Comments on: Should Robert Parker fire Mark Squires?

By: No Respect… Blogger Ethics… AGAIN? | Caveman Wines

No Respect… Blogger Ethics… AGAIN? | Caveman Wines — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 05:45:40 +0000

[...] Arthur Przebinda [...]

By: Dylan

Dylan — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:47:41 +0000

You mentioned how they may be able to brush it off unscathed, but you need to consider this incident as a crack in the foundation. If left unaddressed future instances can shake the bedrock of legitimacy for ERB. I say this because I believe a brand cannot take its user base for granted. Even though one could say these are just a few people complaining about something and aren’t worth the time to address, that exact attitude is casts a shadow onto the brightly lit corner of the content users. Take the hoopla which occurred with “motrin mommies” as an example. It could have been handled slightly differently, but the point remains Motrin made the proper move to validate the dissatisfied voices of their user base. By validating their voice, they validate their relationship. Imagine any relationship you have with a friend that suddenly told you not to talk and your opinion wasn’t valid.

In point, just because your brand moves on run-flat tires, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t address the leak caused by the nail. Otherwise, it will eventually go flat.

By: GeneV

GeneV — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:03:33 +0000

To the extent that the Parker brand has been damaged, Mr. Squires is a very small piece of the problem. The more basic problem is that, unlike Wine Spectator, the Parker/Wine Advocate brand has always been based on the abilities and integrity of a single person. For example, shelftalkers touting scores usually refer to the scores as \Parker\ rather than \Wine Advocate.\ Less and less of the content comes from Parker, himself, and that creates a danger for a brand so closely associated with a single name. Tanzer may eventually suffer the same effects.

By: Vinogirl

Vinogirl — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:59:48 +0000

Good take on the current Parker melee.

By: Jim Brennan

Jim Brennan — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:39:37 +0000

Arthur:

You might explain what \Web 2.0\ concepts imply. I think many people do not understand the fundamental implications (and why ERP isn’t 2.0, because it seemingly wants to adopt the trappings of Web 2.0 — technology — without the truly collaborative and open community underpinnings).

By: John Kelly

John Kelly — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:02:55 +0000

Arthur – I have no dog in this cat fight, but given what most of the web 2.0 world looks like, it strikes me that the relative LACK of spats like this in the new wine media is unusual, and likely to be short-lived. Cheers – John