By Arthur, redwinebuzz.com

May 7, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

Ed, I agree with your statements with one exception: This study was sent out to wine writers as if it were a press release. It made a number of assertions. These were based on a ‘rough draft’ paper that had not been put through a process where the methodology, data and conclusions are scrutinized by peers to flesh out problems in the experiment, the analysis and the conclusions. If that was not done, how can one distribute such a work to the media? Especially when the media runs with a misinterpretation of publicised research as it did in this case?

By Ed

May 7, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

Honestly. Do I really need a peer reviewed study to know this? Anyone who has ever hosted a blind wine tasting party has seen this process in action. I’ve seen $5 wines beat out $50 wines and vice versa. Actually, I’ve found that the sequence of wines tasted has a big impact. By altering the sequence alone I can greatly impact the outcome. Not to mention the food that is being paired with the wine.

By Arthur, redwinebuzz.com

May 7, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this

Mark, I may be pedantic here, but Eric misstates the basic facts of the studies and with full respect to Eric and you, the article does not even come close enough to the nuances to make visual contact. - Not all tasters in Goldstein’s book tasted the same wines. The research paper that followed the book is imperfect in design and execution, is still a working draft and has not been subjected to peer review. It is also an economics paper - not a wine science or behavioral science paper. The implications are greater for marketers and it is no nuance (or surprise) that it’s harder to sell cheaper wine. “They always but the 10 cent wine”. - I have questioned the paper, its methods and analysis. I received it by email as a form of press release. I read it and raised numerous questions on Eric’s blog, yet the authors involved have not responded to questions which are routine in a peer review process. - The Caltech study is also an economics paper that looks to see if there is an organic/functional change in the brain that corresponds to greater enjoyment. It’s design is much better and the conclusions and interpretation of results are much more elegant. - The areas directly responsible for smell and flavor perception were not affected by suggested price but an area involved in (among many things) in the feeling of enjoyment was. - The authors concluded this means that there is a top-down, conscious or barely subconscious (but essentially willful) process by which we modulate our perception and enjoyment. - The nuances of both of these studies have profound implications for marketing, pricing and selling wine initially but also for the quality of wine overall. Neither of the studies included any sort of a standardized expert cohort in its study subjects. As these studies imply, if people will pay $15 for a bottle of wine that costs $5 to produce, and if they believe that the same wine priced at $30 is superior, AND if a wine produced at a cost of $5/bottle is of lower overall quality than one produced at $10/bottle, THEN consumers will pay $30 for a wine produced at $5/bottle and the supposed standard of quality will be based on price and not on what’s in the bottle. - Eric also takes a tangent into the “Scores are bad and people are so intimidated by wine and it’s really all so subjective” realm. This, after he refers to “difficulty of bringing some sort of objective and universal criteria to the fleeting and obscure realms of aroma, taste and texture”. This panders to people’s insecurities and inexperience with wine instead of seeking ways to elevate this nation’s wine culture.