Would wine thought to be from California taste better than wine from North Dakota, even if it was poured from the same bottle? It’s no surprise that the answer is “yes” – in Preschool Branding we described how even young children say branded food tastes better than identical unbranded items. For wine, California is a better brand than North Dakota. That’s just the beginning, though. A post at the Box Wines blog, Wine Label Makes Food Taste Better, describes research that shows the apparent origin of the wine affects the perception of a restaurant’s food and even the probability that the customer will return.
The experiment, conducted by Cornell professors Brian Wansink and Collin Payne, was fairly simple. A group of diners in an Illinois restaurant were served a free glass of Cabernet Sauvignon with the same fixed-price French dinner. All were told the wine came from Noah’s Winery (a non-existent brand), but half were told the origin was California and the other half North Dakota. In fact, all of the wine was “Two Buck Chuck,” a very inexpensive but brisk-selling wine from Charles Shaw Wines. Predictably, the “California” wine was rated as being better than the “North Dakota” wine. Here’s the interesting part, though: the diners who received the free glass of California wine also rated the food higher, ate 11% more food, and were more likely to make a return reservation.
Lest one think the result a fluke, another experiment tested MBA students at a wine and cheese reception in a similar way. At that event, the subjects receiving the California wine rated the wine 85% higher and the cheese 50% higher. (From Fine as North Dakota wine.)
The simple message is that it sucks to be a North Dakota winery – even if you produce wine every bit as good as California or France, it will still taste worse to those who drink it. In fact, as little as one glass of the stuff will cast a pall over their entire dining experience. Ouch! (In fairness to North Dakota, the same results would likely have been obtained for any number of U.S. states or other countries not known for their superb wines.)
The more interesting aspect of the research, though, is the demonstrated spillover effect. In each case, the presumed characteristics of the wine affected the perception of the food; despite both wine and food being identical, a wine thought to be inferior made the food taste worse and the customer less likely to return.
This demonstrates the power of small variations in the customer experience to have unpredictable effects on satisfaction and sales. One wonders how the results might have varied under different experimental conditions:
- The server introduced the North Dakota wine with the addition, “It’s won several gold medals in European competitions, and received a 92 rating from Wine Spectator.”
- Rather than introducing different states of origin, the server uncorked a bottle for some diners and twisted off a screw cap for others.
- The server didn’t mention the origin, but highly praised the wine for some diners while simply pouring it for others.
- Some diners received a free glass of wine, while others didn’t (but couldn’t actually see they were getting short-changed).
It wouldn’t surprise me if all of these variations had some kind of effect on the perception of the food and the restaurant. Managers of restaurants and other kinds of retail environments need to realize that tiny things done differently can have a big impact. I can certainly imagine a restaurant operator reading about this study and thinking, “I’m giving the customers a free glass of wine, and they are complaining about where it’s from?” In fact, they aren’t saying a word, but their future actions tell the tale.
I’ve noticed that at the popular Olive Garden restaurant chain, servers often begin the meal with a small sample of Italian wine. This small taste doesn’t have the impact of providing a free glass of wine as was done in the Cornell experiment, but it sounds like good business in the context of their research results. I’d always assumed that the purpose of this sampling practice was to sell more wine, which it probably does. In addition, though, might not offering even a taste of Italian wine (an inexpensive house wine, but possessing the aura of its Italian origin) have a positive effect on the perception of the food and ambiance? It’s no doubt a bit challenging for a big U.S. restaurant chain to persuade customers that it’s delivering an authentic Italian taste experience, and I think a bit of Italy from the wine might just rub off on the food.
Getting past wines, what other little details might affect the customer experience? Would Starbucks coffee make dessert taste better? Would quoting positive reviews and citing awards on a restaurant menu subconsciously convince people that their food tasted better? In a clothing store, might a very visible display of expensive designer brand clothing improve the perceived quality of nearby private label items? If something as trivial as the state of origin of a free glass of wine can color an entire dining experience, it’s clear there are no details too small to be ignored when creating a customer experience.
This has me curious about other affects the place of origin can have. for example, what if this site said it originated from California vs N. Dakota. Reminds me how one business owner I knew wanted to have his business number that was within a given area code.
it also depends on what you want as long as you’re enjoying wine that is good so doesnot matter if it is from dakota or california
Clayton, businesses have always chosen “good addresses” to enhance their status with customers. Wines in particular, though, are evaluated by their geography – that’s why there is such a huge fuss over what can be called a Burgundy, for example.
Fitness, I agree that an enjoyable wine is just that, and where it comes from shouldn’t matter. In fact, though, the brains of many people will process the factors surrounding a wine – where it comes from, how it is served, etc. – in deciding how well they like it. It’s not dissimilar to the placebo effect for medicines. If people expect them to work, they often do – even it totally inert. And if they expect the placebo to make them nauseous, they often actually DO get nauseous. Our brains are funny things…
Roger, I have been on both sides of this type of experiment — starting when I was in college and we put cheap, watery beer into containers labled with respected brand names. No one knew the difference. Most recently, I was served wine from a bottle of Two Buck Chuck and was told that it costs only $3 a bottle here on the east coast. I found it to be aweful. The I was informed that it was actually my favorite wine that had been poured into a Charles Shaw bottle just before I arrived. Ah … the mind is an amazing thing.
What I found most interesting in yur post is indeed the spillover effect. Could this be akin to the effect that sposnorships and other forms of affinity marketing have (or hope to have)?
Peter, surely most sponsorships and affinity marketing efforts try to create some kind of positive reputation enhancement by associating the brand with the event, organization, etc. I did find it quite remarkable that the amount of food consumed varied with the wine’s supposed origin – to me, that’s a lot less predictable that wine from a “bad” source tasting bad. A related article about unexpected transference of characteristics from one product to another: Product Contagion.
At first this looked like a good article, but then realized you give a phone number from Indiana in your about page… Sorry I only read marketing articles written in NY, LA, London or Hong Kong
Just kidding 😉
Very interesting, thanks.
Welcome to the Global Economy, Fritz! Actually, I outsource all my blogging to Bangalore.
Well, not really, but it’s a nice thought. 🙂
Roger
I sure know the typical dutch response to seeing a typical US book – one printed with recommendations on it to show how good it is. It’s sceptical. If the book is really good, you don’t need half a dozen people telling me that it is – it’ll vouch for itself. If it’s bad, you do need those 6 recommendations.
I’m pretty sure having anything “recommended” by more than a single person or very few people, even if they’re well known people, is going to reflect badly on the product.
I am an undergraduate student in London studying Psychology and I also work in the wine industry- as a wine trader and helping private customers stock up their cellars with top wine. I found your article so interesting- I’ve always been interested to see weather people actually could distinguish between a cheap and more expensive bottle of wine. I know that some of my clients in fact- can’t do it, and they are simply happy to buy DRC just because it’s a big name and actually they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between DRC and something else like Margaux( which is still about 3 times cheaper).
I am actually looking for an experiment to do for my mini project for uni, and after reading this I have decided to replicate your study and maybe even add a little twist to it to make it even more interesting and different from yours.
Let me know if you have any ideas and any suggestions or want to just have a chat about this- as I feel like we have very similar interests and I could gain valuable info from you and vice versa 😉
I didn’t do the research, Dasha, I’m just reporting on it. But wine is a fascinating area of study because so much of the consumers’ satisfaction and enjoyment depends on their expectations. Good luck!
where it comes from, how it is served, etc. – in deciding how well they like it. It’s not dissimilar to the placebo effect for medicines. If people expect them to work, they often do – even it totally inert. And if they expect the placebo to make them nauseous, they often actually DO get nauseous. Our brains are funny things…