Findings
A Change in Taste?
Despite the general fascination with ratings, it appears that young adults with limited wine knowledge do not prioritize expert ratings, whether word-based or numerical, for their wine selections. Our audience seems to rely more on closely related sources of information, such as recommendations from friends and acquaintances, as well as certain indicators like alcohol level and wine description, which provide more objective insights into intrinsic attributes like flavor and aroma. This preference contrasts with generally considered more reliable and authoritative sources, such as expert ratings.
While our audience expresses a highly positive attitude toward the trustworthiness of wine ratings, the actual frequency of use is very low. The minimal use of ratings could be explained by the high level of unfamiliarity and awareness of their general influence on wine selection. Participants, being aware of their own limitations and the strong effect of ratings, may be avoiding their use to prevent being misled or swayed by popular tastes. The low selection rate of critics' ratings, both numerical (9.09%) and word-based (13.30%), compared with most other factors having a selection rate over 30%, suggests a more self-oriented buying behavior that emphasizes catering to individual preferences rather than following expert opinions or popular trends.
In the simulated wine choice scenario, it is notable that only options B and D incorporate word-based ratings. The comparatively low selection rate for these options may indicate that our audience displays a higher level of interest and sensitivity toward numerical ratings. This is observed notwithstanding the potentially limited comprehension of the true meaning of numerical rating scores, as suggested by the substantial discrepancy in their own assessments of an 80-point wine. The lowest selection rate of bottle D, where the two types of rating conflicted, featuring the lowest numerical rating but high appreciation demonstrated in the word-based rating, once again implies our audience's preference for numerical ratings over word-based ones.
Remarkably, nearly one-third of participants opted for bottle A, where conflicting ratings were provided, and comparatively minimal information was presented. Among those who selected bottle A, 90% identified rating as the most important factor influencing their decision. This implies a tendency within our audience to potentially overlook the lower rating and focus solely on the higher one. Alternatively, it may indicate a lack of significant regard for expert consensus in their decision-making process. Bottle C, the most expensive of the options, emerged as the most frequently chosen, which aligns with the overall importance attributed to price as a deciding factor. This observed pattern implies a potential misconception within our audience, wherein a higher price is construed as an indication of superior quality.
As previously mentioned, a notable discrepancy exists in how our audience rated an 80-point wine, with nearly half providing ratings that deviate from the official definition. Within this subset of participants, 37.93% rated the 80-point wine as higher in quality than the score is supposed to indicate. This suggests that the influence of the rating system on our audience's wine selection could be detrimental, as they may expect a higher quality than what the rating score actually signifies.
Higher Price ≠ Better Quality
The misconception surrounding rating scores is closely tied to the limited wine knowledge within our audience, as evidenced by the finding that over half of all participants are unaware that the Parker Rating Scale starts from 50. It is reasonable to infer that this gap between consumer expectation and actual quality, fostered by a misunderstanding of the rating score, is prevalent among our audience. This is noteworthy considering that many rating systems have implicit rules, such as the Amerine and Roessler (1983) wine rating system or the 21-point scale, which actually ranges between 0-20, with 20 being the highest score.
In terms of preferred rating systems, as advocated in scholarly literature, individuals with limited expertise exhibit greater receptivity to simpler messages. An overwhelming 80% of our surveyed audience expressed a preference for the 5-star rating system, with the 100-point scale securing the second-highest endorsement. Not only are these two systems most prevalent, but they also represent the most ubiquitous scales across various contexts. This prevalence implies that individuals tend to gravitate towards rating systems with which they are acquainted. Conversely, the 3-points system and the Thumbs up/Down and Meh system ranked at the bottom of the preferences. This observation suggests that an excessively simplistic approach is not well-received. Hence, it can be inferred that a certain degree of complexity is anticipated, as a judicious level of intricacy facilitates better discrimination in the evaluation process.