But, as you mentioned yourself, there is no way to get wine reviews “right.” Even written reviews fall short in this respect.

That said, thanks for checking us out!

Cheers,
Ben

You are right to point out that some of our reviews are simple and direct. While it might be easier to say “this wine tastes like blood oranges.” That alone doesn’t necessarily convey the idea that the reviewer was trying to get across with the image. The way the oranges are sliced, the quantity of them, the background and contrast, all of these effect one’s reaction to the image and thus the wine. To this reviewer, saying “blood oranges, sliced, on a table” wouldn’t be nearly the same as showing it with an image.

That said, it is very easy to carelessly post a review. But, at the same time, it is very difficult to come up with a great review. When a reviewer gives a lot of thought to picking or creating an image, it can carry incredible weight and meaning to which people react with far greater passion and excitement than any Parker or Spectator score.

Marcus,

First, it is not “Obama next to a $400 bottle of wine.” It is that specific picture/representation of him next to the 2001 Drouhin Montrachet. I could have chosen a picture where he looks goofy, as he so often does. But, I chose this particular image for a reason. It is not just “Obama.” It is the potential that Obama represents. He might someday be great, he speaks with command and force, he is young, he stands out, sometimes he can be a little disappointing. Granted, if a republican were to see this review it would mean something completely different. But, that is the cool thing about this style of review.

Thanks for all the input (we do like to read criticism too).

Brilliant article Josh . . .

Cheers!

Benjamin

The good, bad, and ugly of this type of expression is that the images will almost never fully match what’s in our heads as wine reviewers. This leaves the images open to some interpretation - sometimes it will work (I’ve received great feedback on some of these ( http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/10/nv-perrier-jouet-fleur-de-champange-epernay-france-108/ and http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/09/2006-misterio-malbec-argentina-7/ are examples), and others not-so-great (see Greg’s post above :-).

In a big way, this is post modern expression - reuse of the art from others for a new purpose, and seriously involving the spectator into the art.

I guess what I’m saying is, I’ll take the misses for the chance to hit the home runs. And a miss to some might be interpreted as a home-run by others.

I’ve been on an advertising/direct marketing kick since I realized that blogging is great for PR and growing a mailing list, but what happens when you have to actually send emails out to the list you’ve developed? At that point you’re blatantly selling, albeit to a group who’ve given you prior permission to do so.

So I figured I needed to re-educate myself on this topic, and I thought I’d share my thinking along the way.

Greg,

I’m right there with you re: the misses. I subscribed to Ch Pet early on and watched the reviews for the past few months. I thought that they were either the type you describe, basic and to the point, or often they were a bit obscure. The two I highlighted were a revelation for me though. Like I said, the fact that one plays off the other really sold the concept for me.

Marcus,

I understand your point. But were you really expecting to find the Truth, or just trying to get unfiltered opinions? I think that aggregating unfiltered, biased opinions is the best way to get at the truth when it comes to something subjective like wine, and Ch Pet is just one voice to consider. Its just that it’s a very unique one with the potential to connect with a wider market.

What do you mean re: the Ch Pavie comment? I agree that if I or another winery tried using the cigarette industry’s techniques we’d fail miserably. I wouldn’t even want to. I think advertising is mostly sleaze. Thankfully the world has changed, for the better. Me saying my wine is great long enough and loud enough, well, simply isn’t enough anymore.

I’d be extremely interested to hear your other reactions as well. Comment here or on your blog, please. I’d love to read them.

Thanks for the comments guys!

And now a picture of Obama next to a $400 bottle of wine is the future of this genre? My reactions to that are many, but I’ll start by saying that I think you don’t give enough credit to what the Marlboro admen actually did. I could make wine at home and call it of the ilk of Ch Pavie too. It might suit my tastes but it lacks judgment.

I added the Ch. Petrogasm RSS feed a while ago, and at first I was really excited about a new way of conveying wine sensory information. I think some of them are really interesting and informative. What better way to convey a “powerful” or “awkward” wine than to put up the corresponding image. I do think, however, that pictures are not always worth a thousand words. For example, how does the review at http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/08/2006-sauvignon-la-pointe-domaine-ricard-touraine-20/ give any more information than saying “It tasted like blood oranges”
or
http://chateaupetrogasm.com/2008/02/05/1967-chateau-latour-pauillac-france-315/ tasted like “pencil shavings” (as if many of us have ever actually put pencil shavings in our mouths).

I like the concept overall, but they visual images need to be more than just a visual representation of a few words to be an exciting form of wine writing.

Josh, I think this is the second recent post with a heavy advertising influence. You’ve got to pick up Olgilvy on Advertising by David Olgilvy. It’s the bible. Personally, I majored in advertising and never did a thing with it post school, but I’ve always been interested.

Good post.

Jeff