Comment by peterwwillis | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterwwillis | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm pretty sure people still buy those things because they see the value in investing money in quality products, not to signal something. Signaling is a consequence here, not a purpose.

Different whisky products have different markets. There are special limited edition releases of Chivas that are only sold in Asia, for example. Same for Johnny Walker, and many other popular brands. India is crazy for Scotch, but most of its whisky is made of 90% blended neutral spirits and 10% malt whisky. It was only in the past 10 years that they produced their own, completely Indian, single malt whiskys, which are pretty good by the way.

All sorts of whisky brands have been switching to No Age Specified labels for years. Eventually almost all of them will be, partly to avoid shortages, and partly to help consumers try more products from the same brand, and to fight the idea that older = better. And "as good" scotch is relative; they have always blended spirits to get the right flavor profile regardless of age statement, and they continue to do so.

> I'm pretty sure people still buy those things because they see the value in investing money in quality products, not to signal something. Signaling is a consequence here, not a purpose.

Rather than write up my position on this, I will Defer To Authority and post this excellent Quora answer on signalling and its relationship with quality: https://www.quora.com/Why-would-anyone-buy-a-Rolex-watch/ans... (although I disagree on her premise that there is no objective difference in quality, especially when it comes to wine, but then I am a card carrying Frenchman so hardly unbiased). I particularly liked the ending:

> Of course, none of this applies to me. I honestly love Van Gogh paintings, not because it signals good taste within my social circle, but because they're intrinsically beautiful.

Well, I love my Port Ellen, Karuisawa and Mortlach and I would look forward to adding Urushi Seikos or Chanel's Cuir de Russie (vintage, of course) to my collections. For their intrinsic qualities, naturally. Unfortunately, my wife does not see those intrinsic qualities as clearly as I do, so my plans have been put on hold for the moment (and, probably, all future moments).

You compared "aged whisky", "goodyear-welted shoes" and "suits" to things like Rolex watches, on the basis that they are all about signaling.

This is like saying, because I prefer an all-wheel-drive car, it is for the same reason as buying a Ferrari, because who could possibly need a an all-wheel-drive car?

Other than people who drive in the snow.

Suits are warm and durable and fashionable, goodyear-welted shoes will last forever, be comfortable and weather-resistant, and aged whisky tastes different than non-aged whisky. You buy these generic categories of products for a practical reason. If you want to pay for the one that costs 10 times more than the others, that is signaling.

I was going to give Johnny Walker as an example, but here's a better one: George Dickel Rye. It's fantastic, it's $26, and nobody knows it exists. It's comparable to a nice scotch. So why don't people drink this instead of scotch? Because scotch has things this doesn't, and they're willing to pay whatever it costs to get it. At a bar, though, I always buy the Dickel if it's available, because you can't beat the value.

That's not quite my argument. It's subtler than that: 1. the world is not univariate and there is rarely one variable that explains 90% of the variation; 2. each user has a different utility function and it is rare to find one that applies to all aka "objective quality".

What I am arguing is that one variable that DOES often matter is signalling - including the subtle signalling for taste that is linked to high social status, and that can be found in e.g. spotting the 1-inch long straight boutonniere and matt buttons that signal a Savile Row tailor. And sometimes the pure signalling in itself, the completely intangible value created by a marketing department, becomes as "real" as any of the intrinsic qualities of the product.

Objectively, you do not need these things. A Ferrari is ultimately just a car. To some people the utility is getting from A to B, and they have a Bentley cos that's what people in their social circles do. Others truly love a well crafted product and value the Ferrari for the driving experience. Others yet have a different utility function, like a race driver who told me he did not enjoy driving the "borrowed" Lamborghini his friend lent him for a few track days, because his Evo had better visibility and turned much better, even if the Lambo was better in straight lines. And then you get the signalling where the Lambo is bought for its price tag in a flashy colour a la Entourage agent whatever his name was. I even remember a hedge fund manager who whilst he was interviewing me proudly showed me his F430 racing photos and cups.

(was based on original comment that GL > BL) Blue Label is an excellent choice when another company is footing the bill at an open bar, and I know a lot of people who would be genuinely pleased if you served them a shot of Blue Label after hosting them for dinner. They are rarely whisky enthusiasts, but there is genuine utility in the happiness that you give them in the perceived value that has been created by Diageo's marketing department around the brand. These intangible things become, in my experience, increasingly important the closer you get to sales.

You should try Bulleit Rye. It's top notch and not very expensive. All of Bulleit's whiskeys are good. Their standard whiskey is a bit sweet but still has good flavor. Great for an old fashioned. Their Frontier is my favorite though.

I find most bourbon to have a cough medicine aftertaste, and Bulleit Rye just tastes like a spicy Bulleit, so i'm not a fan. George Dickel Rye tastes like someone took a Macallan and added spice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com