Selling Grapes

We decided to expand on the subject of our last blog: wine. So, at the risk of sounding like a bunch of…well…winos, we came up with a couple of brand/image experiments we thought could apply to our professional lives. Two “experiments” were proposed:

• A visual comparison of wine labels/packaging/naming, using products priced from $7 to $50 a bottle
• A taste testing of wines, all in the under $10 category

Most adults have had the experience of having to purchase wine for occasions where guests would be attending. If you’re proficient at this, congratulations. But, if you’re like most of us, you either 1) buy something that you’ve tried and feel “comfortable” with, 2) ask a store employee for recommendations, or 3) look at labels, bottles and names that you somehow find interesting or appealing.

Since undoubtedly you’ve had occasions where you were running late, were in the grocery store, and didn’t have time to get to “Ye Old Oak Barrel Wine Cellars” before your guests arrived, you’ve probably experienced number 3. From this scenario, we conducted a test. We placed seven bottles of wine in front of a couple of dozen individuals (one at a time), and asked them to put the bottles in order of least-to-most expensive. Here were the labels:

Here are the results on what people perceived to be most to least expensive, and the price per bottle:

1. Gerard Bertrand – 2010 France, Picpoul de Pinet (under $10)
2. Beringer – 2009 California, Chardonnay (under $10)
3. Jericho Canyon – 2010 California, Sauvignon Blanc ($28)
4. Vincent Arroyo – 2009 California, Melange ($50)
5. Ecco Domani – 2006 Italy, Pinot Grigio (under $10)
6. Starry Night – 2010 California, Sauvignon Blanc ($12)
7. Cannonball – 2010 California, Sauvignon Blanc ($14)

Obviously the branding, the product name and the labels had some influence on people’s perceptions. In the case of the Gerard Bertrand, the name sounds impressive, and the split label and copy look very “French,” as does the green bottle with raised graphic elements. This branding got the most first-place votes for perceived expensiveness.

The Cannonball got the most last-place votes. Most felt the label looked too playful to be a serious wine product, although the couple of people who felt the opposite about the branding tended to like it very much. The Starry Night got the most second-to-last-place votes, but also had a couple of supporters. Almost all were underwhelmed with the label on the Vincent Arroyo bottle, thinking that it didn’t befit a $50 product.

Lesson Reaffirmation: Good branding, packaging, naming, creative and attention to detail get people’s attention, and in a very positive way. The opposite can be extremely counterproductive. (i.e. Naming a $500,000 Bentley the “EcoCuddlebug” is probably not good strategy. Conversely, naming a subcompact car the “UltraPlatinum Edition Phaeton” doesn’t cut it either.)

We next decided to test the difference between perception and reality. We decided to “taste test” different wines in the same price range, and asked staff members who wanted to participate to bring in a bottle of white wine priced at $10 or less (red is for a future “experiment”). We took the three “under $10” products listed above, and added two additional wines in the same price range:

Eight “tasters” were selected, while others were assigned duties such as uncorking, marking glasses, pouring and tallying data. Products were poured in a secure area, and only numbered glasses were taken to the test area.

Initially, all tasters sampled the same wine simultaneously, and voiced their impressions for all to hear and discuss. A surprising majority agreed on the first product’s attributes. Within minutes, this protocol deteriorated, as some tasters went quickly to the next samples, while others lingered on the previous. Soon, disagreement became the norm, as participants unknowingly compared, say, #3 with #5, thinking they both were sipping (gulping?) the same stuff. (Note to self at that moment: Are you @#%*% crazy?!!)

Order was eventually restored, and data collectors received each participant’s ratings in order of preference. As expected, no two scorecards were identical, but the taste test results were near unanimous:

1. Gerard Bertrand (under $10)
2. flipflop (2010 California, Pinot Grigio ($7, screw-off cap)
3. Bogle (2010 California, Sauvignon Blanc ($9)
4. Ecco Domani (under $10)
5. Beringer (under $10)

The flipflop (all lower case…clever, huh?) was a total surprise. Everyone agreed that given the “cutesy” name and label (check out the peace signs), the screw-off top and the $7 price tag, none would have even remotely considered a purchase, having seen the bottle on the shelf. Yet it came in a strong second place in the taste tests (and #1 on two of the scorecards).

Lesson reaffirmation #2: Obviously, you can’t always “judge a book by its cover,” but strong branding can certainly induce people to at least try, or consider, a product (which is exactly what our clients make us responsible for). After that initial response, it’s up to the products themselves to keep them coming back.

What we wonder about is the exact opposite of the “flipflop surprise.” How many really great products or services have failed because people aren’t interested enough to even give them an initial look?

Hmmm.