Now that some time has passed since the Murphy-Goode contest, we may have a little more perspective on what it meant — and it had to mean something. I read 1WineDude’s take on this, and he’s pretty much right-on in his analysis. But there’s another implication that hasn’t been mentioned. I tried to describe it in this comment I made on 1WineDude’s blog:

Here’s what I wonder: Now that Hardy is the official voice of MG, will his writing (tweeting, blogging etc.) be seen as independent and credible? Or has he now taken off the hat of independence in exchange for that of paid marketer? What we may be witnessing — as Joe implied — is not so much the rise of social media as an independent voice, but the wine industry co-opting it for its own P.R. and marketing purposes.

Joe himself wrote “Murphy-Goode Fallout = Wine Media Jobs” and he astutely noted that getting hired as a lifestyle manager for a winery is not the same as independent wine writing. It couldn’t be; it’s a job promoting the winery. As such, a social media expert who gets one of these jobs isn’t really a social media writer anymore: he or she is a public relations manager using social media, the way P.R. managers used to use press kits and free dinners. The tools are different, but the job is the same.

You can’t fault wineries for doing what Murphy-Goode did, which is something other wineries already are doing. It’s the old “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” routine. Or, to put it another way, if you’re a big industry and a little industry comes along that poses, however distantly, a threat, what do you do? You take it over. When television came alone, NBC Radio bought into it. Whenever somebody in Silicon Valley invents some cool, useful new gizmo, Microsoft scoops it up. That’s how business works; it follows the same laws as Darwinian evolution: eat or be eaten. The wine industry watched social media for a couple of years, mostly just wondering what the heck it was, and all the while social media was screaming, “Pay attention to us!” The wine industry didn’t really want to pay attention, but finally was forced to. And it has now culminated in A Really Goode Job.

In the 1958 movie “The Blob,” that pulsating mass of protoplasm from outer space absorbed everything in its path. There was nothing that could stand up to it (until the end, of course, when the hero, Steve McQueen, killed it). There was probably a semiotic meaning behind “The Blob” the way there was behind so many Hollywood sci-fi movies of the Fifties (Communism as alien menace). But on another level “The Blob” was a metaphor for anything big taking over anything small by the simple mechanism of absorption. Will the wine industry now absorb — co-opt — wine social media? Are people engaging in wine social media hoping to land high-paying jobs as lifestyle managers? Is there any fundamental difference between older, print-based wine writers and younger, social media writers? And who will the “hero” of this movie be? I think the answers are yes, yes, no and who the heck knows. The truest lesson of Murphy-Goode may be less about the future of wine writing or anything like that, and more about how wine social media is getting cozy with the traditional  P.R. and marketing machine. One or the other is The Blob; we’ll have to see who absorbs whom.

I do a little outside work in the wine industry for which I get paid, and in this age of transparency, it’s important for me to let readers know that, and to explain my ethical guidelines.

This work consists of public speaking, doing tastings and similar engagements. It can be for wineries or for winery associations. I don’t do it a lot — maybe 4 or 5 times in the last year. I’m always amazed and flattered when someone invites me. Of course, in the case of getting paid by a winery, this raises the question, am I able to be objective in reviewing their wines? With a winery association, I think this issue is less relevant, because the associations have so many members.

For example, a year or so ago I conducted a tasting at Fess Parker winery for their club members. For doing this, the winery paid me some money. Now, have I ever skewed a Fess Parker rating because of that? No. Never did, never will, and wouldn’t. The winery people understood that at the time we made the deal, and in fact I’d given them some low scores. Nobody pays me for a score. There is no quid pro quo. That would be as distasteful and sleazy on the part of the winery as it would be for me.

I should mention that I also do this type of function as an official representative for Wine Enthusiast. But in that capacity, I don’t get paid. It’s a pleasurable part of my job. I say “pleasurable” because I love talking to audiences. We have the performing gene in my family, and I love talking about wine and answering questions that make me and, hopefully others, think. The dialog between me and people who are interested in what I do is a critical part of our relationship.

If you believe me about my ethics, and I hope you do, I’m grateful. If you don’t, there’s no way I can convince you. It’s like this crazy “birther” movement of people who refuse to believe that Pres. Obama is an American citizen. No matter what you tell them or show them — even Obama’s birth certificate — they have their minds made up.

I’m hardly the only wine critic who does outside speaking. Everybody does — I could name names — and while I’m not privy to the details, it seems to me that no wine writer is going to travel someplace to give a speech or a tasting and not get an honorarium. It would be nice if all the wine writers of the world were upfront about their private, for-profit activities.

It’s a brand new world out there. We need sunlight to pour in and illuminate things that formerly had been done privately, one might even say clandestinely. I don’t think I need to make a list of everything I’ve ever done or will do in the way of private engagements. But I do want to put my cards on the table, so no one will be able to say they didn’t know. Now you do. I invite comments.

Curious how little notice was paid to this story as it emerged last week.  “New World wine-producing countries form new alliance” trumpeted a South African wine website.

“New World Alliance against EU” is how the Indian Wine Academy’s website described it.

Drinks International, a U.K.-based online journal, says the new Alliance was designed “to compete against the EU,” while the Italian site, Bravo Italy Gourmet, calls it “a world first in the wine industry” whose backers hope it gives them “a better chance of competing against the EU.” In Germany, the website Wein-Plus.com says the Alliance’s “objective is to put on a stronger front vis-a-vis the European Union.”

The New World Wine Alliance consists of Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, South Africa and California — not the U.S. — and its immediate purpose, according to all published accounts, sounds innocent enough: to join forces to showcase their wines at Germany’s annual ProWein International Trade Fair for Wines and Spirits, held in March, 2010, in Dusseldorf. Reports state that the Alliance will “jointly offer…seminars, lectures, presentations and workshops…under the umbrella theme, Down to Earth.  Issues they plan to cover include sustainable wine production, the management of scarce natural resources and managing climate change, cool-climate viticulture, organic wines, branding, icon wines, building on-trade consumption sales and the importance of unique grape varietals.”

But Europeans, as well as Indians and South Africans, clearly see the Alliance as something more longterm and threatening to EU-producing states.

For all the concern — one might even say fear — the Alliance has provoked in the EU, the Wine Institute is telling them not to worry. “We already have a policy trade group, the World Wine Trade Group,” said an Institute spokesperson, who did not want to be identified. The WWTG’s web page describes it as “an informal grouping of industry representatives from [8] wine producing countries.” They include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and the U.S.

The Wine Institute spokesperson added that the new Alliance “sounds like more than it is” and despite published predictions that it will continue to function beyond ProWein, “It’s just for ProWein, for now. This is just some marketing folks getting together to do something.”

It could be that the new Alliance’s members are sticking their collective toe in the water at ProWein, to see if the water’s warm enough to jump in. The British wine blogger and pundit, Simon Woods, put it this way: “…while the Old World section at next year’s ProWein may have several great wines on offer for those prepared to seek them out, I imagine the hall housing the New World Alliance will be the noisiest, the friendliest and the place where most business is done – not to mention the scene of the greatest consumption of that wine trade essential called ‘beer’ at the end of each day.”

Australia is notably absent from both the WWTG and the NWWA, probably because it has chosen to look toward Asia, in particular, to solve its export problems, rather than the West.

Murphy-Goode announced the winner of their “A Really Goode Job” one minute ago. I was embargoed from going to press before the official release, so here it is. (And by the way, I was not part of the selection process!)

Hardy Wallace. More on him in a moment.

I hanged out on Sunday with the Final Ten, where we toured one of Murphy-Goode’s Alexander Valley vineyards with Dave Ready, Jr., did a Meritage-style blending session back in the winery’s new tasting room, in Healdsburg (about a 10-minute drive) and then, after that, the ten took turns staffing the tasting bar, serving wines to the public on a crowded, hot Sunday afternoon. All, mind you, while they were being watched, questioned and scrutinized by their judges — the M-G execs, including Ready — who would be deciding who got kicked off the island. I tried to imagine the pressure these guys and gals were feeling. They’d come this far, and worked so hard, to land the job of a lifetime! But if they were feeling any stress, they never let it show. Instead, there was laughing, joking and lots of good humor. Although they’d met up for the first time, physically, only the day before, most if not all had known each other digitally for many weeks. There was the feeling of kids at a summer camp.

After the vineyard tour we drove up to a nearby peak where everybody posed for pictures. It was an absolutely clear day, late in the morning before the valley heat built up, with a cool breeze from the sea and the sky an unreal blue. As the Ten sipped M-G Zinfandel from paper cups, they glowed with joy. Here, all around them, was the majesty of Alexander Valley, ranging from the vine-covered flatlands along the Russian River to the heights of the Mayacamas (much of it owned by Jess Jackson). Many of the ten had never been to California wine country, and they were so excited to be there, at that time, on that day, under those momentous circumstances.

The ten. That’s Dave Ready, Jr. (back row, middle, with cap) and Hardy, lower left.

People who haven’t kept up with this story can hardly imagine what a big deal this is, not only to the contestants but to so many across the world who have been following developments. This is The Apprentice, the Project Runway of an emergant model in which the wine industry and social media coalesce, like colliding galaxies, to form – - what? No one yet knows. In private chats with many of the Ten I asked where they thought it’s all going and, not surprisingly, their guesses were as good as mine or yours. Many expressed the wish that, regardless of who wins, they all would continue to know, and maybe even work with, each other. Some clearly wanted to remain in the wine industry. Others would be content to work in social media and marketing, whether in wine or some other industry. It was very Millennial. All felt themselves riding the tiger.

The blending session was fun. Each finalist had to assemble a mixture of 2008 Petit Verdot, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon, with Dave Ready, Jr. judging which was best. He kindly asked me to co-judge with him, and both of us were delighted that, after the blind tasting during which we’d had virtually no communication, we were strongly agreed on wine #3 as the best. (So delighted that it resulted in a spontaneous high five.) It was neat for me to be able to tell the group that this sort of thing is no coincidence: although each of the wines was basically similar in that they were blends of the three same base wines, #3 exhibited the greatest balance.

I liked all the finalists. Everybody was nice and personable and smart, although each, of course, had his or her distinct personality. There was some behind the scenes talk, among the M-G and Jackson staffs, concerning who was best, who would win, “who’s your favorite,” etc. I was asked for my impressions, but refrained from answering. It would have been inappropriate. All I could say was that whoever won will be terrific. At one point Barbara Banke — Mrs. Jess Jackson  — and I were chatting, and when I told her how sad it was that nine of these talented and charming folks would have to be turned away, she allowed as to how the Jackson family (who own Murphy-Goode) are contemplating hiring more than just one, to work at wineries within Jackson Family Wines’ extensive portfolio. At least one contestant for A Really Goode Job already has landed a job: one of the top fifty, who didn’t make the Top Ten, was recently hired by St. Supery Winery, in Napa Valley, as their social media director. Salary: $90,000 a year.

I think this Murphy-Goode thing represents an important milestone in the recent history of the wine industry. Will it be as remembered as, say, the French Paradox? Probably not at that level. But it will be remembered. Another question: What happens to Hardy in six months when his job ends? I don’t have a crystal ball, but I predict a glorious future. A bidding war will ensue for his services. Other wineries will be forced to look for social media directors, and find the budget to pay them. Beyond that, the mists gather; prognostications over “the future of print,” “the relevance of social media to wineries,” “how to calculate ROI for Twitter” etc. etc. are useless. Plus, there is always the possibility that the oncoming proliferation of Director of Social Media for wineries will be a bubble. A few years from now some CFO might dare to ask, “Hey, what are we really getting for the $100G a year we’re paying ____?” The DSM may find herself doing more traditional marketing and P.R., which means — sending me pitches!

Now, a personal word about Hardy, who has commented on my blog in the past, and on whose blog (dirty south wine) I think I’ve commented. Although I didn’t have a favorite, as I said, I believe the M-G people chose a fantastically talented person. I got to know him better on Sunday and came away impressed, not just with his knowledge and enthusiasm, but with his sense of humor. He’s a funny guy! And, last but not least, it was Hardy’s blend that won the contest. A  man of many talents. Good luck, Hardy. You’re on your way.

(Later this week I blog on my conversation with Phil Bronstein, the former editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and now editor-at-large for the Chron’s parent company, Hearst Newspapers. We’ll talk about the future of print journalism, monetizing the Internet, social media and, no doubt, the meaning of A Really Goode Job.)

at 11:02 a.m. Pacific time, breaking news on the winner of Murphy-Goode’s “A Really Goode Job” competition, with background, commentary and pix. Stay  tuned…