Assuming the second cheapest bottle of wine is the biggest rip off is a myth, experts assure boozers

0

You’re NOT a splash if you pick the second cheapest bottle of wine: the assumption it’s the biggest rip off is a myth, experts assure budget-conscious boozers

  • Researchers found that the biggest rip off is usually the third cheapest bottle of wine
  • Economists compared restaurant and retail prices of 6,000 wines for the study
  • Research also found the average price of restaurant wine to be three times that of retail

Diners looking for a face-saving bottle of wine without breaking the bank have often looked at the second cheapest bottle on the list.

This led to the assumption that the second cheapest option would be the biggest rip off, with restaurateurs grabbing cheap skates and not settling for the cheapest option.

But a groundbreaking study by researchers at the London School of Economics has found that the biggest rip off is somewhere in the middle, with the third cheapest bottle usually having the largest markup.

Some people thought that the second cheapest bottle of wine was the biggest rip off before the study published the results

Some people thought that the second cheapest bottle of wine was the biggest rip off before the study published the results

The economists compared the restaurant and retail prices of 6,000 wines and found that those in the center of the menu showed the greatest difference.

The study also found that drinking per bottle only helps drinkers save about 7 percent compared to the same amount of glass per glass.

After posting 6,335 wines sold at 249 London restaurants through a price comparison site, the researchers found that the second cheapest wine had, on average, a lower price than the four second most expensive options.

LSE professor David de Meza said the assumption that drinkers would look to the second cheapest wine to save face cannot withstand criticism.

He said in the study, also published in the TelegraphIf the shyness theory is so widely known, one could very well conclude that the next cheapest wine becomes an even less attractive choice for diners than the cheapest, as it is not only considered a bad buy but also an indication indicates a lamentable attempt to appear prosperous.

And even when diners act like naive behavioral types, it’s not obvious that all restaurateurs want to exploit them.

The survey found that 'it was not obvious that all restaurateurs wanted to exploit them' as they looked at more than 6,300 wines sold

The survey found that ‘it was not obvious that all restaurateurs wanted to exploit them’ as they looked at more than 6,300 wines sold

Our study challenges the idea and finds that the percentage mark-up on the second cheapest wine is significantly lower than that on the third, fourth and fifth cheapest wine and well below the peak margin, which usually occurs around the average wine. on the menu.’

The sales price made more sense to use as a comparison for consumers, who would not be aware of the wholesale price that restaurants are buying from.

The study, a collaboration with the University of Sussex, found that the average price of restaurant wines was more than three times that of store wines – an increase comparable for red and white wines.

Advertisement

.