UPDATED: Transparency from all involved crucial when wineries pay for wine reviews

By Rick VanSickle

An Ontario wine writer, who I am not naming here, reached out to PECWine recently to see if they would send a letter to its members in Prince Edward County pitching a pay-for-play package for wine reviews and other features.

Note: This post has been updated with a response from Erin MacInnis, board chair of PECWine.

This is the letter (with subtle editing to hide the identity of the writer) from PECWine to its members:

Hi all,

Please see the below message from wine writer (so and so). (The wine writer) will be in Prince Edward County (in) September ahead of (the wine writer’s) upcoming Prince Edward County Winery series. What a great opportunity for some exposure!

The wine writer’s pitch:

Hi PEC wineries,

During the first two weeks of September, I will be touring the County to find wineries to feature in my upcoming PEC winery focus series. This series will include individual winery features through blogs + social media content. Participating wineries will receive a winery feature blog on my website plus 3 wine reviews, plus a story-telling reel across my social media pages, and additional feature slides in stories. The buy-in fee is $500+tx.

For participation inquiries, or bookings, please contact …

The letter was forwarded to Wines in Niagara by more than one concerned winery and many in the PEC wine industry expressed concern over the fact that an industry association such as PECWine would send out the letter on the writer’s behalf. Many others told Wines in Niagara that they would never pay someone money to write a wine review for them.

Note: Also read this post by British wine writer Jamie Goode on the influecers’ role in wine media here.

PECWine, which was created by the Prince Edward County Winegrowers Association’s to “promote the world-class wines and ciders of the County through special events, market development, and more,” reached out to Wines in Niagara after being contacted for comment. Erin MacInnis, board chair of PECWine, said: “We have a deep respect for independent wine writers who offer genuine, unbiased insights into the industry, and we strongly believe that consumers deserve honest and transparent reviews. PECWine does not endorse paid reviews.”

MacInnis said “we passed along some information that we should have looked at more carefully. While our members ultimately decide how to allocate their marketing budgets, we realize that calling this an ‘exciting opportunity’ was a mistake. We were focused on the potential social media exposure and didn’t fully consider the ethical implications of the paid review element, which doesn’t reflect our values.  Moving forward, we are committed to carefully vetting promotional opportunities shared with our membership. This dialogue has sparked important reflection, and we remain dedicated to promoting Prince Edward County’s wine industry with integrity.“

A similar scenario occurred in Niagara not too long ago when another writer, this one based in Toronto, asked the Wine Marketing Association of Ontario to send out an email to its members that pitched a pay-for-play “opportunity.” The story, which can read here in its entirety here, caused a bit of a storm when it was published.

The services offered by the writer included a video that “tells the story of one bottle that’s tasted on air and lasts 3-6 minutes. The fee for this one wine review is $4,000 (and if you purchase 10 of them, you get one free).”

Each video starts off with an intro by the writer which begins: “This is where I share one wine that I love, why I love it and then we taste it.” The promotional material states that their channels have over 30,000 average views and “sets new standards for wine communication in Canada and beyond, reaching record numbers of viewers and inspiring consumers to try new wines with confidence.” Another channel offered to wineries featured 4-6 wines “linked” to a theme with a cost of $1,150 per bottle.

I get that marketing is changing and wineries are leaning more toward “sponsored” content, generally created by paid “influencers” and marketing-based websites such as VineRoutes, Toronto Life, BlogTO (all these sites clearly identify the sponsored content) where the winery controls the narrative. But the line should be drawn at wine reviews, which until recently have been an unbiased assessment that offers consumers honest thoughts on if the wines they are considering buying are worth their money.

If a winery pays money for three reviews (and associated social media), they expect, rightfully so, a hefty return on their investment. A glowing review will inevitably follow or that “wine writer” will soon be out of business.

It’s what occurs after the review has been published — on a blog, Instagram, the LCBO bi-weekly offerings, or any other publication — that is most worrisome. I do not see much in the way of transparency from many wine writers out there who publish reviews for money. No “sponsored-by” tags, no indication whatsoever that they received money for writing a review. I have seen, sadly, wineries feigning complete surprise when they see the review they paid for and republish the great news with posts of their own, but nowhere do they tell you they paid for it.

What if that paid-for review is picked up by the LCBO? What if that same review makes it onto a sticker on the bottle? There’s doesn’t seem to be accountability. And it’s becoming so normal that authentic reviews and content are being shoved aside or assumed that, they too, were paid to write nice things.

And what of the PEC wineries that don’t pay the money? Do they get ignored because they didn’t cough up the $500? Or does the writer include some at no cost and others who pay? How does that work and is it a fair representation of PEC wineries or only a reflection of wineries that have the money to pay for coverage and reviews and don’t care what that looks like? 

I get that writers/influencers/content providers need to make money, but never has the wine landscape been so crowded with influencers, hybrid writer/influencer/marketing people, and the shrinking gaggle of legitimate wine writers vying in the same space and all working on a different scale of integrity and myriad methods of getting paid.

Independent wine writers are becoming extinct as magazines and newspapers continue their fast march to extinction. You could at one time make a living writing for a printed publication and freelancing to others. You were held to a higher standard of ethics and were not paid by the winery, but rather the publication, which generated money from advertising. With that avenue disappearing, it’s only natural that new ones emerge. No matter what that looks like, it needs to be trusted information, otherwise it’s just a cool reel or story, here one moment and gone the next.

If you attend a wine event these days, it’s more than likely that over half of the so-called “media” members in attendance are paid influencers while a small minority is there to cover the event or tasting while receiving no money for their time and effort, at least directly from event/tasting organizers.

I don’t have a problem with influencers or content providers doing what they do. Some are highly skilled at providing reels and stories that tell the story quite well and effectively. But I do have concerns with those who identify as wine writers and solicit for money without disclosing it to consumers.

We are in this weird dichotomy where wineries and marketing associations find it easier and more beneficial to hire and pay for favourable coverage for their events and, I assume, their wine reviews, than to seek out independent writers. The result of all this will be a mishmash of flowery wine coverage lacking substance, independent thought, critical nuance and holding industry, marketing associations and mega-monopolies like the LCBO to account, because you can’t bite the hand that feeds you.

If you are paid to cover an event, write a post, say nice things, write a wine review or anything that requires one person to pay another, then simply make sure it’s clear in your post that it was sponsored. And if you are the industry marketing board or winery that paid for that coverage and repurposed it on your own socials, own up to it, tell your followers that it was sponsored content that you paid for. It’s really that simple.

I am heartened by the response from PECWine’s Erin MacInnis. It was breath of fresh air to read her email and the thinking behind sending her members the letter from the wine writer. It’s difficult to navigate the new rules of engagement in wine media marketing because everyone handles it differently. But the more we talk about it the better it will be for everyone — especially consumers. 

I know this an unpopular take and dinosaur thinking from a dinosaur, but I come from the other side of all this. And while temped many times by generous offers to do this or that for money in the new world of wine media, I continue to run my business the only way it can be run … unfettered by outside influence and guided only by those who read what I decide to write as honestly as I can.

Wines In Niagara’s tasting policy

As publisher of Wines In Niagara and the main writer of the site, I come from a journalist background as an editor and writer for newspapers my entire adult life until full retirement this year. While wines are reviewed on this site, we do not consider reviews the thrust of the website. We are more interested in how the wine was made, what decisions went into making the wines and understanding what’s in the bottle.

Over half the wines reviewed are from samples sent to Wines in Niagara unsolicited. We never ask for wines to be sent to us (unless there is a compelling reason to do so … such as a retrospective of some sort we want to explore and need winery assistance to make it happen) but if we do receive them, we taste like we taste all wines and review what we feel are the wines that will appeal to our readers. There is no guarantee that a wine review will be published, and we do not publish reviews that score poorly based on our palates (there are rare occasions that we can’t ignore a low scoring wine and will comment if we feel it is of value for our readers).

We definitely do not charge wineries to taste their wines and never will. The revenue for Wines In Niagara, though modest, comes solely from advertisers on the website. These are advertisers we know, not Google ads targeted at you via logarithms. We believe in local for our stories, reviews and advertising. It’s how we built our model. Advertisers do not curry favour from being an advertiser and I believe advertise on the site because we create content that attracts engaged readers who visit to read about Canadian wine.