First H a n d
Brand & Flavor: An Experimental Investigation
by Dan Maynes-Aminzade
C
ompanies spend a fortune making
their logos ubiquitous, branding
them into our consciousness. Is this
money well spent? How much do a
product’s brand and packaging affect
our perceptions of what lies within?
Consider wine and distilled
spirits, a product arena in which
luxury brands cost several orders of
magnitude more than their generic
counterparts. My curiosity about the
effect of brand on perception was
piqued when I read of a technique
whereby drinkers on a budget could
reproduce the taste of expensive
vodka. Some enterprising “scientists”
reported that pouring cheap vodka
through a Brita filtration pitcher
achieved the smooth taste of a “top
shelf” brand. I was intrigued—if this
worked, the potential gains would
be staggering. Instead of wasting my
money on Chopin or Grey Goose, I
could purchase a $9 plastic handle
of Vladimir vodka, run it though a
filter, and mix up deliciously smooth
martinis at a fraction of the cost.
My enthusiasm for the method
waned when I saw the suspicious
methods used to evaluate it. The
experimenters began by tasting the
cheap vodka, which they agreed was
horrible. They filtered it once and
drank some more. Naturally, the
vodka continued to taste better with
16
Ambidextrous Sizzling Summer 2007
each pass through the filter. In true
scientific spirit, I decided to replicate
the vodka filtration study under
more controlled conditions. I started
with two vodka varieties: Pavlova,
a foul-smelling but extraordinarily
inexpensive vodka ($8 per liter), and
Ketel One, a Dutch vodka that is
generally very highly regarded ($27 per
liter). Subjects completed two doubleblind taste tests: one comparing
filtered and unfiltered versions of
Pavlova, and one comparing unfiltered
Pavlova to Ketel One.
I came to two conclusions. The
first was rather disappointing:
charcoal filtration does not result in
a significant improvement in taste.
Twelve tasters preferred the filtered
during the filtration process.
My experiment’s second conclusion
was more surprising: most of the
tasters couldn’t tell the difference
between cheap and expensive vodka.
Twelve subjects preferred Ketel One,
eleven preferred Pavlova, and one
had no opinion. I myself preferred the
Ketel One; I wasn’t sure whether to be
pleased with my refined taste in vodka
or disappointed that I couldn’t reduce
my monthly martini budget.
Since taste preferences were split
between the cheap and expensive
brands, shall we conclude that buying
“top shelf” vodka is a waste of
money? Not necessarily. Blind taste
tests conducted in a lab fail to take
into account the preconditioning
Our perception of a product’s quality is often influenced by
external factors like its packaging and brand, which transfer
into what we perceive as our direct perception alone.
vodka, eleven preferred it unfiltered,
and one had no opinion. Using a
hydrometer, I measured the alcohol
concentration of the vodka and found
that while the unfiltered vodka was
82 proof, the filtered vodka was only
78 proof. Hence the slight preference
for filtered vodka is probably due to
the fact that some alcohol evaporates
that normally goes into our gustatory
judgments. When sampling vodka,
we make a series of unconscious
assessments based not only on the
sensations from our taste buds and
nostrils, but also on other sensory
experiences. All of these combine into
one general impression, which may
not be strictly accurate. Marketing
with Vodka
Subjects failed to detect this: seven
of the twelve tasters preferred vodka
from the Absolut bottle, four preferred
vodka from the Popov bottle, and
one had no preference. Furthermore,
they had strong opinions about their
preferences, and some participants
even had elaborate justifications:
“Absolut’s flavor is more subtle
and refined,” said one taster, “while
Popov’s bluntness resembles rubbing
alcohol.” “They start out the same,”
explained another taster, “but Absolut
has a smoother finish.”
I am forced to conclude that
the optimal strategy is to buy an
expensive, top-shelf brand of vodka…
once. Drink it yourself, save the empty
bottle, and refill it with a cheaper
and less-respected brand. If you get
caught, tell your friends that you
were simply trying to use sensation
transference to improve their cocktail
party experience.
Photo by Malte Jung
pioneer Louis Cheskin described this
concept as sensation transference:
our perception of a product’s quality
is often influenced by external factors
like its packaging and brand, which
transfer into what we perceive as our
direct perception alone.
Since I was about to throw a party,
I needed to know whether buying
an expensive brand of vodka was
worthwhile. I decided to conduct a
second experiment examining how
much our preconception of a brand’s
quality affects its perceived taste. I
began with two varieties of vodka: the
mid-priced Swedish vodka Absolut,
and Popov, a vodka manufactured
in Ohio that can be acquired for less
than one third of Absolut’s price.
Absolut comes in an elegant, frosted
glass bottle with a metal seal; the
shape of this bottle has become
legendary thanks to an ingenious
advertising campaign spanning
several decades. Popov comes in an
oversize, ridged plastic bottle with a
simple red-and-black sticker.
My second test was not blind; the
bottles were displayed prominently.
I told tasters which vodkas they
were sampling and asked for their
preference. Unbeknownst to them, I
had secretly filled both bottles with
Popov, so they were always drinking
the same vodka.
Sizzling Summer 2007 Ambidextrous
17