I would like to introduce the content of a fascinating article published in the German wine magazine "der deutsche Weinbau."
Image or Sensation?
The title of this article is "Image vs. Sensorik." If we translate this somewhat freely, it becomes "Image or Sensation."
This article was written about the results of a wine survey. The survey methodology was as follows:
- Conduct blind tastings of wines made in natural wine style versus wines made in conventional style, and record the results
- Subsequently, provide oral explanations to subjects about the natural wine-style wine, including information about the wine and the producer's concept, then survey their purchase intentions
The subjects of this survey were 100 wine enthusiasts, not average wine consumers. In other words, the targets were people who knew more about wine than average and already had their own established axes for wine consumption behavior and wine evaluation criteria.
Regarding the wines used in the survey, the same wine was used from pressing through completion of fermentation. After that, those finished in conventional wine style underwent sulfur dioxide addition and filtration, while those made in natural wine style were bottled without any sulfur dioxide addition or filtration. As wines, both had the same total acid content, but there was a difference in residual sugar levels. The conventional style retained about 7g/l, while the natural wine style underwent malolactic fermentation in the bottle, resulting in nearly 0g/l residual sugar.
Regarding this malolactic fermentation, as mentioned in the article "Do You Really Understand Sulfur Dioxide? Part 1," it cannot be controlled as long as winemaking methods premised on no sulfur dioxide addition are used. While it is undesirable for a survey to have the condition of each wine change, this can be understood as unavoidable.
The Tasting Results Were Devastatingly Clear
The results of the blind tasting of each wine were devastatingly clear.
When subjects were asked to score the wines on a maximum 9-point scale, the conventionally-made wine averaged 5.6 points with a maximum score of 9 points. In contrast, the natural wine-style wine averaged only 3.4 points, with a maximum score of 8 points. In terms of score distribution, the conventional wine was broadly distributed from 4 to 8 points, centered around 7 points, while the natural wine style was centered around 2 points, with approximately 70% of responses falling between 2 and 4 points.
In other words, the natural wine-style wine was overwhelmingly rated lower in blind tasting evaluation and was not considered a wine that would normally satisfy drinkers. This result indicated a wine that would not be purchased. Incidentally, 47% of respondents judged this natural wine-style wine as "not wine," and 21% of all subjects clearly responded that it was "unpalatable."
What made this survey's results interesting was what happened next.
Natural Wine Still Gets Purchased
Certainly, the blind tasting results judged the natural wine-style wine as not worth purchasing. However, when subjects were subsequently given direct oral explanations that this wine was a natural wine made based on such concepts, and their purchase intentions for this natural wine-style wine were confirmed, a full 40% of all subjects expressed purchase intentions for this wine.
However, there is an important point to note here.
The fact is that the average score given to this wine by people who actually expressed purchase intentions was 3.9 points, which was higher than the 3.1-point average of subjects who did not express purchase intentions, and even higher than the overall average of 3.4 points. In other words, there was a premise that subjects who expressed purchase intentions had somewhat positive evaluations of this wine. Nevertheless, since the score was 3.9 out of a possible 9 points, the wine was still receiving rather negative evaluation as a wine.
What this tells us is that the orally explained origins and concepts of the wine played a sufficient role in overcoming this somewhat negative evaluation.
Additionally, the average age of the group that expressed purchase intentions was lower than that of the group that did not express purchase intentions.
Taste Comes Second or Third
The research actually summarized it this way and conducted further in-depth investigation.
They surveyed the images that both the group expressing purchase intentions and the group not expressing purchase intentions held regarding natural wine.
As a result, the group expressing purchase intentions showed higher rates of empathy with the concept than the group that did not. However, what was even more noteworthy was the discovery that they held images of "modern" and "interesting" at considerably higher levels than the group that did not express purchase intentions. On the other hand, both the group expressing purchase intentions and the group not expressing them showed no difference in the proportion holding images of natural wine as "good for the body" or "healthy."
In other words, it became clear that the motivation for buying this natural wine lay not in empathy with the concept plus consciousness about taste and health, but in images of being "contemporary" and "interesting." Such results are considered to be related to the younger age composition of the group expressing purchase intentions, and this seems likely to be the case.
This research concluded regarding the sales potential of natural wine: "Even if evaluation of the wine itself when actually consumed is low, the sales opportunities for these wines can be clearly increased by personally explaining concepts and origins to customers at wineries, retail stores, or restaurants."
Is There Meaning in Something That Cannot Be Distinguished?
The first thing I thought when seeing this survey was "boom."
Honestly, my dominant impression, both now and in the past, is that the current natural wine popularity is nothing more than a boom.
While I think this is largely because I don't have a negative impression of sulfur dioxide, for example, I believe what's most significant is that this impression results from judging based on whether something actually tastes good. As I've written in previous articles, I am completely neutral toward natural wine itself. I neither think it's good nor bad. If it tastes good, I have no complaints.
It's simply that there are few wines of this type that I want to drink, so negative opinions stand out as a result.
As was also written in this survey article, it is extremely difficult for consumers to distinguish whether a wine they have drunk is biologique (organic), biodynamique (biodynamic), or natural wine unless the concept is explained to them beforehand or afterward. And this raises the question of how much difference there really is in something that cannot be distinguished without explanation.
In this sense, this research result was very convincing to me because what I had long questioned had become a numerical result.
Wine Is Bought and Consumed Through Empathy
However, wine is also a product of the producer's idea (philosophy).
It is natural for conceptual elements such as the winemaker's attitude, way of thinking, and approach to be involved there, in addition to direct elements like taste and aroma. Wine is something where you could ask what would remain if these were removed. Ultimately, wine tastes good because we empathize with the producer, and realistic amounts of acid and sugar could be said to be elements that only intervene to about the extent of explaining results.
Perhaps the only point that producers should truly concentrate on in winemaking is how much empathy they can gather for the wines they make, including both direct and indirect means.
