Thanks again for the comments, it’s nice to hear your take on this information.

“Please don’t attribute this sentiment to Wine
Opinions - you will not find it expressed by us anywhere.”

As I stated in my previous post, I appreciate and understand that neither you nor any Wine Opinions information stated that sentiment. It was the reporters who used this data incorrectly and came up with headlines that are incorrect.

As I am guessing this is the first year that this question was asked. I’m sure you’ll agree that any conclusions drawn from this data would be incomplete and inaccurate.

“..it’s that the distribution of his ratings between none to moderately influential is extremely skewed towards “1 (no influence at all)” when compared to other media sources. ”

This really doesn’t tell us much. I’m interested in seeing what next year’s study indicates when compared to this year’s information on that specific question. Unfortunately, it will be some time before we can compare.

Until then, thanks for your feedback again. It has been an interesting topic and has highlighted the importance of accurate journalism for the media as a whole, but also us bloggers.

“In Vino Veritas”

Jathan

Thanks for your take on this. You make some good points on casual wine drinkers and the direction they take. Serious Wine Drinkers will continue to trust Robert Parkers taste buds, and I think it’s pretty obvious that this study in no way shows that has changed.

Thanks for posting our reply on your website. However, we still feel the
need to clarify some misconceptions.

You cannot compare the Wine Opinions panel demographically to Wine Market
Council’s figures on U.S. core wine consumers, because the Opinions panel is
representative of only PART of the total core audience. I know this to be
true because I am the president of Wine Market Council and I am the one
(with the assistance of Merrill Research) who calculated both the Wine
Market Council data and the Wine Opinions data. The Opinions data is only
reflective of the “high end” core wine consumer, not the entire core
audience. The 16.2 million number is only the high end of the 28.7 million
total core wine drinkers in the U.S. So, for example, it makes sense that
while only 7% of all core wine drinkers read the Wine Spectator, 30% of
Opinions panel members do, once you take into account the statistical margin
of error. The Opinions panel is not “unbalanced” in regard to media
involvement of its members, it is simply a reflection of that part of the
core audience that it does indeed represent.

The same thing is true with demographics. The Opinions panel tends more
toward boomers - they are the vast majority of “high end” consumers. While
Millennial adults are certainly the fastest growing segment of the overall
wine market, two thirds of them are marginal wine consumers, and only one
third are cores. The number of high end consumers they represent is much
smaller - again, in line with the demographics of the Opinions panel.
Although the core consumers of the Millenial generation are more likely to
buy high end wines, there are simply not as many of them as the boomers (for
now).

Again, we do not conclude that Robert Parker is either not influential or is
losing his influence, only that he polarizes high end consumers to the
extent that his negatives (lowest rating) outweigh his positives (top two
ratings) by a ratio of 3 - 1. The key point is not that Parker has fewer
people citing him as very or extremely influential - it’s that the
distribution of his ratings between none to moderately influential is
extremely skewed towards “1 (no influence at all)” when compared to other
media sources.

This gap cannot be ascribed to fewer people being aware of Parker. Some 21%
of panelists report reading Parker at least “seldom”, and the number who are
aware of him is presumably higher. Even if you assume that 79% are unaware
of Parker, the difference between the Parker ratings by this group and the
ratings for other sources remains significant.

You also say that “if someone reads Wine Spectator regularly, more than
likely they aren’t going to list Robert Parker as “Very Influential” in
their purchasing decisions.” Actually 84% of our panel’s Parker readers are
also Spectator readers. Those who read both quite often are as influenced
by Parker than the Spectator. You also say, “the data showing people citing
his influence as low shouldn’t be taken as a sign that his influence is
weakening.” You are right - we DON’T take it that way and have not said so
in either our press relase or in the Core Track report which goes into great
depth on this subject. Please don’t attribute this sentiment to Wine
Opinions - you will not find it expressed by us anywhere. In fact, Parker
is also differentiated from other media sources in that the numbers of those
citing him as an influence are projected to be much larger than his actual
subscription base or readership. But we are also certain that significant
numbers of high end wine consumers feel it necessary to disavow his
influence, at a far greater rate than other other media sources.

We enjoy the give and take of the blog/forum format and please feel free to
post our response in your commentary.

Best regards,

John Gillespie & Christian Miller

Wine Opinions