Which wine descriptors make a superstar? Evidence from Wine Spectator database

Wine can be defined as a so-called “experience good”, specifically, a product for which quality and other characteristics can be determined only after consumption (Storchmann, 2012). For this reason, the wine market presents information asymmetries, since consumers have less information about the product’s qualities with respect to producers (Pennerstorfer, Weiss, & Huber, 2019). Bearing this in mind, it is no surprise that, during the last decades, wine magazines have become popular, in particular with respect to ratings of fine wines. It has been proved by multiple researches that some wine critics and their rankings have even become influential in determining the price of wines. Notably, Ali at al. (2005) have tried to assess the impact that the ratings of Robert Parker may have on Bordeaux wine prices, finding a “Parker effect”, which is estimated to be around 2.80 euros per bottle (Hadj Ali, Lecoq, & Visser, 2005). Additionally, Schamel (2009) used data from Wine Spectator to prove the impact of quality characteristics over consumers’ willingness to pay. The author shows that, on average, a 1% increase in sensory quality can correspond to a 2.9% increase in price (Schamel, 2000). A further research was conducted by Oczkowski and Doucouliagos (2015), where, through the use of a Meta-Regression analysis over 180 hedonic price studies, they found a positive correlation of +0.30 between wine prices and quality ratings (Oczkowski & Doucouliagos, 2015). A bit differently from the above-mentioned studies, Ramirez (2010) has, instead, tried to evaluate if the tasting notes used to describe a certain have any impact on its price. The author uses tasting notes published on Wine Spectator and considers both the length of the note and the number of “analytical” words contained in it, to see if they affect the wine’s price. Ramirez finds that longer tasting notes can result in higher prices, while, on the other hand, the use of analytical words has limited effect on wine prices (Ramirez, 2010). On a lighter note, Richard Quandt (2007) examined the descriptors used in 24 evaluations of wines, including also reviews from publications such as the Wine Advocate, the Wine Spectator, the Wine Enthusiast. He then proceeds to compile a list of “bullshit” terms, which he considers not to be of any meaning in the evaluation of a wine, and then he creates three fictional descriptions, which he considers not so different from three actual descriptions (Quandt, 2007). Starting from Quandt’s work, Capehart (2021) examines consumers’ willingness to pay for wines that include any of Quandt’s “bullshit” descriptors. The author finds that, for most of them, consumers have a zero or near-zero marginal willingness to pay (MWTP), but for some others there is a non-zero MWTP, meaning that they are valued by some consumers. Capehart suggests that this may be caused by a subjective effect, rather than real qualities of the wine (Capehart, 2021). As confirmed by the aforementioned studies, quality ratings seem to have indeed an influence on wine prices, in particular for top-quality ones. It is then in the best interest of producers to be able to obtain high scores from wine critics. For this reason, the aim of this study is to try to expand the existing literature about the quality-price relationship in wines, by trying to assess which are the descriptors in quality ratings that are more commonly found in the reviews of top-quality wines, that is, those with a score between 95 and 100. To conduct our analysis, we use the ratings published by the American magazine Wine Spectator, one of the most important ones about wine, which every year publishes several wine ratings and tasting notes. We consider white and red