Just ask a winemaker!

ExpatJane August 22, 2008 · 9:15 am

In no sense of the word is what Wine Spectator doing an “award” system.

The magazine very well might have done a fair level of due diligence to see if the restaurant was real, but where in any sense is this system they’ve got going an award? It’s nothing less than an intricate route to a paid advert.

They’re duping their readers by using a misnomer.

Carlie August 22, 2008 · 9:53 am

What a waste of paper … WS readers/lemmings clipping the little cheat-sheets out of each issue, desperately combing their local wine shops for those wines scoring 95 or more that nobody can find anyway. Ridiculous profiles of niche wineries that have waiting lists … it’s all such garbage. Last I checked most of the $15 bottles of Malbec at my local package store tasted great with just about everything.

I’m on the “Table & Vine” mailing list … hands down the best, most honest, most knowledgable wine reviewers out there. Not only is their newsletter FREE, most of the wines they review are readily available. (They also review Bordeaux futures and the like for you snobs …).

bdt August 22, 2008 · 10:04 am

It is worse because we are supposed to trust this magazine to rate things. If it was Time Magazine I would understand since the rating doesn’t relate to their reporting and does not discredit the entire objective of the publication. However, this is a ratings publication and the fact that you can buy an excellent rating discredits everything that they do. I wonder how much a 75 rating on a wine costs. Do you simply submit a label and a description of the wine?

On a separate note, imagine how bad the wine lists are at those 213 rejected restaurants! That is a list worth reading.