In pondering how best to characterize the online existence of justwinepoints.com, I kept swinging back and forth between calling it a sham and a scam. Then I decided it is neither. It is just a shame. It is a sad emblem of how far down the much-abused 100-point scale has dragged us all.
I almost don’t want to provide a link to http://www.justwinepoints.com. Or give them ay more attention than they deserve, which as far as I am concerned should extend not one minute beyond this post. But there is some value in shedding light on this ratings-fueled fiasco, so hold your nose and here we go.
Justwinepoints is essentially the online carcass of the defunct print magazine WineX, which I actually used to enjoy for the fresh writing and offbeat editorial approach to wine. But this Web-only remnant has zero editorial content—just points—as in ratings on the 100-point scale, and 100% of the scores are over 90 points.
The scope of wines reviewed is inexplicably narrow (practically all California, with a smattering of lesser-known imports but no geographically named categories). Perhaps in keeping with the numbers-only spirit, justwinepoints is remarkably free of details about how the ab-fab ratings are generated. There are no bios of the judges, or even names. No details of methodology, whether it is done by panels or individuals, blind or non-blind.
Instead, the site offers semi-flippant smidgen of homepage text that begins with “Let’s be honest: The sophistication level of wine enthusiasts who use the 100-point scale far exceeds that of the average, uninitiated consumer.” And closes with: “justwinepoints represents 20 years of research into why and how consumers purchase wine. After examining and categorizing our data, we believe our easy-to-use, risk-free system presents wine reviews exactly the way you want them: by the numbers, and numbers only.”
There is some additional pablum if you click on the “our system” button, including the completely unverifiable claim that “less than 30 percent of the wines we review end up on JustWinePoints.com” and pretzel logic about how “we’ve decided to take a different road and value a wine on what it’s supposed to be.” {Hmm, just like Jancis Robinson?!} I give them credit for one thing, though: they openly state that wineries/marketers whose labels make the justwinepoints grade are entitled to “added value;” in other words they can pay (I have no idea how much $$$, and don’t care) to have a label, a link and/or even {gasp} “a review” added to a worthy wine’s naked number.
It’s a free country, of course. Far be it from me to dicate how others should approach the challenge of assessing wine. If that’s how they roll—with “just” points and pay-for-play—then so be it. But I am entitled to my opinion, too, and I consider justwinepoints to be the wine equivalent a 95-point puppy mill.
Which brings us to the question of legitimacy. Consider what gives any critic, publication or information source its credibility. It’s a loaded question, of course, but at the proverbial end of the day, credibility boils down to the attention that a source’s reviews/editorial coverage merit in the free market of both wine and ideas. In other words: who cares, literally?
I know that I do a lot of wine shopping, wine reading and general wine observation, and I can say without hesitation that I have never seen a “justwinepoints” rating displayed in any print publication, on any blog, or in any retail venue. Never. Nor have I ever heard a press or trade colleague every reference a justwinepoints score verbally. In fact, I would guess that 99% of my wine colleagues do not even know that the site exists.
So, again I ask: just who pays attention to these “just points” scores? Sadly, I think I have the answer: the wineries who submit samples and pay for label images and/or links back to their branded sites. That is the sole basis and full extent of justwinepoints’ legitimacy. As justwinepoints co-founder Jenna Corwin explained via email: “[I]f you google “justwinepoints” (with the ” ” and without) you’ll see all of the shelf talkers, POS materials, etc that wineries have generated. also [sic], all of the labels and links on our site are paid for by the wine brands, so that also validates what we’re doing.”
Naturally, coming on the heels of my critique of the whole issue of wine labels being paid promoitions in the editorial buying guides of two major glossies {See post here: http://tinyurl.com/cobxg8}, it stands to follow that I consider justwinepoints to be laughable. But at least they seem to be at least semi-transparent.
What is really bothering me is the complicity of the wineries. Part of me simply wants to list the wineries who have paid to play here. But to name some and leave others out would be unfair; and I do not want to impugn the wines themselves. If anyone out there is curious, they can click on over to justwinepoints. However, one person does stand out as deserving of further scrutiny here: Michael DeLoach of Hook & Ladder. {Note: members of the DeLoach family are no longer affiliated with the DeLoach wine label, now owned by Boisset.}
In the “our system” area of justwinepoints, there is a little note at the bottom that says “(For a detailed third-party perspective please click here.)” One click {http://www.justwinepoints.com/deloach.htm} brings the reader to a passionate, sprawling defense of justwinepoints that at once bashes bloggers, discredits established magazines and even name-drops major industry players (Constellation – ooooooooh!).
Justwinepoints notes that Michael DeLoach’s essay, written apparently midway through 2007, was reprinted with permission from the website http://beyondwonderful.com. I navigated over there and discovered that Michael is the resident “wine expert” and has authored dozens of other inspired, opinionated, quite readable pieces. Including—just months before “The New Ratings System on the Block: Why justwinepoints Might Just Take Over the World” appeared on BeyondWonderful—a piece entitled “Of Points, Pundits and Profiteers: The Wine Oligarchy that Wags the Dog.” In that essay, Michael DeLoach implores readers to bag points entirely. He closes with:
“Instead, ask your friendly wine merchant to point out his or her favorite wines in the store; personal selections, that haven’t been reviewed. Ask for the underdogs. The values. The undiscovered gems. The wines that other customers seem to come back to. And try to find a wine store that doesn’t display any 100-point wine ratings—trust me, they’re out there. The sooner America gets off the heroin of the 100-point system and its addicts, the better for all wine consumers in terms of choice and value.”
So what gives? Why did Michael DeLoach change his 100-point tune? Perhaps because he has friends at justwinepoints, which had right around that time risen from the ashes of WineX. Friendship may also explain why two Hook & Ladder wines showcased at justwinepoints.com inexplicably include verbiage. Below the label and 98-point score for the 2006 H&L Chardonnay, one sees the words “Da bomb!” And below the 99-point 2005 H&L “Third Alarm” Zinfandel, one sees “Yowza!” Just…words? {Note: those ratings and words are real, not made up for comic effect.}
I am sure these wines are very nice. The DeLoach family is eminently capable of making fine wine, and I fondly recall having enjoyed many excellent Pinots, Chards, Zins and the trailblazing Splendo Blendo that they made under the DeLoach label when they owned it. That is not the point; the point is that Michael’s flip-flop on the 100-point scale rerpresents hypocrisy so huge that it practically deserves its own appellation. Michael is welcome to come here and provide a rationale. For now, however, I would just like to say that I think that his latter essay, like justwinepoints itself, has zero justification in the modern American wine scene.
I encourage the handful of wineries and marketeers who are supporting justwinepoints to just stop now. Stop enabling justwinepoints in particular and numbers in general. Ratings are the problem, not the solution. And all friends of the Grape should embrace Michael DeLoach’s earlier words. Good retailers are the key to any wine lover’s journey of enjoyment, not numbers. This is a point I intend to return to and refine here on The Wine Skewer in coming weeks.

18 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 8, 2009 at 9:30 am
Jeff Siegel
Tish, they’re just cooler than we are. And they’ll be the first to tell us so. I love the bit about how they are more sophisticated because they use scores.
May 8, 2009 at 9:51 am
1WineDude
DeLoach on DeLoach: ” I LOVE DeLoach!”
May 8, 2009 at 12:21 pm
El Jefe
I always saw justwinepoints as the death knell of the whole points system. By taking reviews down to nothing but points, the system is exposed for the ludicrous thing it is.
Frankly I find it amazing that wineries even send them wine. Are they that desperate for validation? I can’t imagine putting a score from a source called justwinepoints on marketing materials – what kind of consumer impression does that give?
May 9, 2009 at 6:54 pm
wrtish
I would love to see the wineries who use justwinepoints ratings for shelf talkers also put them in press releases and on wine tech sheets… I’m sure that would go over well with writers…
May 8, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Erica Sharp
ARGH! Points points points! Why do so many wine lovers listen to numbers on a meaningless scale (after all, if every wine is 90+ points, then what’s the point?)? A number can’t tell you about the wine’s structure, flavors, terroir. A number can’t tell you that this wine pairs well with savory dishes, and a number can’t tell you the winery’s story.
I get it. Points help people feel more confident buying a wine that they’ve never tried before. There is a very exciting movement in the wine industry today where more wine consumers are actually discovering new wineries based on EXPERIENCE – so maybe they haven’t actually tried the wines, but someone they know has, or they’ve had a chance to connect with the winemaker in an online forum, blog, on twitter, etc. I look forward to seeing the wine experience become personal again.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never really felt a strong connection to numbers on a scale.
May 9, 2009 at 6:53 pm
wrtish
We’re in synch, to be sure. I’ve always found as a wine “educator,” a true milestone in any newish wine lover’s evolution is that moment they realize how subjective and unreliable numbers can be. Sure, the ratings are often with words, but they so often get snipped and flaunted that they take on an appearance of objectivity as well as authority. People realize, however, that numbers are bunk. We may not get rid of the 100pt scale, but cutting back the reliance on ratings in general is a noble aim.
May 8, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Jim Caudill
When it was first launched, I think wineries felt so bad about Darryl and the demise of WineX that sending him wine for this project was a guilt reliever (we never sent ad dollar support, so what the hey). But I have to tell you that at least once upon a time BevMo put some of these ratings into the mix, and finding shelf-talkers at other retailers or at online retail sites out there wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Because of Darryl’s pedigree I think there was a hope that this would morph into something more, instead of being something less. It always had a bit of an edge — “fine, all you want is points, that’s what you can have.” As for Michael, he’s just working it hard. Everybody producing and selling wine would prefer to be judged by the evaluation of the wine beyond the points, but the sales force still can’t get into the box program at costco without +86 point scores from just three places, the Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Parker. Social media and the wine democracy it brings will help change that, but with the consolidation of buying power at every step of the chain, shorthand in the form of points still rules, and that’s why after all these years JustWinePoints still exists — it ain’t because of the $25 per they get for labels.
May 9, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Marcy Gordon
I think this is part of a larger issue, and the main problem with the explosion of the ultra short form and twitter in particular. It’s a shortcut to critical thinking. And a by-product of the McNuggetization of news and all content for the multi-tasking masses. Aside from the possible ethics issues, justwinepoints fit the current content compression equation perfectly:
in-depth = death
Everyone wants a quick hit. No time for words.
Great essays can illuminate the reader on aspects beyond mere points. Such writing is getting harder to find, but it looks like you can still find it here on Wine Skewer.
May 9, 2009 at 6:48 pm
wrtish
I see your thinking here, but justwoinepoints started pre-twitter. Wouldn’t ya know it, though: @justwinepoints is on twitter, and when they do tweet, they actually ADD descriptions. How ironic….
May 11, 2009 at 12:14 pm
momus
The site is a joke, a bitter one but still a joke. Either you get it or you don’t. If you can’t recognize a throw away line, such as. “Let’s be honest: The sophistication level of wine enthusiasts who use the 100-point scale far exceeds that of the average, uninitiated consumer.” Also the part you quote, “justwinepoints represents 20 years of research (i.e., Wine X magazine) into why and how consumers purchase wine. After examining and categorizing our data, we believe our easy-to-use, risk-free system presents wine reviews exactly the way you want them: by the numbers, and numbers only.”
Finally, I believe that the site was launched on April Fools’ Day a year or two ago.
May 11, 2009 at 12:28 pm
wrtish
I wish it were a joke. Indeed, that’s what I thought, too, when I first heard about it. It has been knocked around a bit before in the blogosphere (Good Grape, Tom Wark’s Fermentation, Rockss and Fruit), and the preposterousness has come up. Sadly though, it is real wineries who send their wines in, and pay for label images and links. Are they fools? I would say it makes them look foolilsh.
May 11, 2009 at 9:37 pm
momus
Perhaps, “conceived as a joke” is a better description. A vengeful, mean-spirited joke, but a joke none the less. Few have gone broke over estimating the credulity of the American consumer. What better way to get back at the trade and the wine drinking public for not supporting your magazine, than to come up with a paying joking. Marketing is about exploiting the customers’ ignorance after all.
A few anecdotes:
A family-owned Chicago liquor store, well-known for its wine selection, passed out of family hands a few years ago, one marketing innovation developed by the new owners is their own points system. It seems to be used for wines they need to move because they overbought but for which there are no (favorable) reviews. It amounts to a 1 point system, nearly everything is rated 92. High enough to move the wine, but not too high that purchasers will feel gipped.
A national grocery chain that prides itself on it organic, humanely-raised image opened its first store in Milwaukee a few years back. A friend asked the fish monger how they selected their “sushi-grade” tuna. The response, “After its been here a few days and gets a little dried out, we slice it up and put a ‘sushi label’ on it, and it flies out of here.”
“we believe our easy-to-use, risk-free system presents wine reviews exactly the way you want them: by the numbers, and numbers only,” indeed.
May 11, 2009 at 11:16 pm
wrtish
Ah, would that by chance be Sam’s? I actually recall hearing once, maybe on Dr. Vino’s blog, that Sam’s was using JWP shelf talkers. Of course, making up your own is even more convenient. I know of quite a few retailers who make up their own ratings, and yes, it does often seem to be to move wine.
I now understand your previous reference to JWP being a joke. I do agree it was at first a mean-spirited joke. But now, thanks to lemming-like wineries, we have just one more horrific source of wine ratings.
May 19, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Twitted by TishWine
[...] This post was Twitted by TishWine – Real-url.org [...]
May 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Is Social Media the Death of Depth? | Bricks of Wine
[...] death and depth. Just a funny coincidence I guess. I decided to write this article after reading W.R. Tish’s post about the online version of the now defunct WineX and some of the comments that were posted about [...]
June 14, 2009 at 11:56 am
corkdork
Just found this article, wanted to say that after looking at the wines reviewed, I’d give these jokers less credence than pretty much anyone who can slap a number on a label. Having tasted a number of these wines, I can’t see how anyone with any sort of reasonable scoring system (not to debate the right-or-wrong in the idea of scoring wine) could give Woodbridge and Vendage Chardonnay both 90+ ratings, unless the metric for getting a 90 is “contains alcohol.”
June 23, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Gregg Burke
I thought the sight was a joke. They gave woodbridge 90points.
July 20, 2009 at 10:13 pm
David
Boy, do I feel silly. I’m a pretty selective beer drinker, and I’ve come to know beers fairly well, but I know very little about wines, and I must admit that I actually bought a 1.5 L bottle of $8 Chardonnay (from Vendange) partially due to the “93 points on justwinepoints.com” badge emblazoned on its bottle. I knew that this is terribly cheap wine–I’m not that oblivious. However, I did hope that perhaps price was taken into consideration and this wine was given such a high rating for being a relatively good value, and maybe (just maybe) this cheap wine is actually somewhat good. (Not all good wines have to be expensive, right?…I guess they probably shouldn’t be cheap, though…) Well, I thought just maaaaaybe this justwinepoints site had some realness; I actually expected some genuineness from it.
Alas, a cursory inspection of the site (after I’ve made my purchase of course and finally have returned home) reveals similar findings as the author of this blog: all wines are 90+ points and there are virtually no explanations for the ratings. I’d been duped!! Oh well, I’m going to try to enjoy this chardonnay anyway.