The Question Of Value

Written by Ian Robertson on 18th April 2005

Right up front, I am going to come out and say it. I don't like paying any more than $35 for a bottle of wine. In fact, if I pay more than $35 for a bottle of wine, it had better be bloody good. (Must be my Scottish heritage coming out or something?)

But, I am not the only one. In fact, most wine drinkers do not want to spend more than $15 on a bottle.

I tell you this in part to come clean about the way Wine Without Wank rates value on this site, and also in part to give you the other side of the story - why some wine costs more than this.

Our value ratings are created very much with consumer thinking in mind. If an "average" consumer spends more than $15 on a bottle of wine, they are expecting a solid quality product. If they are spending more than $35, they are expecting an amazing product.

If the wine is not amazing, this average buyer is going to be disappointed.

In a more extreme example of what I am talking about, take the punter who spends $450 for a bottle of Penfolds Grange. It is quite likely that he will like the product within. Will he consider it good value? Will he consider it ten times better than Penfolds Bin 389, therefore justifying ten times the price? (I am of course assuming that he is buying it to drink it. Let's face it - many don't, which brings in a whole other definition of value and "investment" - but I digress.)

In wine, as in many walks of life, there is quite often a law of diminishing returns. If a more expensive wine is double the price of another, it is probably not twice as good. Sometimes it is nowhere near as good!

Because of this factor, and the consumer's obvious leaning towards certain price points, we have adopted a strict model on the subject of value. Wines are assessed for quality. Once this rating has been applied, we look at how much it costs. From this, we derive the value. For a reminder about how we determine value, see Review Criteria

This can mean that some producers will think that we treat their wines harshly when it comes to value. A small, quality based producer making a good wine at a price point of $30 would get a value rating of 'A Little Excessive.' Given all that I discussed earlier, this is not too harsh, is it?

Well, consider that the producer probably crops with a low yield to increase quality in their fruit, thus making less final product. They have bottling costs, distribution, storage, labelling and marketing. Pricing their product as they have may still not mean that they make a tidy profit -just the opposite in many cases. So you can understand why they might get a bit tetchy when a wine writer comes along, slaps ratings on their products and then assesses them as poor value.

So, am I saying that the bigger companies will tend to be the ones that produce the better-valued wines? While there are no hard and fast rules, you would have to say that they certainly have a head start by being able to keep production costs per bottle lower than a smaller operator.

Our site is aimed at consumerist thinking. Consumers want high quality, low cost. The value rating reflects that.

We use a tone that makes light of all this to try and bring a bit of fun to it all, but remember that the smaller producers have a lot more against them in the area of value. I hope that makes you think the next time you pick up a bottle and almost fall over at the cost on the sticker.

After all, think about how empty the store shelves would be like without them, and the variety they offer. Think about how slack the "big boys" might get on quality without some of the excellent smaller producers pushing them.

And most of all, remember that it is only a drink.