FREE Matthew Jukes 100 Best Australian Wines 2016/17 Report (Save £16)

Related Stores

firstdropwines.com

• 

  Chachamaru7 on 22/09/2016 - 23:37

  +2

  Why does the title and description contradict each other? Or am I not understanding something here?

  • 

    DirtyBoots on 22/09/2016 - 23:43

    Yeah, borked description. Link is definitely valid and does take you to what's noted in the title.

  • 

    tonester on 23/09/2016 - 20:47

    minimum ten words required for deal description :)

• 

  [Deactivated] on 23/09/2016 - 00:09

  Please excuse the ignorance but who is Matthew Jukes?

  • 

    battler on 23/09/2016 - 00:13

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Jukes

    seems to know somewhat more than the average drinker.

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 23/09/2016 - 00:20

      Thanks, sounds like he's reasonably well-equiped altho that wiki piece looks awfully like a CV. Worth a read and a vote.

  • 

    jv on 23/09/2016 - 01:25

    +1

    who is Matthew Jukes?

    footy player from Perth…

    http://www.wafl.com.au/players/view/3503

• 

  [Deactivated] on 23/09/2016 - 01:30

  Free advertising (usually £16)

  • 

    tonester on 23/09/2016 - 20:47

    how so? for whom?

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 23/09/2016 - 21:05

      +1

      Note I don't drink much wine so I'm quite bias here, though to me I've always seen this kind of thing as advertising. Wine makers pay to have their wines tasted then a review is published, that's simply (less-bias) advertising…

      Granted it is far less bias than direct advertising (as the reviewer will give their own opinion, in theory), though it's still the consumer paying for advertising that the wine company has already paid for in one way (free wine+some/all expenses covered) or another (actual payment for the review). It should be free anyway.

      tl;dr: I have no clue about wines but wouldn't be comfortable paying to hear someone else's opinion when the wine maker already paid them to publish their opinion.

      • 

        tonester on 24/09/2016 - 12:32

        yes it's a reasonable concern but highly doubt happens here :)

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 25/09/2016 - 00:07

        @tonester:
        I have no doubt the reviews are legitimate for the most part, I'm more just against the whole 'double-dipping'. They would be getting paid a fair amount by wine makers for reviewing their wines, then they go on to sell these reviews. Even if the case where it's unpaid, it would still at least be wine they haven't paid for themselves.

        I know my view here is a little naive (I don't really drink wine), but think of the tech review world as an example… No one would even dare attempt to sell a tech product review, especially when they're being sent review units (+freebies!) at no cost to themselves.

      • 

        tonester on 26/09/2016 - 00:19

        @dyl:

        They would be getting paid a fair amount by wine makers for reviewing their wines, then they go on to sell these reviews.

        again, highly doubt that happens here

        I know my view here is a little naive (I don't really drink wine), but think of the tech review world as an example… No one would even dare attempt to sell a tech product review, especially when they're being sent review units (+freebies!) at no cost to themselves.

        yes, sorry but it is a little naive, given that tech product reviews are indeed sold :)