We eat with our eyes

Thanks to Madison Avenue, we are overly swayed by food labels, not taste (there was an earlier thread on this subject). It was proven again the other night on Dateline.

Nine vodka aficinados participated in a blind taste test. They all preferred premium brands such as Ketel-One, one I can't remember, and especially, Grey Goose.

The majority of the taste testers said they hated the taste of sample #1 straight vodka and would never buy it. They had a number of disparaging comments about it, too. You should have seen their faces when they discovered #1 was their favorite: Grey Goose.

And none of them could discern taste differences in vodka mixed drinks, whether it was a cheap vodka or premium.

I believe that wholeheartedly. That is why our wine group always has blind tastings. You wouldn't believe the number of times the $9.99 bottle of Cabernet is preferred over the $50 bottle. Shock and horror ensue.

I saw this all the time in my career as a packaging machinery sales engineer. Coffee companies are the biggest "culprits," but most companies who use their reputation and a certain upper class je ne sais quoi to sell their products will want classier looking packaging, even when the product is the SOS.

A company can buy very spiffy looking pre-made bags (and associated filling and closing equipment), some bags costing upwards of 25¢ each. They have a nicely folded flat bottom, sharp creases on their sides, and perhaps even some recloseability feature. They look really great on some yuppy's counter top next to the salt from France and the olive oil with the rosemary twigs in it, although there is a specific style of the same bag for the tree huggers amongst us. Now, the same company can purchase filling and closing equipment which will make a bag off a roll of packaging material. The equipment costs are usually somewhat lower and the bags might run around 5¢ each, give or take. A no-brainer? Uh-uh!! These bags off the roll don't have that "crisp" look, aren't quite as chic or eco-friendly-looking or whatever as the pre-made bags.

The product in the bag is the same, but consumers seem to purchase based on the look of the bag, the social status it implies, and the blah, blah, blah. They pay through the nose for it, too.

Same as it ever was.

[Jenise]

I believe that wholeheartedly. That is why our wine group always has blind tastings. You wouldn't believe the number of times the $9.99 bottle of Cabernet is preferred over the $50 bottle. Shock and horror ensue.

But that doesn't mean the $50 bottle's a sham, or that the $10 wine is better. It usually just means that either the $50 wine isn't ready to drink yet or the group's taste is skewed toward fleshy, fruit-forward wines. Not to say that all wine is priced fairly, or that a $50 wine isl always better than a $30 wine, say, but given a $10 wine and a $50 wine from the same area, it's generally true that the $50 wine will always be the higher quality wine with more depth and complexity and that, given time, that will be apparent--even blind. Now whether all tasters prefer that difference is another matter.

The vodka thing seems to be a different kind of snobbery. Or at least, I doubt anyone belongs to a vodka tasting group. They buy what they hear is good, and no one wants to be seen with a skid row brand. ;0


Vodka's a different kind of

Vodka's a different kind of

Was that a hiccup at the end of your sentence? Have you been hitting the Importer's vodka again?

Yes, in general, I agree a $50 bottle of wine should be better than a $10 bottle, but not necessarily.

The vodka thing seems to be a different kind of snobbery. Or at least, I doubt anyone belongs to a vodka tasting group. They buy what they hear is good, and no one wants to be seen with a skid row brand. ;0

Well, yes and no, Jenise.

Yes, in that the traditional definition of vodka, the "colorless, odorless spirit" suggests that vodka is vodka is vodka, and the only possible difference would be the either the number of distillations or the amount of filtering post-distillations, either/both of which would result in a 'cleaner' vodka...less impurities, oils, esters, etc., and therefore less hangover inducing.

But that's really not vodka anymore. Vodkas now can be made from a wide variety of ingredients, as suggested by the Hangar One "straight" vodka, which is made with a distillation of part Viognier grapes, or Ciroc, which is made from, purportedly distillates of wines (one would think from that ocean of grapes the Midi farms riot over seemingly every year ---only the Ciroc folks call it "fine French" stuff.). And that's just the straight stuff! We're not going into the major variations of flavored vodkas, a whole nother game.

So while I totally agree that 'vodka is vodka is vodka', and can understand why regular people at a bar wouldn't be able to distinguish one from another (and it's not just vodka, trust me; I've seen it with pretty much any spirit, much to the chagrin of Chivas lovers or Name Your Own Brand devotees), there can be fairly significant differences in taste.

I could subject you to a blind tasting, for instance, of tequilas, or American whiskies, or rums and fairly easily predict which products you would pick as your favorites----with you coming away surprised if you were a fan of any of the liquors on the table. Possible to do it with vodkas too...although admittedly, that's tougher to do with certainty unless you very carefully pick the particular vodkas.

You are also right about the snobbism/market appeal factor. Producers depend upon that; always have. And it seems to be inherent in human nature to want to believe that if there is an average, there must be an above average, or "better", and of course that each of us is capable of appreciating it. When properly convinced, we'll happily pay more for it.

[Jenise]

Vodkas now can be made from a wide variety of ingredients, as suggested by the Hangar One "straight" vodka

Sure, that I realize. And they would all taste different, just as whiskeys and bourbons do. It's just that Scotch and Bourbon drinkers tend to drink their hooch of choice neat, where the majority of vodka drinkers I know mix it. Even the one devotee of Grey Goose that I know. She's the one who drags back many, many cases of Two Buck Chuck from her annual winter trip to Yuma. She says all wine tastes alike.

I guess what I should have said was that of all the hard liquors, I would think vodka drinkers the least likely to recognize their favorite in a blind tasting.

And to Larry: of course there are exceptions, there always are. But in general, what I said is true. When I go to Bill Spohn's monthly blind tasting lunches and everyone has brought fairly high quality wines, the rare times someone tries to slip in a cheapie? It stands out. More expensive wines tend to be more expensive for a reason.

I agree with pretty much everything that has already been posted but would add another observation:

Most people's favorite anything, vodka, pinot noir, car, significant other, etc. is chosen from a limited sample. In other words, those that say Grey Goose is their favorite vodka may have tried only 5 other vodkas when there are more than a hundred options.

So here we have a blind tasting where Grey Goose is one option plus 9 other vodkas that John Doe has never tasted before in his life. I'd say odds are John is gonna find a new favorite.

And once you start mixing.....geez. Absolut on the rocks, yes. Absolut and tonic? A waste.

Most people's favorite anything, vodka, pinot noir, car, significant other, etc. is chosen from a limited sample.

So, we should all try out many more before settling on a significant other? Hmm. Interesting!

So here we have a blind tasting where Grey Goose is one option plus 9 other vodkas that John Doe has never tasted before in his life. I'd say odds are John is gonna find a new favorite.

I believe there were 3 premium vodkas and 1 mass market vodka.

Absolut on the rocks, yes. Absolut and tonic? A waste.

The nine subjects felt the same way about the first statement (five of them said "Grey Goose on the rocks, yes")--until the results of the test, which proved the point of the study. Consumer Reports did a similar test many years ago and they chose Old Mr. Boston vodka. Sounds like a blind taste test is in order.

Now, gin is another matter....

They had a story like this on 20/20, this must the same experiment, no?

The thing was they had these people (who were selected, I imagine, just because they said they had strong feelings about their brand) evaluate the vodkas unchilled and unblended. I strongly doubt any of the tasters ever drink vodka neat. So if the results are that nobody likes Grey Goose at room temperature but none of them drink vodka at room temperature, what's the relevance?

More revealing was the fact that they couldn't distinguish mixed drinks with Grey Goose or the other premium brands from mixed drinks made with Smirnoff (which is priced significantly lower than premium brands). 20/20's analysis tempts one to conclude that therefore people are dedicated to shelling out more dough for the premium brands not due to any differences in quality/taste but due to marketing alone. This conclusion only follows, however, if Smirnoff is representative of the quality of vodkas at its price level. I imagine these people developed these brand loyalties due to negative experiences they had had with other vodkas. Demanding Grey Goose or Ketel One or whatever was a way for them to avoid having whatever random vodka is the rail vodka . . . and I would not be surprised if the tasters could detect some of their lesser-preferred vodkas even in their mixed drinks--which would explain why they developed a preference for a premium brand, any premium brand, even though Smirnoff would have sufficed, had they known about it.

Keith:

I think you've pointed out the basic problem here: there are so many variables, and most of them totally intangible, that there's no "answer". Who knows why people make decisions, and what is influencing the individual?

I've known people who swear by certain brands---and then can't taste, smell, or identify the difference between one brand and another. Yet they continue to hold their brand loyalty. Who knows why? We can suppose, sure, and analyze, yes, but we can't know for certain.

Hey, if somebody likes Grey Goose...even if they have no idea why they like it; if it's the bottle, or a particular ad they saw, or the 'exclusivity' of liking Grey Goose instead of Smirnoff, or whatever....who cares, really (except the advertising/brand marketing guys who depend on thinking they know what motivates people to buy their stuff instead of somebody else's stuff ).

They had a story like this on 20/20, this must the same experiment, no?

Yeah, it was 20/20, not Dateline. I had too many shots.

Keith: Hey, if somebody likes Grey Goose...even if they have no idea why they like it; if it's the bottle, or a particular ad they saw, or the 'exclusivity' of liking Grey Goose instead of Smirnoff, or whatever....who cares, really (except the advertising/brand marketing guys who depend on thinking they know what motivates people to buy their stuff instead of somebody else's stuff ).

I had a friend now deceased (who cares?) who didn't care about anything. I find such experiments and many other things interesting whether I "care" or not. It's called curiosity.