Pricier wines garner higher ratings—but only if you’re “materialistic”
Frances Woolley, a Carleton economics professor, posted an interesting story on the the Globe and Mail’s Economy Lab blog earlier today about a German experiment measuring how a wine’s stated price affects a person’s ranking of that wine’s quality. Not surprisingly, subjects who were told a given bottle of wine cost €20 rated it higher than subjects who were told it cost only €3 (yes, you can get a bottle of wine for €3 in Germany). The interesting twist is that this only applies for people who rate high on a scale of how materialistic they are. Apparently, these people tend to agree with statements like, “I admire people who own expensive homes, cars, and clothes” and “I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things.” Now, who could fall for that? Read the whole story [Globe and Mail] »
The study does not speak at all to the conclusion you state in your title.
We need more moderately priced wines here in Ontario. Spending $15 to $30 for a bottle of wine is ridiculous compared to the costs of the rest of most meals, especially if more than one bottle gets consumed, which is most of the time.
There are some decent wines under $10, but there aren’t many and they usually go up once they become popular.
Anyone who regularly spends a lot of money on wine is foolish, really well off or both. They are often the ones who complain about paying nominal amounts for many other products that are sensibly priced.
Stupid study, done with people off the street. This only proves random people with no experience tasting fine wine pretend to appreciate it. That’s all. You do not need to be “materialistic” to appreciate good food and wine. But yes, it usually (though not always) costs more.
i have found some decent wines at many different price points but i find that my usual plonk tends to cost between $15 and $25.