Search Smart Spending:

New study: We will drink no wine before it's overpriced

Posted Jan 15 2008, 02:23 PM by Karen Datko
Rating:

A recent study involving wine-tasting in California seems to confirm our worst fears about the power of marketing. Bloomberg.com reports that not only did volunteers overwhelmingly prefer wines they had been told were more expensive (when they weren't), but brain scans confirmed that they got more pleasure from the supposedly pricier wines. The Bloomberg headline seems appropriate: "Brain scans reveal secret to tastier wine: Jack up the prices."

People in the test group were occasional wine drinkers. The results were similar when people who are knowledgeable about wine participated. This gets even worse: In a follow-up to the experiment, most people picked the $5 wine as their favorite when they weren't told about cost.

Of course, bloggers had something to say about this. Catherine Shaffer at our partner blog Wise Bread said she at first thought the study was the devil's work, until she started polishing the enamel on her $5,000 range. She loves that stove, despite its frequent repairs. "Indeed, it is the Jaguar of ovens," she writes.

"If only there was a way to convince yourself you were drinking expensive, amazing wine without actually paying more for it," wrote those clever people at The Consumerist. "Maybe that's why everyone loves Costco so much." Danny G at AdPulp also chimed in: "I'm sure there's a bit of a wine snobbery in effect here, but there's an argument to be made that this principle extends across a whole range of products. Which is why attractive, elaborate packaging works well, too."

Comments

 

What are the three dollar wines at Trader Joe's that taste better than Charles Shaw?

I'd like to try them.

I have been a wine drinker for 30 years and  a frequent visitor to Napa.  At a recent blind tasting at my home with a number of other enophiles, Charles Shaw came in second and beat out several $70-$85 competitors.   Some refused to believe what they were drinking.  NO straws.

Charles Shaw!

As my late brother-in-law said, "By the third glass you can't tell much/if any difference between a very good wine and an under $10.00 one." However the first glass may very well be highly noticeable. There are many good California wines $20 and under.

The best CA wines I have tasted (although I can't afford them) come from Rudd in Napa Valley.

I drink cheap (but delicious) wine in beautiful glasses. It does the trick for me!

I myself am partial to mad dog 20/20.  

To hell with the wine and the wine snobs.  I drink whisky and gin and an occasional beer.  I have imbibed of the vine in the past, out of desperation, but prefer the less pretentious potables.  Give me a good Canadian with a splash of cola anytime!

Reading the above comment, if in fact it is true that they were using straws for tasting, then that invalidates the entire study. Not only do you completely lose all olfaction with a straw, which is a majority of your sense of taste, you completely lose the uniform distribution of the wine on your tongue. They would have been more accurate with a beer bong. It's amazing the garbage that can be called science these days.

That's the nice thing about living in Europe.... good wine is still relatively inexpensive.  My wife and I are no connoisseurs, but know enough to appreciate what is good, and what is garbage.  We buy our white wines here in Germany from local producers for about 1.63 Euros/bottle.  If we want to splurge, we buy by the case from a small vineyard nearby, never paying more than the equivalent of $10 per bottle for reds or whites.  French wines can be had on the cheap too.  We've always found decent value from local vintners in the States, too (although our experience with Virginia wines was less than good).  Don't believe the hype.

Oh, and I agree if they were really drinking through straws, then this "study" is useless.

The point of the test was to find that the actual taste of the wine didn't matter nearly as much as someone's impression of the price and perceived value.  That $30 bottle is probably better than the $5, but it doesn't matter when you're impression of the taste is burnt in before it even hit your lips.  Straw or not really wouldn't matter, exactly.  

There's plenty of wines below $5 at Trader Joe's.  If you're asking which ones are the best, I suggest you try them out on your own and form your own opinion.  There's little risk at $3.49 a bottle.  Agreed on Two Buck Chuck.  It's awful, but it's cheap - and if you're strictly a wine drinker looking to tie one on, there's basically nothing cheaper.  

Send a Comment

Comments must be directly related to the blog entry. Comments with offensive language will be deleted. Your e-mail address won't be displayed.

(please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):