64. The Days of Wine and Mouses

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode examines whether wine experts and ratings can reliably distinguish quality from price, using blind tastings, a fake restaurant, and a restaurant “mouse in the salad” crisis. Across the stories, the core finding is that price and prestige heavily influence perception, expertise is imperfect, and transparency plus accountability matter more than image management when things go wrong.

Main Topics: Levitt’s cheap-food palate and skepticism about wine (Priority: 4/5): Steve Levitt describes loving inexpensive food and disliking wine, framing the episode’s question: whether refined wine palates are actually superior or just more complicated. Blind tastings and the limits of expertise (Priority: 5/5): Levitt and Brian Demarco each run informal blind tastings suggesting people often fail to identify expensive wine as better, and may even rate identical wines differently when presentation changes. Price signaling and the psychology of taste (Priority: 5/5): Robin Goldstein’s research argues that knowing a wine’s price changes how people experience it, with expectations shaping ratings more than sensory differences alone. Fake restaurant, real award (Priority: 5/5): Goldstein creates a fictitious restaurant, submits a fabricated wine list to Wine Spectator, and still receives an Award of Excellence, illustrating flaws in expert gatekeeping and media awards. The mouse-in-salad crisis at Le Pain Quotidien (Priority: 5/5): A dead mouse found in a salad becomes a case study in crisis response, consumer trust, and how a company’s transparency can preserve loyalty after a severe mistake. Corporate response, transparency, and trust (Priority: 4/5): Le Pain Quotidien’s CEO eventually embraces openness and responsibility, arguing that honesty, empathy, and quick acknowledgment are essential when handling public failures.

Key Arguments: People often enjoy cheap food more than expensive food if they are naturally disposed to it; taste is not inherently linked to price. Wine experts and educated tasters may not reliably distinguish expensive wine from cheap wine in blind settings. Presentation and price cues can alter perception enough that the same wine can seem better or worse depending on what people are told. Expert ratings and awards can be vulnerable to abuse because consumers trust them as neutral judgments when they may function partly as marketing. A fake restaurant with a fake wine list can still win a prestigious award, showing that expert systems can be fooled by appearance and paperwork. In restaurant crises, transparent communication and taking responsibility can preserve customer trust better than silence or defensive behavior. The mouse incident did not necessarily contradict Le Pain Quotidien’s organic philosophy; it exposed the complexity of sourcing and quality assurance. A company’s long-term resilience depends more on authenticity and how it responds to setbacks than on pretending problems did not happen.

Data Points: Society of Fellows wine cost: $60 per meal - Levitt estimated the wine cost for each dinner at Harvard’s Society of Fellows Wine tasting bottle price: about $100 per bottle - Levitt selected two expensive wines for the blind tasting Cheap bottle price: around $8 - Levitt used the cheapest same-grape bottle available for comparison Wine list application fee: $250 - Goldstein used a fee-based application to Wine Spectator for his fake restaurant Bad review score: 67 points - Wine Spectator’s prior rating for a 1982 Brunello di Montalcino listed on the fake wine menu Goldstein study size: 17 blind tastings - Aggregate dataset used in his academic paper Observations: more than 6,000 - Total observations in Goldstein’s analysis Participants: more than 500 - Number of people whose tasting results were included Wine price range: $1.65 to $150 per bottle - Range of wines tested in Goldstein’s study Restaurant chain size: more than 150 locations worldwide - Le Pain Quotidien’s scale as described by the CEO New York locations: a couple dozen in Manhattan - The chain’s presence in New York City

Pivotal Quotes: "the data could not have cooperated more completely with my hypotheses" — Steve Levitt: After the Harvard blind tasting showed no preference for expensive wines "everyone liked the 50 bottle better in both circumstances because they perceive that the price they're had either they thought there's something they're missing" — Brian Demarco: Demarco explains how price cues affected his staff’s blind tasting perceptions "we were just human beings talking to another human being and saying this happened you know we're not gonna run away from it" — Vincent Herbert: The Le Pain Quotidien CEO describing the company’s response to the mouse incident

Implications: Listeners should be skeptical of price-based assumptions in wine and other taste-driven markets. For brands, honesty and fast accountability can protect trust better than silence, especially when expert systems or quality claims are exposed as imperfect.