The official 1855 classification of Bordeaux wines is one of the most iconic classifications. Created on the initiative of Napoleon III as part of the 1855 Paris Universal Exhibition, this classification has endured ever since.
This ranking isn’t based on tasting notes. It was developed by the Bordeaux brokers on the assumption that the highest-priced wines are necessarily the best.
165 years after that first classification, we asked ourselves the question: “what would the same ranking look like based on online presence?” Times have changed a great deal between 1855 and 2020. So one of the wine-ranking criteria that could be used without tasting is online presence. We might thus think that the wines with the biggest online community are necessarily the best.
This article is a summary of a much more complete study that you can get hold of here. We’d also be delighted to support you in developing your marketing. To do that, get in touch with us.
Buy the full study
Study methodology
For this study, the methodology was based on observing each of the pages for each of the châteaux studied. So we went to their Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook pages. We also studied each château’s website. All the observations were carried out on 31 March 2020 between 8:00 and 20:00.
To reflect the importance of each positioning, we assigned coefficients to each network. We consider a presence on Instagram and SEO to be the two essential elements of an optimised digital presence. These two elements were therefore scored out of 20.
Facebook is a social network that’s essential to branding and developing brand image, but slightly less suited to building a community for the various châteaux. The Facebook score was therefore out of 15.
Finally, Twitter is considered the least essential element of a château’s online presence. So it was scored out of 10.
The final score is therefore out of 65. A calculation then converts it to a score out of 100 to give a more representative scale.
Overall ranking
The main observation from this overall ranking is how gradual the scores are. Unlike the detailed rankings (see below), the scores obtained by the châteaux overall spread from 42.1 for the best marketing (Château Margaux) to 0 (Château Duhart-Milon). Within this sample, the average score is 8.45/100.
What’s more, the 1855 classification had five first growths. Four of them occupy the top four places in our ranking. Only Château Latour is absent from this top 5, ranked 21st. It’s replaced here by Château Palmer with a score of 30.
| Rank | Château | Score / 100 |
| 1 | Château Margaux, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 42.1 |
| 2 | Château Haut-Brion, Pessac, AOC Pessac-Léognan | 39.5 |
| 3 | Château Lafite-Rothschild, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 33.7 |
| 4 | Château Mouton Rothschild, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 31.2 |
| 5 | Château Palmer, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 30 |
| 6 | Château Lynch-Bages, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 20.4 |
| 7 | Château Cos-d’Estournel, Saint-Estèphe, AOC Saint-Estèphe | 20.4 |
| 8 | Château Belgrave, Saint-Laurent-de-Médoc, AOC Haut-Médoc | 17 |
| 9 | Château Dauzac, Labarde, AOC Margaux | 13 |
| 10 | Château Gruaud-Larose, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 12.5 |
| 11 | Château Pichon-Longueville-Baron-de-Pichon, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 11.6 |
| 12 | Château Brane-Cantenac, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 11.3 |
| 13 | Château d’Issan, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 11.1 |
| 14 | Château Giscours, Labarde, AOC Margaux | 10.8 |
| 15 | Château Pédesclaux, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 10.5 |
| 16 | Château Lafon-Rochet, Saint-Estèphe, AOC Saint-Estèphe | 10.2 |
| 17 | Château Ducru-Beaucaillou, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 10 |
| 18 | Château Lagrange, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 9.9 |
| 19 | Château Kirwan, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 9.8 |
| 20 | Château Beychevelle, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 9.2 |
| 21 | Château Latour, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 8.8 |
| 22 | Château Calon-Ségur, Saint-Estèphe, AOC Saint-Estèphe | 8.7 |
| 23 | Château Léoville-Poyferré, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 8.2 |
| 24 | Château Montrose, Saint-Estèphe, AOC Saint-Estèphe | 7.6 |
| 25 | Château Pontet-Canet, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 7.2 |
| 26 | Château Léoville-Las-Cases, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 6.5 |
| 27 | Château Talbot, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 6.3 |
| 28 | Château du Tertre, Arsac, AOC Margaux | 6.1 |
| 29 | Château Branaire-Ducru, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 6 |
| 30 | Château Pichon-Longueville-Comtesse-de-Lalande, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 5.7 |
| 31 | Château Ferrière, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 5.6 |
| 32 | Château Rauzan-Ségla, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 5.5 |
| 33 | Château Cantemerle, Macau, AOC Haut-Médoc | 5.4 |
| 34 | Château Cantenac-Brown, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 5.1 |
| 35 | Château Marquis-de-Terme, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 4.8 |
| 36 | Château Prieuré-Lichine, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 4.6 |
| 37 | Château Haut-Bages-Libéral, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 4.5 |
| 38 | Château Lascombes, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 4.3 |
| 39 | Château La Lagune, Ludon, AOC Haut-Médoc | 3.8 |
| 40 | Château Léoville-Barton, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 3.3 |
| 41 | Château Grand-Puy-Lacoste, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 3.2 |
| 42 | Château Grand-Puy-Ducasse, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 3 |
| 43 | Château Saint-Pierre, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 2.8 |
| 44 | Château Durfort-Vivens, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 2.8 |
| 45 | Château Camensac, Saint-Laurent-de-Médoc, AOC Haut-Médoc | 2.6 |
| 46 | Château Lynch-Moussas, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 2.5 |
| 47 | Château d’Armailhac, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 2.4 |
| 48 | Château Marquis-d’Alesme, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 2.3 |
| 49 | Château Langoa-Barton, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 2.3 |
| 50 | Château Batailley, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 2.2 |
| 51 | Château Clerc-Milon, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 1.8 |
| 52 | Château Desmirail, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 1.4 |
| 53 | Château Boyd-Cantenac, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 1 |
| 54 | Château La Tour-Carnet, Saint-Laurent-de-Médoc, AOC Haut-Médoc | 1 |
| 55 | Château Malescot-Saint-Exupéry, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 0.8 |
| 56 | Château Haut-Batailley, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 0.5 |
| 57 | Château Cos-Labory, Saint-Estèphe, AOC Saint-Estèphe | 0.5 |
| 58 | Château Pouget, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 0.4 |
| 59 | Château Rauzan-Gassies, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 0.2 |
| 60 | Château Croizet-Bages, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 0.1 |
| 61 | Château Duhart-Milon, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 0 |
SEO ranking
Studying each château’s SEO presence aims to highlight the quality of the website from a technical standpoint but also in terms of content. Producing content, notably through a blog, is a good way to build an SEO presence and so help increase traffic to the website.
| Rank | Château | Score / 100 |
| 1 | Château Lafite-Rothschild, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 100 |
| 2 | Château Mouton Rothschild, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 90.4 |
| 3 | Château Belgrave, Saint-Laurent-de-Médoc, AOC Haut-Médoc¹ | 55.3 |
| 4 | Château Lynch-Bages, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 42.3 |
| 5 | Château Margaux, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 35.7 |
You’ll find the full ranking and case studies in the complete study
Buy the full study
Instagram ranking
Château Margaux, with its more than 37,000 followers, greatly dominates this ranking. Instagram comes across as the perfect network for communicating about wine. Each château lends itself wonderfully to taking lots of photos or videos in every season to showcase the work going on there and build the legend around the bottle.
What’s more, the community of wine lovers is large on Instagram. So it’s easy to interact with people tasting your wine. What better way to build a long-term relationship?
| Rank | Château | Score / 100 |
| 1 | Château Margaux, Margaux, AOC Margaux | 100 |
| 2 | Château Cos-d’Estournel, Saint-Estèphe, AOC Saint-Estèphe | 38.2 |
| 3 | Château Dauzac, Labarde, AOC Margaux | 29 |
| 4 | Château Pichon-Longueville-Baron-de-Pichon, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 27.4 |
| 5 | Château Palmer, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 25.4 |
You’ll find the full ranking and case studies in the complete study
Buy the full study
Facebook ranking
A presence on Facebook is crucial for a château to enable its digital development. Since châteaux are also wine-tourism destinations, they need to have a Facebook page. It’s a key place where many tourists go to look for information.
| Rank | Château | Score / 100 |
| 1 | Château Haut-Brion, Pessac, AOC Pessac-Léognan | 100 |
| 2 | Château Gruaud-Larose, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 24.4 |
| 3 | Château d’Issan, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 21 |
| 4 | Château Pédesclaux, Pauillac, AOC Pauillac | 18.4 |
| 5 | Château Ducru-Beaucaillou, Saint-Julien-Beychevelle, AOC Saint-Julien | 16.5 |
You’ll find the full ranking and case studies in the complete study
Buy the full study
Twitter ranking
Generally speaking, Twitter is a network largely neglected by many châteaux. Yet this network offers a significant opportunity for virality and lets enthusiasts access information.
That said, we don’t advise châteaux without an account to create one. For the châteaux that have a page and keep it active regularly, the work is of very high quality. However, for châteaux with a neglected page, it needs to be taken back in hand: it no longer conveys a neutral image but a negative one of the brand.
| Rank | Château | Score / 100 |
| 1 | Château Palmer, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 100 |
| 2 | Château Haut-Brion, Pessac, AOC Pessac-Léognan | 88.9 |
| 3 | Château Brane-Cantenac, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 42.7 |
| 4 | Château Kirwan, Cantenac, AOC Margaux | 29.5 |
| 5 | Château Giscours, Labarde, AOC Margaux | 21.2 |
You’ve now got a good overview of the marketing of the 1855 grands crus classés. If you want to go further and understand the study’s methodology in depth, get the data, the case studies, and the recommendations, you can buy the full study.
We’d also be delighted to talk with you about your marketing and support you in developing new strategies.
