Bad vodka into good vodka

[MortalNuts]

Hypothesis: Filtering cheap vodka through a Brita filter will remove nasty impurities and result in smoother, better-tasting vodka.

Experiment: here. (http://www.ohmygoditburns.com) (ohmygoditburns.com)

I found out about this yesterday, and we set about duplicating the experiment ourselves last night. My own report will follow at some point. (It works, more or less.)

cheers,

mn

[Reef]

GENIUS!

[BonJoviJones]

Seriously good stuff. I am awaiting a trip report.

I'm curious how much if fucks with the filter. I have a filter, but I'd hate to ruin it on a single bottle of cheap vodka. I'd bet the filter is good for multiple bottles.

[astroglide]

i'm pretty skeptical of this one, i would think it wouldn't cost a whole lot to do reverse osmosis on cheap ass vodka at the plant in order to jack up the price.

[DCIAce]

This is a fantastic idea.

I'm curious how long the filter would last too. If it's only for one bottle, it's not cost effective.. but if the filter would last a while, it'd be worth putting together some kind of device to filter it through that didn't involve the plastic pitcher.

[BonJoviJones]

It may be a manner of versioning. IE, people want to buy cheap vodka, so a company will sell foul tasting vodka. They could make it better, but then people would buy the cheap-but-good stuff over the moderatly-priced-but-good stuff.

An clearer example of versioning is Intel's 486DX/SX chips. The chips were identical, save the SX had features disabled. The SX chips cost marginally more to produce, but Intel sold them for cheaper.

The point is, there may be economic reasons to produce foul tasting vodka. That said, I'm somewhat skeptical, but wouldn't discount it.

[astroglide]

they could charge the same and be the hands-down winner in the budget market too

[BonJoviJones]

But then they'd lose the slightly more expensive market entirely. Why sell good stuff for cheap, even if it's cheap to make.

Charge what the market expects.

Make the cheap people suffer, not because you dislike them, but to keep the border-line cheap people from being cheap.

Not particullary nice, but it could be what is happening.

[chabibi]

This could be a great marketing strategy for Britta

[BonJoviJones]

Imagine the sales figures near colleges...

[astroglide]

if 2 things cost the exact same and one clearly tastes better it will win. i don't get how people can buy popov over a good reasonably priced one like skyy.

[Thythe]

It's certainly an interesting situation and can be solved by using Utility functions and other economic analysis. Let us first assume that there are two customers A and B. Customer A values bad tasting vodka at 10 and good tasting vodka at 40. Customer B values bad tasting vodka at 10 and good tasting vodka at 15. Next let us assume that both vodkas cost nothing to produce and that both customers are rational utility maximizers.

Now the company has a choice to sell both bad vodka and good vodka, or just good vodka. If they sold both they could charge 10 for the bad vodka (and the lower customers would buy it) and 39.99 for the good vodka. This results in an approximate profit of 50. If they only sold good vodka (which is suggested by some) then they could sell it at 15 and make 30 profit (both customers buy) or sell it at 40 and sell only one for a profit of 40.

This is the reason that a company would choose to sell bad vodka even though they could turn it into good vodka for free.

[Kenrick]

Interesting! I only drink vodka because it's about the only 70 or 80-proof thing that doesn't taste like crap that doesn't have the price of 100-proof Yukon Jack or 30-proof Midori. The price/taste ratio is interesting to me because if I wanted something that tastes good I'd just drink chocolate milk. Otherwise, if I want to feel something, it's generally citrus vodka and I don't care what kind since most 70 or 80-proof things all taste iffy. A filter to make cheap stuff taste even better is something to look into.

[DonWaade]

Vodka through a Britta Water filter. . . . . Brilliant!!!

[J.R.]

As the experiment concludes, filtering crap doesn't make it grey goose. Using your model (which doesn't account for varying degrees of goodness between "good" and "bad"), sell your grey goose at 40, and filter your "bad" vodka so that it becomes bearable vodka, sell it at 10.

If one has a utility function of 10 for bad vodka and a 15 for good, they appreciate quality to some degree, just not as great as the true conniseur (who appreciated good vodka at 40). These lesser enjoyers of good vodka will still demand your mediocre vodka for 10 far more than the competition(which is the real issue here) becuase your filtered bad vodka is better than the compeition's bad (unless the costs of filtration are too great). You aren't a monopoly, so you can't simply make good and bad. You have to make a better or cheaper or more well marketed or a combination thereof of cheap or good vodka to profit in either market.

[Daliman]

Brita filters are supposed to be soaked in water (vodka?) for about 45 minutes i think, then rinsed through before their first usage. THis may have made some difference in the initial filtration.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Brita filters are supposed to be soaked in water (vodka?) for about 45 minutes i think, then rinsed through before their first usage. THis may have made some difference in the initial filtration.

[/ QUOTE ]In the comments, the experimenter mentions taht he did actually do that.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]

Imagine the sales figures near colleges...

[/ QUOTE ]

Since most dorm rooms don't have sinks, I think Brita is doing pretty well in the college market. I hadn't even heard of Brita or thought about the concept of filtering water while keeping it cold until I got to school.

-McGee

[Daliman]

ah, missed that.

[Thythe]

I was assuming that there was only "good" and "bad." If you are going to add a 3rd category of better bad vodka then the whole thing would change. In the situation you mentioned, the buyers of the good vodka (at P=40) are getting a utility of approximately 0. It is pretty much assured that they would get a utility of greater than 0 if the bad vodka was made a little better. They would then buy the better bad vodka and the market for their good vodka would disappear.

[The once and future king]

Cheap alchohol is brewed in generic brewing plant that will be brewing several different things over any given month/year.

The process you mention would probaly reqiure an investment in plant machinery but more importantly tie up facilities in said plant for a longer period. The owners of said plant will want to maximise throuput and output of said plant to maximise profit.

If they were to carry out said procedure they would have to charge more for the plant hire because of the extra processing time . This would be passed on the consumer.

[J.R.]

no, the "conniseurs" would still have the same utility for good vodka. Only if one is indifferent between "good" and "bad" vodka would it not a make a difference that some "bad" vodka is better than other bad "vodka". The fact that both groups value quality at all (which is evidenced by the different utilty between "good" and "bad") means that all things equal (i.e. no price disrcrimination between "bad" vodkas), they will chose the best "bad" vodka. But the marginal improvement of quality fo "bad" vodka will have no impact on the true conniseurs utility for "good" vodka, which is still on a different playing field than the filtered "bad" vodka.

"the buyers of the good vodka (at P=40) are getting a utility of approximately 0."

They have a utility of 10 for "bad" vodka, and as the filtered "bad" vodka is better than otherwise "bad vodka", one would presume they have a utility greater than 10 (utility is just a point by piint representation of demand) for the better, filtered "bad" vodka. But that doesn't effect the fact that they still value "good" vodka at 40. They purchasing habits may change due to price considerations, but utility only looks at hedonistic satisfaction, and does not consider the practical constarints imposed by a limited disposable income. That there is a 3rd tier doesn't change the utility the conniseur gets from top shelf, but it may effect their purchasing habits

[Thythe]

Isn't a person's utility calculated by subtracting what they pay for it and the marginal utility of receiving the unit? For example, when the higher group pays $40 for the good vodka and their willingness to pay is $40, they receive a Utility of 0 out of this situation (40-40). Interestingly then if the bad vodka was to lower to P=$9 the good vodka drinkers will prefer it since they value it at $10 and will pay $9 giving them an excess utility of 1.

If the good vodka drinkers value the bad vodka at $10 and P=$10, then we assume they'll buy the good vodka though they will be indifferent really. They receive 0 utility under both situations (this is why I suggested in my original analysis that the price of the good vodka be $39.99 so that they will have an excess utility of 1 cent as compared to 0). Now if the quaility of the bad vodka rises the price will stay the same (an assumption we made). Now the good vodka drinkers probably value the bad vodka at something greater than 10 (since it's quality improved). Their utility of purchasing the newer bad vodka will then be some positive number. The utility of purchasing the good vodka is still 0 (their valuation of $40-the cost of the vodka P=$40 which gives them a utility of 0).

[J.R.]

Isn't a person's utility calculated by subtracting what they pay for it and the marginal utility of receiving the unit?

no

[MortalNuts]

An experiment like this one simply begs to be duplicated by impartial, experienced teams around the world. My friends and I decided to do our part for science and vodka drinkers everywhere by attempting to filter dirt-cheap vodka ourselves in the manner described by the ohmygoditburns research team. Our qualifications? We drink a lot. Also, one of us owns a Brita pitcher. I think you'll agree that this makes us ideal for the task.

Our disgusting vodka of choice was Aristocrat, which cost just under $11 for a 1.75-L bottle at the local liquor superstore. We also had a bottle of Kettle One handy for comparison purposes.

Our crack team of vodka tasters began by sampling the pure, unfiltered nastiness that is Aristocrat. It smells like rubbing alcohol, and tastes worse. Tasting notes: "God, this is nasty." "It really does burn." We also made lots of choking noises. Other descriptive adjectives used by our tasters cannot be printed here; you're just going to have to trust me that this stuff is seriously evil. We reserved a little bit of the unfiltered Aristocrat for later comparison.

First filtration: Running the bottle of Aristocrat through the Brita took about 30 minutes. This is slightly scary in and of itself. Once it was through, we did side-by-side comparisons of this and the unfiltered Aristocrat. At this point, the best description we could offer was "slightly less nasty." Still smells like rubbing alcohol. Still tastes like burning. Still leaves a nasty aftertaste in your mouth that makes you really seriously regret, for just a few painful seconds, having decided to do this tasting. Point is, still bad.

2nd filtration: took about 20 minutes. Holy mother of zeus, this is actually not that foul. It still smells a bit like distilled gasoline, but the aroma is less penetrating and seems to have less potential to sear away the interior of your nasal passages. The taste is approximately 1,000 times less nasty, possibly even pleasant. Wow. Our tasters express astonishment and awe at the cleansing power of the Brita. Aftertaste is also much less lethal.

Third filtration: took even less time. but we also kind of stopped paying attention to the clock at this point, so that's as precise as I can be. Anyway, this filtration was a mild improvement over the 2nd filtration. Smells pretty much like a good vodka. Tastes pretty much like a good vodka, and is extremely smooth; short and remarkably painless aftertaste. At this point we did blind comparisons with the Kettle One (i.e., tasters were given a sample of two vodkas, one being the 3rd-filtration and the other the Kettle One, without being told which was which). Remarkably, all but one taster (out of 5) preferred the 3rd-filtered aristocrat to the K1 in totally subjective, not-justified-at-all evaluations. For reference, we sampled the first filtration again at this point, and vomited. Well, okay, none of us actually vomited. But seriously the 1st-filtered stuff was brutal by comparison. None of us could quite bear the thought of again sampling the raw, glorious brutality of the unfiltered aristocrat.

We did a 4th filtration, but improvements over the 3rd were marginal. I.e., I couldn't identify the 4th versus the 3rd in a blind tasting.

At this point we made lots of drinks out of the thrice-filtered aristocrat, in celebration of the march of science. Although our evaluative prowess was waning considerably as the night wore on, our expert team agreed that the end results were as tasty as they generally ought to be, and not at all foul or lethal.

Some additional comments on our methodology:

The filter used was pre-soaked and used to filter multiple pitchers of water before the test. We used the same filter for all stages of the test, so we can't distinguish between filter-based and vodka-based explanations for the decreasing times required for the filtering.

The vodkas were served at room temperature. Yes, this makes even good vodka less pleasant to drink. However, imho it also makes the aromas and tastes easier to discern. Thus, our enjoyment of the Aristocrat's fine bouquet of gasoline and paint thinner was unmitigated.

Also, it should perhaps be noted that although our team was and remains totally dedicated to the consumption of alcohol in all its forms, none of us regularly drink vodka straight. (Your author's preferred method of consumption: vodka tonic.) An expert more finely attuned to the pleasures of straight vodka might have preferred the K1.

That's pretty much it. We all considered the experiment a smashing success, and are eternally grateful to the ohmygoditburns team for pointing us to this use of the magical Brita. I eagerly await reports from the rest of the intrepid 2+2 team.

cheers,

mn

[Thythe]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't a person's utility calculated by subtracting what they pay for it and the marginal utility of receiving the unit?

no

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure it is. If you are willing to pay P=$10 for an item and the item costs $10, you receive a utility of 10-10 equals 0 if you purchase the item and a utility of 0 if you don't purchase the item. We would say that you are indifferent between purchasing the item and not purchasing the item at this point.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

[B00T]

I'll preface this saying I was an Economics major in college. Take that for what its worth I am no super genius.

Everything you have written Thythe is 100% correct. It all comes back to marginal returns for the seller. When determining a selling price it is based off the model that he described with the 50% and 40% profit ratio. Selling something at a higher price may decrease the sales but increase the gross profit. This coincides with the laws of diminishing returns.

Consumers abstractly give a determined value to a product and if the price is beneath their marginal utility they would purchase it.

I am fully aware I did not add anything meaningful to the discussion. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[BonJoviJones]

Filters don't do jack for Rum.