Yesterday I referred to a wine I’d had recently that was really good value for money. It got me thinking about value for money and how to measure it. I’ve worked a lot in UK central government (as a professional from a private sector organisation) where the concept of VFM is an important factor of their decision making, but VFM is not something easily measured. Surely it’s all relative – what’s good VFM to Corks isn’t always going to be good VFM for Mrs Corks or any of Corks’ fellow wine buffs.
But within the limited confines of my lunch break, I’ve come up with a scale for measuring VFM. It’s a simple formula by dividing the price paid for a bottle of wine measured in Aussie dollars by a 5 point scale of enjoyment squared. I’ve applied a 5 point scale because that seems to fit in pretty much with the types of wine experiences I tend to have:
1 – Undrinkable! This is a wine that is so rubbish, I’d prefer not to have any at all and stay sober all night. I would think twice about putting an undrinkable wine into cooking.
2 – Acceptable. A wine that’s ok, drinkable, vaguely pleasant. Let’s keep drinking it, but nothing memorable. The type of wine people who don’t like wine might bring to your barbecue
3 – Good. This is what makes wine fun. Pleasant to drink, well made. Enjoyable.
4 – Really good. Elegant, smooth, complex. I want to drink more of this type of wine.
5 – Awesome! Such wines are what I search for. Highly complex, elegant, smooth and silky; memorable.
Now Corks ain’t no mathematician, so welcomes any useful comments on how to improve the VFM scale, but the lower the score, the better the VFM.
I squared the 5 point scale because it provided better delineation between the 5 point scale for a given price range. Obviously I didn’t want the scale to appear to give equal VFM for an awesome wine costing $35 as an acceptable wine costing $14. That just doesn’t sound right.
Anyways, see the table below and let us know what you think. The lower the score, the better the VFM.
Addendum:
Ok, so it’s not perfect. I’m working on it. You’ll see some anomalies in the scores. An undrinkable bottle at $5 is clearly not as good VFM as a really good $80 bottle. Where’s a Swedish actuary when you need one?
In the meantime, I’ve modified the table since yesterday so it goes up in $5 increments until $50, above which it goes up in $10 increments.
| Price |
Enjoyment |
|
|
|
|
| |
Awesome! |
Really Good |
Good |
Acceptable |
Undrinkable |
| |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| 100 |
4.0 |
6.3 |
11.1 |
25.0 |
100.0 |
| 90 |
3.6 |
5.6 |
10.0 |
22.5 |
90.0 |
| 80 |
3.2 |
5.0 |
8.9 |
20.0 |
80.0 |
| 70 |
2.8 |
4.4 |
7.8 |
17.5 |
70.0 |
| 60 |
2.4 |
3.8 |
6.7 |
15.0 |
60.0 |
| 50 |
2.0 |
3.1 |
5.6 |
12.5 |
50.0 |
| 45 |
1.8 |
2.8 |
5.0 |
11.3 |
45.0 |
| 40 |
1.6 |
2.5 |
4.4 |
10.0 |
40.0 |
| 35 |
1.4 |
2.2 |
3.9 |
8.8 |
35.0 |
| 30 |
1.2 |
1.9 |
3.3 |
7.5 |
30.0 |
| 25 |
1.0 |
1.6 |
2.8 |
6.3 |
25.0 |
| 20 |
0.8 |
1.3 |
2.2 |
5.0 |
20.0 |
| 15 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
1.7 |
3.8 |
15.0 |
| 10 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
1.1 |
2.5 |
10.0 |
| 5 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
1.3 |
5.0 |