It's only plonk if you look at the price tag
According to the industry blog The Wine Economist, the wine retailing industry's "dirty little secret" is that we automatically lean towards dearer brands. On the hunt, we look at least for a mid-range bottle, irrespective of other dynamics, swayed by the brainwashed belief we should spend proper money. Nobody wants to look crass.
Our unease about buying plonk is exploited by supermarkets. Cheap brands are shelved near the floor, forcing anyone who feels moved to buy an everyday table wine to stoop - so demeaning.
The contrarian case for still taking the low-rent road and picking plonk is anchored in an anecdote about wine tycoon Ernest Gallo. The Wine Economist recounts how, during the 1930s, Gallo poured a customer two glasses of wine, saying that one sold for 5¢ and the other for double. Both were the same, but guess which the customer chose - the 10¢ one.
"Clearly, the customer wanted to buy an identity - the image of someone who wouldn't drink that 5¢ rotgut - even if he couldn't actually taste the difference," The Wine Economist says.
The mystery client's suspect belief that pricey wine has more class than its low-cost counterpart is widely shared, science shows.
In 2001, the cheeky University of Bordeaux researcher Frederic Brochet ran two experiments. In one, Brochet tested the impact of labelling, presenting the same Bordeaux superior wine to 54 volunteers in two different bottles: one fancy, one plain. Duly duped, although they were tasting the same wine, the volunteers ranked the wine from the "expensive" bottle higher than the wine from the "cheap" bottle. In the second humiliating test that underlined the depth of consumer naivety, Brochet had 54 volunteers taste white wine dyed red with food colouring. Incredibly, all failed to sense it was fake.
Further evidence that we are blind about wine comes from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech). In a 2008 Caltech study, 20 volunteers connected to brain scanners sampled a range of wines.
The Caltech study showed that our brains feel more pleasure when we think we are drinking a $45 wine instead of a $5 bottle - even when the vino is the same.
It gets worse. In 2011, a British psychologist devoted to exposing the frailties of human perception, Richard Wiseman, ran a double-blind wine test featuring stock ranging from a $5 Bordeaux to a $50 champagne.
The 578 experiment participants rightly identified pricey varieties only half the time - the same level as guesswork. Go for the plonk, Wiseman advised.
Wiseman's subversive findings spurred former Wired writer Jonah Lehrer to say that, if pricey wines taste no better, then the wine sector has no business model. "It's yellow tail all the way down," Lehrer wrote.
Clearly, the case for spurning that costly vintage fancifully linked with some chateau is strong - it might well taste like vinegar.
Worse, the pate that accompanies your fancy wine could be just as dubious. A 2006 study published by the American Association of Wine Economists found that most people cannot tell pate from dog food. Remember that the next time you seek a snack to go with your snobby grand cru.
Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…
Not necessarily. Multiple studies cited in the article — including Frederic Brochet’s 2001 experiments and a 2008 Caltech brain‑scanner study — found that people often rate the same wine higher when they believe it’s more expensive. In other words, price and expectation can change perceived taste even when the vino is identical.
Yes. The article highlights Brochet’s test where volunteers rated the same Bordeaux higher when it was presented in a ‘fancier’ bottle, showing that labels and packaging strongly influence taste perception. Price tags and presentation are powerful marketing signals that shape consumer judgment.
Blind tasting evidence is mixed but skeptical: the 2011 double‑blind test led by Richard Wiseman had 578 participants who could identify pricier wines only about half the time — essentially guessing. That suggests blind tastings often fail to confirm a consistent superiority of expensive bottles.
The article explains this as partly social and psychological: people buy identity and status. The Ernest Gallo anecdote and commentary from The Wine Economist show shoppers often pick costlier bottles to avoid appearing cheap — even if they can’t reliably taste the difference.
For everyday enjoyment, the research in the article suggests cheaper wine can deliver the same perceived pleasure as pricier wine because expectations drive experience. The article even relays the contrarian advice from experimenters like Wiseman: go for the plonk if you want value.
Supermarkets use placement and shelving to nudge buyers: the article notes cheap wines are often shelved low, making them less visible and socially awkward to select. That kind of retail marketing exploits our bias toward mid‑range or premium‑looking options.
The article raises the point that if price doesn’t reliably equal better taste, the wine industry depends heavily on mystique, branding and marketing to justify premium prices. As quoted, some commentators argue that reliance on image rather than objective quality poses big questions for the sector’s value proposition.
Yes — the article references a 2006 study from the American Association of Wine Economists showing many people couldn’t tell pate from dog food, illustrating that human perception of food quality and pairings can be surprisingly unreliable.
Call 1300 880 160
Start a chat
Schedule a call
