Accepting samples

@Pandemonium I believe you have to stay objective in your tasting notes. The references or descriptors, even the very basic ones, you use should or could help someone to decide whether the whisky fits into his flavour profile. Complaining the whole review that you don't like whisky X or brand Y isn't particulary helpful for others. And that's why you start blogging after all. Besides it serves as a personal notebook "in the cloud".

What you write as a conclusion or your personal thoughts on the product at the end of a review could be perfectly subjective. If I say I don't like Talisker, then that does not have to mean you won't like it. "les gouts et les couleurs ne se discutent pas..."

This said, most of my samples (say 98%) are bought at festivals or from specialist shops. The other 2% (three times till now) came from subscribing to tastings on the Whisky Wire. When this is the case it will be clearly stated at the end of the review that the sample was provided by distillery X.

Until now I haven't tasted a truly bad whisky. Some are good, some are better and a few of them were fantastic. But bad... I haven't had one in two years I'm into whisky. Or I have been lucky enough to avoid them :)

@Pandemonium, reviewing the reviewer becomes a necessary task if we are to successfully decide what use that reviewer's comments are to us. I like to be able to survey a number of reviews from a given reviewer to get the measure of how that reviewer thinks. A single random online review by an unknown reviewer lacks context for usefulness to me.

Without question gratitutde for the acceptance of samples gives a bit of pressure to the reviewer not to be too hard on the products being reviewed. Can a reviewer withstand that pressure and give a completely impartial review? Certainly a reviewer CAN, but as to how many of them actually DO that, we are left to judge for ourselves. I've never received a sample from anyone but friends and family, but have still felt a bit of pressure when I honestly am not crazy about the whisk(e)y, if some of my closer friends love it, e.g. Stagg Jr first batch, or 2013 George T. Stagg. I've found it hard to write those reviews in which I disagreed with some of my friends, but I wrote them anyway.

Personally I much prefer reading and writing of reviews in which I or the reviewer has spent a great deal of time with a bottle of the reviewed whisky. There is a lot of depth possible there, with the long view, and multiple observations made over the passage of time. But I do think that the reviewing of samples is here to stay because it is just too impractical to expect everyone to have the discipline to wade through one's own bottle every time one would like to weigh in about a whisk(e)y. What bothers me more about the reviewing of samples is that the provenance of those samples is often unknown, eg how long a bottle has been open at a bar, or how long that sample sat around, was bounced around in shipment, and how much air was in the sample's container.

Very well said Victor. Personally I have trusted Ralfy's opinion more than for example Mr Murray. He seems quite honest to me and he says that if he does'nt like a whisky, he wont review it. However he has been a bit rough on distilleries he used to like, but are now dropping quality standards. I think it would be really hard for anyone who likes whisky to not accept nice samples from distilleries they already had a warm heart for. There is also this german guy, Horst Lüning I believe. He reviews a lot of whiskies and works for an online webshop. However if he doesnt like a whisky he is brutally honest, breaks it down to the ground and thereby inevitabely decreasing the sales of that particular bottle. But my opinion is he actually helps the distillery a lot by being honest about their products. Not many customers would write a complaint to the distillery itself. Lets try to be ruthlessly objective here on connosr, who knows who might read it ;)

I don't post "professional" reviews, though I accept that a few people here or there, who happen upon one of my posts, might be influenced by what I write. I think it is clearly important to write about the contents of the bottle objectively.

I recently received a sample of something at a Whisky festival. This was a rare Whisky. Something I would never, ever be able to get my hands on otherwise. It was only through the extreme goodwill of the brand ambassador that I was able to get a sample. I was thinking do posting a review of it when I have a chance to try it, but I think now that it would be best if I did not. Mind you, this is not something that will ever be obtainable in a store, so would there be any pharm in doing so?

Of course I meant harm, not pharm (darn iPad). I would never suggest there would be pharmaceuticals in my review...

@Pandemonium Good post my friend!

Well I do receive samples for my blog, oftentimes I will make mention of that I've received them, usually since it's in the manner of a series of reviews and not just a one off. But one of the things that have always struck me as obvious is that if I lie in a review, if I make a crappy whisky look good, well it's not going to take more then one or two of those before people stop trusting what I say. Lots of the bottleshops and bars in Perth come to me with questions about their whisky ranges and once again, if I try and inflate a whisky that isn't great, it WILL come back and bite me in the ass.

Generally speaking since professionally I work with many of the distillers through the import company, etc I CANT afford to slam them if they've given me something that is foul, and I'll be honest, it is rare when I get something foul, but it does happen. However when something like that happens I will contact the distillery/importer and inform them of my opinion on the whisky. I will be blunt with them and have been know to say "the best way I can help you sell your whisky is to not say a damn thing" and if someone were to ask me privately what I thought I'd tell them.

I've really enjoyed the Boutiquey range, with more reviews coming tonight, however their North British is so incredibly foul. One of the few whiskies that I poured straight down the sink (after giving it an hour to try and redeem itself). And I really enjoy grain whiskies! But beyond the fact that my company is in business with Master of Malt, I've got so many really good whiskies to write about and not enough time to do that, that a whisky would have to be getting lots of praise, or a few people have requested one from me.

One of the things that happened to me a while back is I slammed an Australian whisky, calling it "panther piss" This wound up with me having to deal with a massively pissed off distillery, and being informed by the distillery and quite a few importers that I'd handled the bad whisky poorly, that I should have been more polite.

Maybe that's correct? Maybe that's not? I have been offered bribes from some distilleries such as paid trips to parts of Australia, special visits with the distillery, special access to their whiskies, however I've turned them all down, as once more it comes back to the fact that if I rave about a whisky and it's crap, then people stop listening. It's safer for me to either call it as I see it, or keep my mouth shut, then to risk having folks who I consider my good friends going "wtf, you said that whisky was good!?"

I hope my post makes sense as I'm running on empty right now and might be incoherent. If it doesnt make sense my apologies.

Great thanks, I was recently offered some samples and I will also participate in one of the upcoming tweet tastings of the Whisky Wire.
I started to get my doubts when I saw certain whisky "critics" beat the same drum as the large whisky corporations on the new controversial NAS and single grain releases lately. One may expect some charity or kindness from smaller independent bottlers, but some companies are becoming increasingly active on the social media and forums as they understand the power these reviews actually have. And sending a few samples to the right people is cheaper and more effective to successfully introduce a new expensive limited edition bottle, than an expensive marketing campaign.

@nozinan, maybe you don't but I believe there are a lot of people reading these reviews here and actually use them to select their bottles. We may not be as powerful as the Malt Maniacs for example, but if your trying to find tasting notes on a specific bottle, one of the first sites google will likely give you is connosr.

@SquidgyAsh, it makes perfect sense and your attitude is admirable

@Pandemonium I wouldnt worry too much when the idiots beat the drum on such and such NAS crap being good. As I said before, enough people will read it, some people will go out and try it, and a large portion of that group will go "you lied, your palate sucks, etc etc etc" It doesn't take a lot to make people decide to stop reading a blog or reviewer. It takes a lot of work to make people come read your reviews and posts. It's one of the reasons that I do this as a joke and for fun, as opposed to trying to get into the industry. Bloggers who are trying to get into the industry for me, seem to be trying too hard, like they're worried about offending someone. You shouldn't be afraid to call it as you see it, and don't worry since you won't honestly see it too much.

Generally speaking the more you know about whisky, when you go and buy a bottle you're oftentimes making an informed or semi informed decision. It's not like when you (or at least myself) first started out and you're just as likely to be buying a bottle of whisky more for the bottle, the age, the price or the color of the contents, you have an idea of what you like and what you'd like to experiment with. In that case I find I very rarely purchase whiskies I don't enjoy. More often then not I'll be given a bottle from someone as I present that I don't enjoy, but it's not often that I purchase one.

And if you're given free samples, more often then not, you're going to be receiving decent whisky, I mean there's no use in the distilleries sending you crappy whisky, asking you to write about it right? It will happen like I said, but it'll likely be rare. Off the top of my head out of hundreds of whiskies tasted over the last couple of years, I've only received maybe 3 samples that were crap. One of the I wrote about, which technically I'd paid for that one, and received a very angry email from the distillery, one of them was the North British I mentioned earlier in this thread, and the last was the one where I told them "the best way I can help you sale your whisky is to not say a thing" which I mentioned again earlier in the thread (they also were the ones who offered me bribes)

Your bigger worry is receiving bad whiskies from family and friends and then being asked about it hahaha, just like Victor said. My father in law is terrified of it so he gives me high end cognac (or I think it is) which is totally lost on me and I trade for whisky :D

@Pandemonium

I completely agree with you that Connosr is a resource for people looking to make educated choices. What I meant to say was that I don't write many reviews and I don't know that mine are as detailed as others of the same whisky. But I did acknowledge that my reviews could be used by others.

I have only ever received one sample and that was 8 days ago. I haven't reviewed it. In deciding whether to post a review I have to be aware of "gratitude bias". On the other had, because this was such a limited release, and it's not "for sale" anymore, it's unlikely my review will affect sales.

@Pandemonium Good question. I've seen this debate rage to white hot levels, but allow me to offer a perspective that for reasons unknown is rarely offered.

The issue shouldn't be whether or not you should accept samples, the real issue should be about what you do with those samples once you get them. A clear minded, mature and critically thinking reviewer can easily review a product without bias. Those people are called "straight shooters." They are able to call it like they see it. I would advise that you inform the supplier what they are getting into so they're are no surprises, but always act and review like a professional. Keep subjective flourishes at a minimum, but hey, if that's how you review the supplier should be informed of that possibility.

To sum it up, take samples, be professional and advise the supplier what to expect from you. There is no reason your integrity should be challenged just because you took a sample, it's entirely possible to call it like you see it, brother.

But for the star struck bloggers that swoon over their newly received samples from the PR firm, there is really nothing you can do other than ignore them. That's the great thing about the marketplace of ideas, you don't have to buy all of them.

My thoughts on this are .. If you receive free samples from a distillery for a review to place in the public domain then you should be honest in your reviews. If it is bad in your opinion you should still publish your thoughts. They are after all your thoughts, yes people will take note but most will also look at other reviews.. I am not sure about how many bloggers receive samples, there maybe loads. I have recently started my own blog and if I was sent samples they would get the same level of review as a bottle I have purchased. All my reviews have been made from my own bottles, and I try to be as honest as I can be.. The only problem I see with receiving samples would be being afraid to give bad reviews I case your sample line dried up.. That could be more detrimental to the distillery if this was published.. You should always be honest in your reviews, it should not matter how you get your samples..

@sorren It is hard to be impartial when given a gift. This is why many professions regulate how practitioners interact with industry. no more drug company dinners, free computers, etc...

I review mostly my own whisky, but when I have reviewed samples I have indicated that it was given to me. These are samples from friends, not industry.

The only time I accepted a sample from industry (other than at store tastings or festivals) was whrn I managed to score Amrut Greedy Angels (a sample) from Ashok. I have tried it but not published a review. If I do, I will indicate it. It is not the best Amrut I have had, but I don't think that having accepted it has influenced my other Amrut reviews. I liked the distillery before, and my impression has not shifted.

Nozinan, you seem quite defensive, I hope you don't think in any way I was implying anything... I trust you like me and most other people would be as honest with free samples as they would be with their own whisky.. I would think people like myself and many others on here who review in order to publish will do it with honesty, I would say though most of us are not professional so we give our opinions exactly how we see it..

I would love for reviewers to go in blind. It's only human that people will have some bias based on their own personal preferences (or popular sentiment) for particular distilleries, etc. I would love to see a comparison done where people conduct reviews when they do/don't know where a whisky came from or how hold it is, etc.

I do agree that tasting blind can offer a whole different thought procedure, but does age really influence your thoughts, I'm not sure, I think it can hinder it slightly. Do you expect more ? Possibly.

@sorren, I'm not positive, but I wouldn't be surprised if an age statement of 18 years on the label could make a reviewer expect a better quality spirit than another sample that said 10 years. Many people assume older spirits are better (even though we know it's not so simple) and therefore they are likely to go in with the belief that they are about to taste a quality sample. To the extent any cognitive dissonance experienced by the reviewer results in grading the whisky higher than he would truly feel it deserves as a result of this bias I can't say for sure...but I wouldn't rule it out.

@sorren

I wasn't being defensive. I really have nothing to defend. I don't do a lot of reviews. I think you'll find most of us on Connosr, people who are not professional whisky bloggers, and I include amateur website hosts here, are pretty honest in reviewing. But honesty and bias are 2 different things.

For instance, I will be presenting a talk on the political parties' platforms on health issues. I will make an honest attempt to be ad transparent and complete as possible, but I can't expect my party bias to be completely suppressed.

Similarly, if you cultivate a relationship with industry, and get samples, your HONEST opinion could become biased by that relationship.

I have never received a sample of Bladnoch. But I have hesitated to review the 12 year old bottle I opened in April because it just isn't something I like. Because I have developed a relationship with the IDEA of Bladnoch, I am in denial that an expression can be poor.

@broadwayblue

The age thing works both ways. You can be biased to favour a lesser 18 YO because of how you imagine it should be. Like when you have a one sided crush you latch onto every thing that suggests the other person likes you, and dismiss all the glaring evidence that he/she does not. or you could be disappointed because you expect more.

Conversely, You may be pleasantly surprised by a 10 YO because you expected less, or you may be inclined to downplay its quality because "it's only 10".

@broadwayblue , I've read a fair number of blind reviews here and there (mostly on Reddit, I suppose) and it seems like the blinding process seems to narrow reviewers' opinions toward that safe 80-85 point zone. I suspect that all but the most confident reviewers a little afraid to go out on a limb and say that an unknown whisky is 95+ material, only to find out it's Loch Lomond NAS (or whatever). Same for the bottom end of the spectrum.

I can vouch for a certain amount of "rooting for" bias that some people must have too, like Nozinan referred to with his Bladnochs. When I give myself a blind tasting at home, I'll often find myself hoping that the stinker of the bunch isn't my beloved Springbank (or whatever).

I'm about to get back into my peaters after trying (somewhat successfully) to resist their boggy charms all this past summer. One of the first things I'll do is blind-taste a mixed set including the likes of Laphroaig 2015 Cairdeas (on one end) and Trader Joe's Islay Storm (on the other). Despite all the noise, blind tasting is still fun. And yes, I'll probably be secretly rooting for the Cairdeas because I want it to be awesome.

The best blog I know of for sample-origina transparency: MyAnnoyingOpinions.com

Would anyone care to call out some of the shill reviewers so I can avoid their blogs? Earlier comments in this thread suggest that some of us know who they are.

Well since my post on here last year, I've been given samples by some well-known distilleries and independent bottlers. I believe I've been able to remain honest and true to my word, even if that would mean I would not longer be a recipient of their future releases. On one occasion however, I decided it was for the best not to included the four-sample-tasting on my website, as I couldn't find anything positive to say about it. So I just swallowed it, as it wouldn't be fair to bite when you're shown kindness.

I did however tell the good people of Laphroaig after a free sample that their Select was utter shyte and they could do better.

@Pandemonium

This is where you and I differ. I would not have just swallowed it. I would have spit it out and rinsed my mouth with A'Bunadh or Laphroaig QC...

;)

This is such an interesting topic, firstly my comment on how we might review on age was really aimed at something older 25-40 and above. The one side I don't agree with and this is just my opinion.. If you think a whisky is not good or has flaws then you should still review, the review can be put in simple format, by not putting the review out there are we not letting down the people who might go buy said bottle only to find it dissapointing... It is easy to put a non inspiring review out there, just say at the end it was not your cup of tea ...we all know we have different opinions, and like I said before most people will check out more than one review.. If I read a review I want to know if it is good, if someone found it bad I want to know that too.. ocdwhisky.wordpress.com ..

@sorren I don't think the question is whether we should post a review od bad whisky. Search "Lambertus" and you will see that,

The question is whether receiving samples or other gifts from industry affects how we review their products.

If you're not reviewing, accept all you want.

If you are, in order to continue to get stuff, will you be able to post negative reviews?

Perhaps, where a certain sample has been disappointing, a second review from someone with a well developed palate and of the the same sample would leave little doubt as to the integrity of the taster - We once had seven "God, that's awful!" at our small group: It was!

Cheers!