In conceiving and writing my book, "Washington Wines & Wineries – The Essential Guide", I took on a number of challenges. Perhaps the most quixotic was my decision – against the counsel of several knowledgeable industry veterans who read early drafts – to attempt to re-invent the 100 point scale. My hope was that a careful explanation of how and why I was doing this would spark some wider re-assessment of the widely-used scale. Here's what I wrote:"Each winery profiled in these pages has been awarded an overall ranking based on a 100-point scale. Let’s be clear – this is not the standard 100-point scale. The scale I propose has been designed to correct the many deficiencies of that simplistic rating of specific wines. This practice of promoting wine, a multi-faceted, subjective sensory experience, simply by broadcasting numbers has gradually devalued the numbers while shrinking the original 100-point scale. At first blush, such a rating system sounds generous, allowing room for a lot of subtlety in the grading curve. But in actual practice it’s not a hundred point scale at all, nor even close. It has become a ten point scale. Wines rated under 85 are ignored completely. Wines rated 85 to 89 must be marketed as value wines – those numbers only work for wines priced at the low end of the scale. If your wine is going to sell for $15 or more, it must hit 90 points at least. One prominent retailer even makes a point of selling (at discount) wines that have scored the “dreaded” 89. Once a wine moves up the ladder from there, it becomes increasingly rare and expensive. As a result, wines scoring 95 or above are virtually unobtainable for the average consumer. In this book, the perfect score of 100 points is comprised of four components. The first three components award points for style, consistency and value. Each has a potential (e.g. perfect) score of 30. The final points (up to 10) are awarded for the contribution being made by the individual winery to the development and improvement of the Washington wine industry. This can include such things as vineyard development, experimentation with new varietals, marketing and promotional excellence, number of medals and high-scoring wines, even unusually attractive packaging. So this 100-point system is spread out over much broader, and more meaningful territory. The most important point I want to make is that every winery included in this book has made the cut. These are all well above average. Every score is a good score!" How successful has this been? It is too soon to tell. Comments from readers and reviewers have been largely positive. Some have embraced my scoring; others have simply accepted it and moved on to the book's other assets. But within the ranks of the industry itself – wineries and distributors in particular – there has been an awkward silence. There is little doubt that this book's sales have been seriously impacted by 1) the decision not to include 3/4 of this state's wineries and 2) the scoring system itself. One winery veteran, after some prompting, took the trouble to explain why his winery wouldn't sell or promote the book, even though I had given them one my highest scores. "I was surprised and nearly incredulous that a person who has bemoaned the 100- point rating system (March 1, 2007) created yet another 100-point scale for judging the wineries," this person wrote. "I applaud that you at least published the criteria for assigning the ratings, and that two of the four categories are somewhat objective (Consistency and Value). The lack of local raves may be a result, however, of the ‘insider’ knowledge that we in the business have regarding Washington wineries." "I know many do not agree with your scores. And there is good reason for this. At [our winery], we had eagerly anticipated promoting the book, possibly giving it as a ‘thank you’ to our wine club members. But your ratings make it difficult for us to do that. Our problem with promoting your book is that, despite the wonderful written praise, we’d spend all our time explaining our B+ grade! Not to mention trying to explain why wineries much newer that we, with much higher priced wines that don’t rate any better, received higher scores on Consistency and Value." " If you choose to do a revision," the writer concludes, "I suggest that you revisit your 'de-tuning' of the scale, despite your totally laudable intentions, so as to more accurately reflect the world-class stature of the wineries you so graciously praise. I believe that if you do so, we’ll all come crashing in upon you in a huge wave of support." So..... I cannot argue with this line of reasoning. In fact, I applaud the honesty and integrity of the writer. That said, I still believe that my attempt at renovating the 100 point scale was worth a try, though no author can be happy at hurting his own book sales. Will subsequent revisions of the book retain this ratings system? If it were to be modified, or dropped altogether, would more wineries "come crashing in upon me in a huge wave of support"? These are the questions I pose to you. Please send me your thoughts and we'll wrestle with this one together. – PaulG |
