Wine Reviews

How Wine Reviews Really Work (And Why They Matter)

Spend enough time around wine and you'll eventually hear someone say: "Wine reviews are paid for." Or perhaps: "That critic only gave it a good score because the winery paid."

The reality is far more nuanced.

As wine producers, we submit wines for review every year. Sometimes the reviews are exceptional. Sometimes they're merely good. Occasionally they're disappointing. But one thing that often gets lost in the discussion is how wine reviewing actually works.

Do Wineries Pay for Reviews?

The short answer is: almost always, in one way or another. What changes is the business model. Some reviewers and publications charge an upfront submission fee. Wine Orbit, for example, openly charges wineries a fee to submit wines for assessment and review.

Other publications, such as Halliday Wine Companion and The Real Review, generally don't charge wineries to submit wines for tasting. However, wineries that wish to reproduce tasting notes, scores and associated intellectual property for marketing purposes typically require a membership, licence or commercial arrangement. [uow.edu.au], [theconversation.com], [winecompanion.com.au]

Neither approach is inherently right or wrong. They're simply different ways of funding wine criticism. The more important question isn't whether money changes hands. It's whether the reviewer maintains their independence.

Not All Reviews Are Created Equal

Another common misconception is that every review is conducted in exactly the same way. They aren't. Some reviews are conducted blind, where the reviewer doesn't know what they're tasting. Others are assessed with the label visible. Some wines are reviewed individually. Others are tasted in flights alongside similar wines.

Regional wine shows are often regarded as one of the most useful benchmarking tools because wines are generally judged blind against their peers. That's one reason wineries continue to enter them year after year. Likewise, publications have different timelines and objectives. Halliday's tasting process revolves largely around the annual Companion cycle, with wines submitted weeks or months ahead of publication.

For wineries, this can occasionally mean a review appears after a wine has sold through or a new vintage has already been released. That's nobody's fault. It's simply a reflection of how different reviewing systems operate.

Why Do Wineries Submit Wines?

The obvious answer is marketing. A strong review can help consumers discover a wine they may never have otherwise considered. But that's only part of the story. For many producers, reviews are also a valuable form of benchmarking. Every winemaker has an opinion about their own wines, but external feedback provides another perspective.

When respected critics consistently identify strengths, weaknesses or trends across a range of wines, it helps wineries understand how their wines are performing relative to others in the same style, variety or region. This is particularly valuable in regions such as McLaren Vale, where the standard is exceptionally high and competition is intense.

The Critics Matter Too

It's easy to dismiss wine critics, but the best reviewers devote decades to tasting, judging and studying wine. Huon Hooke, founder of The Real Review, has spent more than three decades reviewing Australian wine and is widely regarded as one of the country's most respected and rigorous critics. James Halliday's influence on Australian wine is equally significant. Through the Halliday Wine Companion, his team reviews thousands of wines annually and continues to provide one of Australia's most widely referenced wine resources.

Do critics occasionally disagree? Absolutely. In fact, if every reviewer gave identical scores, we'd probably be more concerned. Wine appreciation remains inherently subjective. Different palates will always respond differently to style, structure and flavour. That's not a weakness of wine criticism. It's one of its strengths.

Find the Critics Who Match Your Tastes

Perhaps the best wine advice I've ever received came from a fellow wine lover many years ago: Don't look for the "best" critic. Look for the critic whose reviews most closely match your own experience. A critic may be highly qualified, deeply experienced and completely sincere, yet still prefer a different style of wine to you. Some critics gravitate towards power and richness. Others favour elegance, restraint and savouriness. Neither approach is right or wrong, but they can lead to very different conclusions about the same wine. Over time, most wine drinkers naturally discover which reviewers align with their own palate.

For me, those reviewers are Ken Gargett, Ray Jordan and Tony Love. I've found that when they get excited about a wine, there's a good chance I'll enjoy it too. That's not because they're necessarily "better" critics than anyone else. It's because their preferences often overlap with mine. Someone else might find they align more closely with Huon Hooke, James Halliday, Bob Campbell MW, Sam Kim or another reviewer entirely. Just as we all have favourite authors, journalists or restaurant critics, wine drinkers benefit from finding the reviewers whose tastes consistently resonate with their own. When that happens, a score becomes more than a number. It becomes a trusted recommendation.

So Should You Trust Wine Reviews?

Yes. But not blindly. Wine reviews, medals and awards should be viewed as tools, not instructions. They can help narrow the field, identify quality, and point you towards wines you may enjoy. But they shouldn't replace your own judgement. A 95-point wine isn't automatically better for you than a 92-point wine. A gold medal doesn't guarantee you'll love it. Equally, a high score doesn't mean a winery has somehow "bought" the result. Reviews are simply one piece of information in a much bigger picture. At the end of the day, the most important critic remains the person holding the glass.

Because the best wine isn't the one with the highest score - It's the one you enjoy drinking.