Great analysis, but I think it would be a mistake to overlook the role of distribution in this system. Sure, wine lists are a matter of taste or prestige signaling or consumer preference, but the key question in my view is not just “why are Michelin lists so homogeneous?” but “what are wine directors actually able to buy, and under what conditions?” At least in the US market, the wines on a list are shaped by importers and distributors and their allocation systems a long time before they make it to the person who’s actually putting together a list.
Oftentimes it’s distributors who decide which restaurants receive inventory and in what quantities, and a lot of the time that’s contingent on what else they agree to buy. So a Michelin-starred restaurant listing Krug or Dom Perignon might not just reflect rich people and their boring taste, but it might also be related to the fact that those wines are consistently obtainable at scale, distributors reward restaurants for listing them prominently, and if they appear on a list it opens up access to more sought-after parts of a portfolio (eg pour Krug and you can have the grower Champagne somms actually want, pour X wine and you get 4 bottles of DRC, etc etc).
So if distributors are playing allocation games but a restaurant “needs” a certain wine to be competitive as you point out (maybe the inspectors / guests expect to see certain categories/producers), the problem isn’t just that Michelin restaurants have become beige, but that the distribution system discourages experimentation. That also helps explain why somms say that famous producers represent a small share of actual sales but the same names appear on every list. It’s a contradiction if you assume these lists are being designed to maximize sales or customer enjoyment, but it makes perfect sense if you know that the list serves as allocation maintenance - to guarantee continued access to those wines.
I think you’re completely right that Michelin-starred restaurants don’t exist in isolation, and that distribution and allocation systems are a huge part of the story.
I think these numbers, when seen from above, reflect the mechanisms of the industry as a whole.
The fact that groups like LVMH can offer consistency, scale and global availability is part of the reason they dominate these lists in the first place.
But I didn’t say rich people have boring taste — quite the opposite!
I think scale in wine is boring, even if I completely understand why restaurants rely on it. But understanding the incentives behind it doesn’t make the outcome any less boring.
Great analysis, but I think it would be a mistake to overlook the role of distribution in this system. Sure, wine lists are a matter of taste or prestige signaling or consumer preference, but the key question in my view is not just “why are Michelin lists so homogeneous?” but “what are wine directors actually able to buy, and under what conditions?” At least in the US market, the wines on a list are shaped by importers and distributors and their allocation systems a long time before they make it to the person who’s actually putting together a list.
Oftentimes it’s distributors who decide which restaurants receive inventory and in what quantities, and a lot of the time that’s contingent on what else they agree to buy. So a Michelin-starred restaurant listing Krug or Dom Perignon might not just reflect rich people and their boring taste, but it might also be related to the fact that those wines are consistently obtainable at scale, distributors reward restaurants for listing them prominently, and if they appear on a list it opens up access to more sought-after parts of a portfolio (eg pour Krug and you can have the grower Champagne somms actually want, pour X wine and you get 4 bottles of DRC, etc etc).
So if distributors are playing allocation games but a restaurant “needs” a certain wine to be competitive as you point out (maybe the inspectors / guests expect to see certain categories/producers), the problem isn’t just that Michelin restaurants have become beige, but that the distribution system discourages experimentation. That also helps explain why somms say that famous producers represent a small share of actual sales but the same names appear on every list. It’s a contradiction if you assume these lists are being designed to maximize sales or customer enjoyment, but it makes perfect sense if you know that the list serves as allocation maintenance - to guarantee continued access to those wines.
I think you’re completely right that Michelin-starred restaurants don’t exist in isolation, and that distribution and allocation systems are a huge part of the story.
I think these numbers, when seen from above, reflect the mechanisms of the industry as a whole.
The fact that groups like LVMH can offer consistency, scale and global availability is part of the reason they dominate these lists in the first place.
But I didn’t say rich people have boring taste — quite the opposite!
I think scale in wine is boring, even if I completely understand why restaurants rely on it. But understanding the incentives behind it doesn’t make the outcome any less boring.
🤭