Description
To provide a better understanding of the relationship between wine festivals, winery
visitation and wineries in order to determine whether wine festivals are an effective promotional tool.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Classifying wine festival customers: Comparing an inductive typology with Hall's wine
tourist classification
Meg Houghton
Article information:
To cite this document:
Meg Houghton, (2008),"Classifying wine festival customers", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Iss 1 pp. 67 - 76
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180810856149
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1106 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mercedes Marzo-Navarro, Marta Pedraja-Iglesias, (2012),"Critical factors of wine tourism: incentives
and barriers from the potential tourist's perspective", International J ournal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 312-334http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111211206196
Mercedes Marzo-Navarro, Marta Pedraja-Iglesias, (2010),"Are there different profiles of wine tourists?
An initial approach", International J ournal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 22 Iss 4 pp. 349-361 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511061011092401
Eunmi Sohn, J ingxue (J essica) Yuan, (2013),"Who are the culinary tourists? An observation at a food and
wine festival", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 118-131http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0019
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Classifying wine festival
customers
Comparing an inductive typology with
Hall’s wine tourist classi?cation
Meg Houghton
School of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management,
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – To provide a better understanding of the relationship between wine festivals, winery
visitation and wineries in order to determine whether wine festivals are an effective promotional tool.
Design/methodology/approach – Primary data identifying the characteristics of festival patrons
was gathered from regional wine festivals in Australia, then compared with Hall’s strati?ed,
New Zealand wine tourist market segments to ascertain whether the “right type” of consumer is
attracted to wine festivals.
Findings – The study concludes that wine festivals are successful promotional strategies that attract
a diverse mix of consumers including the preferred consumer type, namely those with a high
predilection to purchase wine.
Research limitations/implications – The study was conducted in a wine growing area of south
eastern Australia. Case studies of other regions would be of interest to determine the reliability of the
?ndings.
Originality/value – Previous studies of wineries and events approach from a wine tourist’s
perspective. From a winery’s perspective however, successful wine festivals are those that not only
attract consumers wishing to trial and buy wine products but ultimately lead to ongoing brand
recognition and loyalty. This study speci?cally considers the juxtaposition of wine festivals and their
patrons and therefore the effectiveness of this promotional strategy.
Keywords Wines, Promotional methods, Festivals, Tourism, Consumers, Australia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Participating in wine tourismactivities has the potential to provide wine growing areas
and the individual wineries within them, opportunities for creating growth and
?nancial security. For small or recently established wineries, their ability to tap into
tourism and generate ongoing visitation offers a strategy that may help to overcome
the barriers generated by increasing market consolidation in a progressively
globalised industry.
Ivers (1999, p. 36) asserts that “effective marketing is about spending less to achieve
more”; this, he suggests, includes segmenting the target audience and isolating
behavior patterns. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) stress the importance of information
gathering about customers and incorporating it in planning, while Dodd and Bigotte
(1997) propose that socio-demographic variables can be useful tools for identifying and
segmenting a market, predicting behavior and developing marketing strategies to
target the groups of interest. In relation to the wine industry, Fry (1999, p. 11) asserts
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
Classifying
wine festival
customers
67
Received April 2005
Revised December 2006
Accepted April 2007
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008
pp. 67-76
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180810856149
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
that wine tourism providers need to “know their customers” and Dodd and Bigotte
(1995) offer, as an example of the effectiveness of this strategy, the fact that an
individual’s income has been shown to be a mostly reliable predictor of wine
consumption.
An important aspect of winery sales is the local wine festival that promotes and
celebrates local vintages and the character of the region. While such wine festivals
have been commonplace, little marketing analysis exists regarding festival capacity to
deliver bene?ts. This information has the potential to de?ne and re?ne winery
promotions both to attract wine tourists and wine festival attendees. Classifying wine
festival attendees into differing types allows promotional options to focus and target
the preferred consumers, the result being a more precise promotional strategy that
could address the reservations held by some winemakers.
The wine festival paradox
Most discussions of wine tourism highlight the interest tourist bodies at national, state
and regional level have in increasing visitation to wineries and wine regions. Many
writers, for example, Williams and Young (1999) and Macionis and Cambourne (1998),
discuss the advantages tourism holds for individual wineries. These advantages
include increasing sales and customer knowledge, building relationships and brand
loyalty and selling directly to the consumer thereby earning the maximum revenue
per bottle. Winery operators acknowledge these advantages with, as Collins (1996)
writes, increasing numbers diversifying their activities to appeal to a wider audience.
However, some winery operators see tourism as bringing some disadvantages.
Williams and Young (1999) and King and Morris (1998) mention the high cost of
providing visitor facilities, including the cost of staf?ng amenities such as retail cellars
and restaurants. The Australian Wine Foundation (1996) talks of the cost of welcoming
the many tourists who taste wine but do not buy. Jago et al. (2000, p. 65) suggesting
that “. . . from a winery’s perspective, visitation that does not involve expenditure,
or the likelihood of expenditure, is of little value” while Hall and Johnson (1998) indicate
that many wineries perceive that the wine industry has more to offer the tourism
industry than vice versa. With regard to the wine tourists (the potential customers), the
following descriptions sum up some of this ambivalence. McKinna (1998 in Macionis
and Camborne, 1998, p. 42) write of wine tourists as “the passing tourist trade who
thinks a winery crawl is just a good holiday” while Spawton (1998 in Macionis and
Camborne, 1998, p. 42) describes them as “mobile drunks”.
Cambourne (1998) referring speci?cally to wine festivals, credits the festivals with
providing public relations opportunities, attracting a wider range of visitors (who have
the potential to develop into new markets) and generating notable cellar door sales.
He notes, wine festivals have been observed to have a dramatic impact upon winery
visitation, while Telfer (2000, in Hall et al., p. 269), commenting upon wine regions in
North America, states that “festivals are an important activity and help provide
additional sources of income”. Nevertheless, just as some winery operators are
ambivalent towards wine tourists so they also express reservations about wine
festivals (Cambourne, 1998). Wine festivals, while recognised as having an important
role in attracting a wider range of people to wineries (Rasterhof, 1996) can overwhelm
the individual wineries. The ability of wine festivals to attract the “right types” of
patron is also a question winery operators’ raise. Hall and Macionis (1998, p. 218)
IJCTHR
2,1
68
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
suggest that the “image of a large drunken party” may not provide the promotional
image the stakeholders seek, while the opportunity to build a relationship is also
diminished. Paradoxically this suggests that although wine festivals are successful
mediums for attracting potential consumers their very popularity makes quality
interaction dif?cult and wineries query whether “serious wine drinkers” are kept away
by such events.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of wine festivals as a promotional tool therefore
clearly needs to address more than the sales and monetary ?uctuations experienced by
the promoters; there is a need to ascertain who the patrons of these popular events are
and identify potential and committed wine users. The categorization of wine
festival attendees together with the identi?cation of the consumer’s experiential
background and their information processing techniques has the potential to lead to
more effective marketing strategies and serve to dispel the uncertainties held by the
winery operators as to the true value of wine festivals.
Pro?ling wine festival patrons
Effective marketing has a customer alignment and orientation (Naumann and
Shannon, 1992; McKoll-Kennedy and Kiel, 2000). Effective marketing focuses upon
creating a product that the customer needs and wants (Kotler et al., 1989; Dickman,
1999; McKoll-Kennedy and Kiel, 2000), therefore identi?cation and understanding of
the customer is a strategy that vendors can use to optimize their market (Seaton and
Bennett, 1996).
Hall (1996) distinguishes three wine tourism market segments, which he labels
“wine lovers” “wine interested” and the “curious tourist” but, as he states (Hall and
Macionis, 1998, p. 216) there is “substantial confusion” existing over who wine tourists
are, their motivation for visiting wineries and what in?uences them to purchase or not
purchase wine (Dodd, 1994). Getz (1991) asserts that while there are commonalties of
type in festival attendees in general, there are also variations dependent upon the
theme of the event and, as there has been little systematic research undertaken, the
picture is somewhat imprecise. This situation applies to wine festival patrons and as a
marketing orientation suggests improving the understanding of the customers and
their needs (Uncles, 2000) it is a situation that needs remedying.
Data collection for the investigation of wine festival patronage was gathered from
two sources, namely consumers who were interviewed at wine festivals and winery
patrons who completed a voluntary questionnaire at the cellar door sales outlet of
individual wineries. The collections took place in a wine-growing region of southeast
Australia over a 12-month period. This region (one of the oldest wine producing
regions in the country) is typical of many Australian wine regions in that it largely
consists of many small, independently owned and operated wineries, which
cooperatively promote and conduct wine events on their vineyard properties. This
promotional, cooperative staging of events is typical of Australian wine festivals and it
is for these reasons that this sample is representative and can provide a clear picture of
winery visitation behavior. A sample group of 828 respondents, all past attendees of
wine festival, was collected.
As a basis for distinguishing wine festivals “types” the categorizations developed
by Hall (1996) of wine tourist market segments (that is “wine lovers” “wine interested”
and ”curious tourists”), was used. Hall (1996) distinguishes between these
Classifying
wine festival
customers
69
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
categorizations by allotting various characteristics in varying strengths to each wine
tourist type. Seven characteristics were identi?ed and extracted and form the basis of
the analysis (Table I).
The chosen characteristics are those that are present to a greater or lesser degree in
each type of wine tourist category. These distinguishing variables are:
.
the level of education, level of family income and age of respondents;
.
the propensity to purchase wine at winery and to join a mailing list;
.
the level of familiarity with the wine making process; and
.
if visiting wineries was sole reason for the visit to the destination.
These characteristics informthe crafting in Table II of the attributes and labels by type
and the expected strength or value of each of these variable components. The
calculation of each component’s values employ the numeric response codes used in
the questionnaires (?ve-point (statement responses) and seven-point (demographic
responses) Likert type scales).
Market segment Characteristics
Wine lovers Extremely interested in wines and wine making
Wineries may be sole purpose of visit to destination
Likely to be mature with high income and education levels
Highly likely to purchase at winery and add name to mailing list
Wine interested High interest in wine but not sole purpose of visit to destination
Familiar with wine making procedures
Moderate to high-income bracket, tend to be university educated
Likely to purchase at winery and add name to mailing list
Curious tourist Moderately interested in wine but not familiar with wine making procedures
Winery tour a by product of visit to region as visiting was for unrelated purposes
Moderate income and education
May purchase at winery but will not join mailing list
Source: Adapted from Hall (1996)
Table I.
Wine tourism market
segments as derived from
Hall (1996)
Variable Wine lover Wine interested Curious tourist
Age 41 þ (mature) 3 Non speci?c 2.5 Non speci?c 2.5
Income . mean 3 ¼ mean þ 2.5 ¼ mean 2 2
Education Second or higher
degree
4.5 University 4 Secondary/TAFE 3
Sole purpose of
trip
Agree – strongly
agree
4.5 Neither agree nor
disagree
3 Disagree 2
Purchase wine Strongly agree 5 Agree 4 Neither agree nor
disagree
3
Mailing list Strongly agree 5 Agree 4 Disagree 2
Winemaking
process
Agree – strongly
agree
4.5 Agree 4 Disagree 2
Notional minimum mean score 4.21 3.41 2.36
Table II.
Wine tourism market
segment categories,
variables and values
based on Hall’s (1996)
wine tourism segments
IJCTHR
2,1
70
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Note that the three wine tourist types are not decisively different in every category to
the other groups, but the collective grouping of the identi?ed attributes separates the
types. If a respondent is totally true to type, the mean score recorded for each wine
tourist type is the minimum that might be expected.
Results of the research
Table III summarizes the outcomes relating to age, income and educational
characteristics. Note: persons under 18 years of age are not legally able to purchase or
consume alcohol at a commercial licensed venue. Therefore, while the age categories
were determined by a desire to have equal value groups across the spectrum,
traditionally this group (18-21) are not wine drinkers and it was decided that their
small number did not warrant a separate category (Hooke, 2001).
The survey also included a series of behavioural or attitudinal statements designed
to measure the strength of consensus or disagreement expressed by the respondents
(Table IV).
A K-means clustering procedure allows the movement of respondents into a user
speci?ed number of clusters based on characteristics they possess (Hair et al., 1998).
Hair et al. (1998) suggest that when successful these clusters should then exhibit strong
similarities within the clusters and between clusters, wide differences. The choice of
method placed respondents within categories based on the answers they provided to
the seven key variables and it was the method successfully used by Dodd and Bigotte
(1997) in a similar study of wine tourists. This resulted in the following three categories
(Table V).
The evidence suggests that Cluster 1 could be assigned the label “wine lovers” as it
?ts many of the characteristics identi?ed in Table II with a mean score (4.0) being close
to the optimal minimum mean (4.2). Two areas where the score is noticeably less than
Age Income ($) Education
18-30 25.8 ,20,000 5.1 Secondary 25.8
31-40 25.7 20,001-35,000 10.6 Technical and further education 20.1
41-50 25.7 35,001-50,000 22.6 University degree 35.6
51-60 17.6 50,001-70,000 23.4 Higher degree 18.5
61 þ 5.2 70,000-100,000 22
.100,00 19.1
Table III.
Surveyed wine festival
attendee’s distribution by
age, income and
education (shown as
percentage)
Agree Disagree Ambivalent
The opportunity to visit the wineries was the sole
purpose of my trip to this region 57.3 31.3 11.4
When I visit a winery I am very likely to purchase
wine 80 9 11
When I visit a winery, if the opportunity arises, I add
my name to the winery’s mailing list 38.4 39.9 21.7
I am quite familiar with the wine making process 53 21.8 25.2
Table IV.
Wine festival attendee’s
responses relating to
winery visits (shown as
percentage)
Classifying
wine festival
customers
71
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
expected are the responses to the “mailing list” and “winemaking process” questions.
Cluster 2 (wine interested) and 3 (curious tourist) while distinctively different in some
facets are similar and close in score. Most noticeable is the difference in responses to
the “sole purpose” question. Hall suggests that for the “wine interested” type of tourist,
the trip to the region is part of the appeal but not the sole motivator, while for the
“curious tourist” it was at best, a secondary attraction. This is not supported in
this case.
Employing a second technique enabled the veri?cation or con?rmation of the
results of the K-means cluster analysis. The use of multiple techniques (triangulation)
enables the researcher to take advantage of the strengths of each technique to verify
the reliability and accuracy of the data (Stoddard, 1982). This technique made use of
the software program PATN that has the ability to analyse and display patterns in
data. Belbin (1988) says that pattern analysis has the capacity to summarize and
display data de?ned in a matrix of objects (rows) and attributes (columns) and is
suitable to analyse the differences between groups. In this instance the process of
hierarchical polythetic agglomerative clustering or the fusing together of the closest
pair reiterates until the designated number cluster of groups is achieved. It differs from
the K-means cluster analysis in that it makes use of the Unweighted Pair Group
ArithMetic Averaging strategy which is recommended because it enables the best ?t
between the input association measures (Belbin, 1988). Three groups were designated
and to enable determination of signi?cant indicators of the de?ned groups the data
were ordinated using Semi Strong Hybrid Multidimensional Scaling (Belbin, 1995).
The signi?cance of each of the dependant variables were tested using principle axis
correlation that is a method that determines if these groupings are responding in any
systematic way to variables. The use of this second procedure enabled a pictorial
representation of the cluster groups to be developed (Figure 1) in addition to offering a
test of the results gleaned from the ?rst analyses.
Figure 1 shows the distribution by type of the individual wine festival attendees.
The de?ning variables, numbered 1-7 (Table V) are shown in the upper half of the
graph and show that each line is a directional vector and the wine tourist groupings are
responding to that strength of direction to pull the grouping towards a particular point
on the graph.
Cluster
1
Wine lovers
2
Wine interested
3
Curious tourist
Number of cases 267 246 240
Level of education var5 3.91 3.50 2.87
Age var6 2.79 2.53 2.00
Family income var7 4.94 4.09 2.71
Sole purpose of trip var1 4.36 1.72 4.29
Purchase wine var2 4.52 3.66 3.92
Mailing list var3 3.80 2.47 2.56
Wine making process var4 3.80 3.21 3.12
Mean score 4.02 3.03 3.07
Note: n ¼ 828
Table V.
Cluster centers for
festival attendees
IJCTHR
2,1
72
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The three groups are clearly distinguishable. Group 3 (white) can be categorised as the
“wine lovers”. This group clusters towards the top of the graph with the majority of
their scores in the high to moderate range, which is the characteristic of this group
(Table V). They represent the largest cohort and exhibit a relatively tight grouping
with relatively few individuals falling below the mid range.
Groups 1 (black) and 2 (grey) represent the “wine interested” and “curious tourists”
respectively. The graph con?rms the early ?ndings of the K-means cluster analysis
(Table V) that these two groups are not as distinctively different from each other as the
?rst group. The wine interested exhibit scores widely dispersed across the entire
spectrum but with a tendency towards the left hand and lower quadrant. That is, they
exhibit a signi?cant difference to the curious tourist group in terms of higher education
and income levels. They constitute the next largest group in the sample. The “curious
tourist” group (2) exhibiting, as previously observed, many of the same characteristics
are also widely dispersed but with a trend towards the right hand lower quadrant.
The two analytical techniques employed generated similar responses, although in
some instances the values differed. However, it was felt that the use of a triangulation
technique achieves value as these analyses clearly complement each other. They show
that there are differences between the types of people who attended wine festivals.
Conclusion
Given the ambivalence of winery operators as to whether wine festivals discourage the
serious wine drinkers – their preferred customer, and acknowledging the shift in
marketing practice, it was of interest to examine wine festival attendees to try to
determine whether they could be segmented into “types”. The ability to do this might
resolve the winery’s uncertainties and provide a better understanding of the variations
amongst their patrons.
The effort to categorise the sample was partially successful. One group emerges
who are noticeably different from the other two and they display many of the
characteristics of the “wine lover”. Areas were noted however where a stronger
Figure 1.
Scatterplot image of wine
festival attendees grouped
by selected variables
–2.5
–2
-1.5
–1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
–2.5 –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
HMDS Ordination Axis 1
H
M
D
S
O
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
x
i
s
2
Group 1- Wine Interested Group 2- Curious Tourists Group 3 - Wine Lovers Determinant Variables
var1
var7
var6
var5
var4
var3
var2
Classifying
wine festival
customers
73
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
response might have been expected, the most noticeable being in the relatively low
score the respondents recorded for adding their names to winery mailing lists.
Explanations as to why they were not as interested in the mailing lists as might have
been expected could include a re?ection of either their lack of interest in that form of
marketing or perhaps a desire to source their own purchases, independent of external
in?uences. The other area in which the participants registered a low score, was that of
knowledge of the wine making process, is perhaps more explainable. The researcher,
while not able to comment on those who ?lled in the self completion cellar door
surveys, did note that many of those who professed a deep interest in wine also
acknowledged the complexity of the wine making process and indicated that they had
“a lot to learn”. These respondents felt that the more they learnt about wine making the
less sure they were that they understood the process. Whereas asserting that they
understood how wine was made was a claim made by less experienced patrons.
The other two groups though different were not as decisively different. For
example, the group that exhibited the characteristics closest to the “wine interested”
type scored low when asked if the opportunity to visit the wineries was the sole reason
for their visit to the region, whereas the “curious tourist” group registered a high score
(higher in fact than the “wine lovers”). This may re?ect an inclination by the “curious
tourist” to make a special trip to satisfy their curiosity in contrast to the other two
groups who are aware of what is on offer in various regions and avail themselves of an
opportunity as it arises. The higher score recorded for purchasing wine and joining a
mailing list may be a sign of this curiosity and be an indication of less selective
behavior.
The cluster analysis results therefore give credence to the proposition that wine
festival attendees are classi?able into relatively homogeneous groups but suggest
these categories are not as decisively different as those attributed by Hall to wine
tourists. In fact, of the 753 attendees classi?ed there are very similar numbers in each
category (267, 246, and 240) which con?rms that many different types of people attend
wine festivals. Based on these outcomes it would seem that wine festivals do attract the
“serious wine drinker” along with the novice. The wineries that promote these events
should continue to do so with the knowledge that these festivals attract a diverse
group.
Several issues were raised by the literature on festivals and trade/consumer fairs
and discussions with promoters of wine festivals. This research investigates and
suggests answers to some of them but in doing so indicates that other areas would
bene?t from further research. For example:
.
The value of staging festivals with a specially designed theme developed to
appeal to speci?cally targeted consumer groups. Examples might include an
event for serious wine connoisseurs aligned with introducing premium labels or
a festival for novice wine consumers incorporating a high-wine education
component.
.
Case studies of other regions both within Australia and globally to determine the
reliability of these ?ndings.
.
Further analysis of cellar door patrons who have never attended festivals to
investigate their characteristics and preferences.
IJCTHR
2,1
74
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wine festivals do have the potential to be successful strategies for the promotion of a
winery (Houghton, 2005); any future research agenda should include further study of
how best to identify wine festival “types” to achieve more targeted marketing
outcomes.
References
Australian Wine Foundation (1996), Strategy 2025: The Australian Wine Industry, Winemakers
Federation of Australia, Adelaide.
Belbin, L. (1988), “The analysis of pattern in bio-survey data”, in Margules, C. and Austin, M.
(Eds), Nature Conservation: Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Data Analysis, CSIRO,
Canberra.
Belbin, L. (1995), PATN Analysis Package, CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra.
Cambourne, B. (1998), “Wine tourism in the Canberra District”, in Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J.
(Eds), Proceedings of the 1st Australian Wine Tourism Conference, 1998, Margaret River,
Western Australia, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Collins, C. (1996), “Drop in for more than just a drop”, Weekend Australian, 9 March, p. 3.
Dickman, S. (1999), Tourism and Hospitality Marketing, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Dodd, T. (1994), “In?uences of consumer attitudes and involvement on purchase behaviour in an
industrial tourism context”, PhD thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Dodd, T. H. and Bigotte, V. (1995), Visitors to Texas Wineries: Their Demographic Characteristics
and Purchasing Behavior, Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute, Lubbock, TX.
Dodd, T. and Bigotte, V. (1997), “Perceptual differences among visitor groups to wineries”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 46-51.
Fry, C. (1999), Key Drivers in Cellar Door Sales, Book of Abstracts of the 2nd Australian Wine
Tourism Conference, Rutherglen, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Getz, D. (1991), Festivals, Special Events and Tourism, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hall, C.M. (1996), “Wine tourism in New Zealand”, in Kearsley, G. (Ed.), Tourism Down Under II,
towards a more Sustainable Tourism, Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Hall, C.M. and Johnson, G. (1998), “Wine and tourism: an imbalanced partnership? Wine tourism:
perfect partners”, in Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J. (Eds), Proceedings of the 1st Australian
Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River, Western Australia, Bureau of Tourism
Research, Canberra.
Hall, C.M. and Macionis, N. (1998) in Hall, C. and Jenkins, J. (Eds), Wine Tourism in Australia and
New Zealand. Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hooke, H. (2001), “Australia’s wine show system”, The Wine Magazine, April/May, pp. 92-4.
Houghton, M. (2005), “Wine festivals: the promoters perspective”, in Boyle, A. and Trembaly, T.
(Eds), Proceedings of Sharing Tourism Knowledge, CAUTHE, Refereed Research Paper,
Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs.
Ivers, T. (1999), “Breaking into new markets – spending less to get more”, Proceedings of the 2nd
Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Rutherglen, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Jago, L., Issaverdis, J.P. and Graham, D. (2000), “The wine tourist: what’s in a name”, in Michael, E.
(Ed.), Proceedings fromPeak Performance in Tourismand Hospitality Research, CAUTHE,
Refereed Research Paper, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Classifying
wine festival
customers
75
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
King, C. and Morris, R. (1998), “Wine tourism: costs and returns”, in Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J.
(Eds), Proceedings of the 1st Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River,
Western Australia, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Kohli, A. and Jaworski, B. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18.
Kotler, P., Chandler, P., Gibbs, R. and McColl, R. (1989), Marketing in Australia, 2nd ed.,
Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty Ltd, Brisbane.
McKinna, D. (1998), “Developing marketing strategies for wines”, cited in Macionis, N. and
Camborne, B. (1998), ”Wine tourism. Just what is it all about?“, Wine Industry Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
McKoll-Kennedy, J. and Kiel, G. (2000), Marketing: A Strategic Approach, Nelson Thomson
Learning, Victoria.
Macionis, N. and Camborne, B. (1998), “Wine tourism. Just what is it all about?”, The Australian
and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-7.
Nauman, E. and Shannon, P. (1992), “What is customer driven marketing”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 44-53.
Rasterhof, J. (1996), “Market solutions pay”, Victorian Wineries Tourism Council Activity
Statement, Victorian Wineries Tourism Council, Melbourne.
Seaton, A.V. and Bennett, M.M. (1996), Marketing Tourism Products, International Thomson
Business Press, London.
Spawton, T. (1998), “Understanding wine purchasing: knowing how the wine buyer behaves can
increase sales”, cited in Macionis, N. and Camborne, B. (1998), ”Wine tourism. Just what is
it all about?”, Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Stoddard, R. (1982), Field Techniques and Research Methods in Geography, Kendall Hunt
Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.
Telfer, D. (2000), “The northeast wine route”, in Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and
Macionis, N. (Eds), Wine Tourism Around the World, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Uncles, M. (2000), “De?ning market orientation”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Williams, A. and Young, I. (1999), “Wine tourism: white wine casks or bottled reds”, Proceedings
of the 2nd Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Rutherglen, Victoria, Bureau of Tourism
Research, Canberra.
Further reading
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001), available at: www.abs.gov.au (accessed 6 November
1999).
Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (1998), “Image and reimaging of rural areas”, in Hall, C. and Jenkins, J.
(Eds), Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, Wiley, New York, NY.
Macionis, N. (1998), “Wine tourism: making it work in the long term”, Wine Industry Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 127-31.
Corresponding author
Meg Houghton can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
IJCTHR
2,1
76
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Arturo Molina, Mar Gómez, Belén González-Díaz, Águeda Esteban. 2015. Market segmentation in wine
tourism: strategies for wineries and destinations in Spain. Journal of Wine Research 26, 192-224. [CrossRef]
2. Young Hoon Kim, Jen Duncan, Byung Woong Chung. 2015. Involvement, Satisfaction, Perceived Value,
and Revisit Intention: A Case Study of a Food Festival. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 13,
133-158. [CrossRef]
3. Athina Nella, Evangelos Christou. 2014. Segmenting Wine Tourists on the Basis of Involvement with
Wine. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31, 783-798. [CrossRef]
4. Young Hoon Kim, Jen L. Duncan, Tun-Min (Catherine) Jai. 2014. A case study of a southern food
festival: using a cluster analysis approach. Anatolia 25, 457-473. [CrossRef]
5. Govindasamy Ramu, Kelley Kathleen. 2014. Agritourism consumers’ participation in wine tasting events.
International Journal of Wine Business Research 26:2, 120-138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Sarah Tanford, Rhonda Montgomery, Jean Hertzman. 2012. Towards a Model of Wine Event Loyalty.
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 13, 77-99. [CrossRef]
7. Aaron Tkaczynski, Sharyn R. Rundle-Thiele. 2011. Event segmentation: A review and research agenda.
Tourism Management 32, 426-434. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_726083203.pdf
To provide a better understanding of the relationship between wine festivals, winery
visitation and wineries in order to determine whether wine festivals are an effective promotional tool.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research
Classifying wine festival customers: Comparing an inductive typology with Hall's wine
tourist classification
Meg Houghton
Article information:
To cite this document:
Meg Houghton, (2008),"Classifying wine festival customers", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research, Vol. 2 Iss 1 pp. 67 - 76
Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506180810856149
Downloaded on: 24 January 2016, At: 22:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 36 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1106 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mercedes Marzo-Navarro, Marta Pedraja-Iglesias, (2012),"Critical factors of wine tourism: incentives
and barriers from the potential tourist's perspective", International J ournal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 312-334http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111211206196
Mercedes Marzo-Navarro, Marta Pedraja-Iglesias, (2010),"Are there different profiles of wine tourists?
An initial approach", International J ournal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 22 Iss 4 pp. 349-361 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511061011092401
Eunmi Sohn, J ingxue (J essica) Yuan, (2013),"Who are the culinary tourists? An observation at a food and
wine festival", International J ournal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 118-131http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJ CTHR-04-2013-0019
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:115632 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Classifying wine festival
customers
Comparing an inductive typology with
Hall’s wine tourist classi?cation
Meg Houghton
School of Sport, Tourism and Hospitality Management,
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – To provide a better understanding of the relationship between wine festivals, winery
visitation and wineries in order to determine whether wine festivals are an effective promotional tool.
Design/methodology/approach – Primary data identifying the characteristics of festival patrons
was gathered from regional wine festivals in Australia, then compared with Hall’s strati?ed,
New Zealand wine tourist market segments to ascertain whether the “right type” of consumer is
attracted to wine festivals.
Findings – The study concludes that wine festivals are successful promotional strategies that attract
a diverse mix of consumers including the preferred consumer type, namely those with a high
predilection to purchase wine.
Research limitations/implications – The study was conducted in a wine growing area of south
eastern Australia. Case studies of other regions would be of interest to determine the reliability of the
?ndings.
Originality/value – Previous studies of wineries and events approach from a wine tourist’s
perspective. From a winery’s perspective however, successful wine festivals are those that not only
attract consumers wishing to trial and buy wine products but ultimately lead to ongoing brand
recognition and loyalty. This study speci?cally considers the juxtaposition of wine festivals and their
patrons and therefore the effectiveness of this promotional strategy.
Keywords Wines, Promotional methods, Festivals, Tourism, Consumers, Australia
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Participating in wine tourismactivities has the potential to provide wine growing areas
and the individual wineries within them, opportunities for creating growth and
?nancial security. For small or recently established wineries, their ability to tap into
tourism and generate ongoing visitation offers a strategy that may help to overcome
the barriers generated by increasing market consolidation in a progressively
globalised industry.
Ivers (1999, p. 36) asserts that “effective marketing is about spending less to achieve
more”; this, he suggests, includes segmenting the target audience and isolating
behavior patterns. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) stress the importance of information
gathering about customers and incorporating it in planning, while Dodd and Bigotte
(1997) propose that socio-demographic variables can be useful tools for identifying and
segmenting a market, predicting behavior and developing marketing strategies to
target the groups of interest. In relation to the wine industry, Fry (1999, p. 11) asserts
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6182.htm
Classifying
wine festival
customers
67
Received April 2005
Revised December 2006
Accepted April 2007
International Journal of Culture,
Tourism and Hospitality Research
Vol. 2 No. 1, 2008
pp. 67-76
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6182
DOI 10.1108/17506180810856149
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
that wine tourism providers need to “know their customers” and Dodd and Bigotte
(1995) offer, as an example of the effectiveness of this strategy, the fact that an
individual’s income has been shown to be a mostly reliable predictor of wine
consumption.
An important aspect of winery sales is the local wine festival that promotes and
celebrates local vintages and the character of the region. While such wine festivals
have been commonplace, little marketing analysis exists regarding festival capacity to
deliver bene?ts. This information has the potential to de?ne and re?ne winery
promotions both to attract wine tourists and wine festival attendees. Classifying wine
festival attendees into differing types allows promotional options to focus and target
the preferred consumers, the result being a more precise promotional strategy that
could address the reservations held by some winemakers.
The wine festival paradox
Most discussions of wine tourism highlight the interest tourist bodies at national, state
and regional level have in increasing visitation to wineries and wine regions. Many
writers, for example, Williams and Young (1999) and Macionis and Cambourne (1998),
discuss the advantages tourism holds for individual wineries. These advantages
include increasing sales and customer knowledge, building relationships and brand
loyalty and selling directly to the consumer thereby earning the maximum revenue
per bottle. Winery operators acknowledge these advantages with, as Collins (1996)
writes, increasing numbers diversifying their activities to appeal to a wider audience.
However, some winery operators see tourism as bringing some disadvantages.
Williams and Young (1999) and King and Morris (1998) mention the high cost of
providing visitor facilities, including the cost of staf?ng amenities such as retail cellars
and restaurants. The Australian Wine Foundation (1996) talks of the cost of welcoming
the many tourists who taste wine but do not buy. Jago et al. (2000, p. 65) suggesting
that “. . . from a winery’s perspective, visitation that does not involve expenditure,
or the likelihood of expenditure, is of little value” while Hall and Johnson (1998) indicate
that many wineries perceive that the wine industry has more to offer the tourism
industry than vice versa. With regard to the wine tourists (the potential customers), the
following descriptions sum up some of this ambivalence. McKinna (1998 in Macionis
and Camborne, 1998, p. 42) write of wine tourists as “the passing tourist trade who
thinks a winery crawl is just a good holiday” while Spawton (1998 in Macionis and
Camborne, 1998, p. 42) describes them as “mobile drunks”.
Cambourne (1998) referring speci?cally to wine festivals, credits the festivals with
providing public relations opportunities, attracting a wider range of visitors (who have
the potential to develop into new markets) and generating notable cellar door sales.
He notes, wine festivals have been observed to have a dramatic impact upon winery
visitation, while Telfer (2000, in Hall et al., p. 269), commenting upon wine regions in
North America, states that “festivals are an important activity and help provide
additional sources of income”. Nevertheless, just as some winery operators are
ambivalent towards wine tourists so they also express reservations about wine
festivals (Cambourne, 1998). Wine festivals, while recognised as having an important
role in attracting a wider range of people to wineries (Rasterhof, 1996) can overwhelm
the individual wineries. The ability of wine festivals to attract the “right types” of
patron is also a question winery operators’ raise. Hall and Macionis (1998, p. 218)
IJCTHR
2,1
68
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
suggest that the “image of a large drunken party” may not provide the promotional
image the stakeholders seek, while the opportunity to build a relationship is also
diminished. Paradoxically this suggests that although wine festivals are successful
mediums for attracting potential consumers their very popularity makes quality
interaction dif?cult and wineries query whether “serious wine drinkers” are kept away
by such events.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of wine festivals as a promotional tool therefore
clearly needs to address more than the sales and monetary ?uctuations experienced by
the promoters; there is a need to ascertain who the patrons of these popular events are
and identify potential and committed wine users. The categorization of wine
festival attendees together with the identi?cation of the consumer’s experiential
background and their information processing techniques has the potential to lead to
more effective marketing strategies and serve to dispel the uncertainties held by the
winery operators as to the true value of wine festivals.
Pro?ling wine festival patrons
Effective marketing has a customer alignment and orientation (Naumann and
Shannon, 1992; McKoll-Kennedy and Kiel, 2000). Effective marketing focuses upon
creating a product that the customer needs and wants (Kotler et al., 1989; Dickman,
1999; McKoll-Kennedy and Kiel, 2000), therefore identi?cation and understanding of
the customer is a strategy that vendors can use to optimize their market (Seaton and
Bennett, 1996).
Hall (1996) distinguishes three wine tourism market segments, which he labels
“wine lovers” “wine interested” and the “curious tourist” but, as he states (Hall and
Macionis, 1998, p. 216) there is “substantial confusion” existing over who wine tourists
are, their motivation for visiting wineries and what in?uences them to purchase or not
purchase wine (Dodd, 1994). Getz (1991) asserts that while there are commonalties of
type in festival attendees in general, there are also variations dependent upon the
theme of the event and, as there has been little systematic research undertaken, the
picture is somewhat imprecise. This situation applies to wine festival patrons and as a
marketing orientation suggests improving the understanding of the customers and
their needs (Uncles, 2000) it is a situation that needs remedying.
Data collection for the investigation of wine festival patronage was gathered from
two sources, namely consumers who were interviewed at wine festivals and winery
patrons who completed a voluntary questionnaire at the cellar door sales outlet of
individual wineries. The collections took place in a wine-growing region of southeast
Australia over a 12-month period. This region (one of the oldest wine producing
regions in the country) is typical of many Australian wine regions in that it largely
consists of many small, independently owned and operated wineries, which
cooperatively promote and conduct wine events on their vineyard properties. This
promotional, cooperative staging of events is typical of Australian wine festivals and it
is for these reasons that this sample is representative and can provide a clear picture of
winery visitation behavior. A sample group of 828 respondents, all past attendees of
wine festival, was collected.
As a basis for distinguishing wine festivals “types” the categorizations developed
by Hall (1996) of wine tourist market segments (that is “wine lovers” “wine interested”
and ”curious tourists”), was used. Hall (1996) distinguishes between these
Classifying
wine festival
customers
69
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
categorizations by allotting various characteristics in varying strengths to each wine
tourist type. Seven characteristics were identi?ed and extracted and form the basis of
the analysis (Table I).
The chosen characteristics are those that are present to a greater or lesser degree in
each type of wine tourist category. These distinguishing variables are:
.
the level of education, level of family income and age of respondents;
.
the propensity to purchase wine at winery and to join a mailing list;
.
the level of familiarity with the wine making process; and
.
if visiting wineries was sole reason for the visit to the destination.
These characteristics informthe crafting in Table II of the attributes and labels by type
and the expected strength or value of each of these variable components. The
calculation of each component’s values employ the numeric response codes used in
the questionnaires (?ve-point (statement responses) and seven-point (demographic
responses) Likert type scales).
Market segment Characteristics
Wine lovers Extremely interested in wines and wine making
Wineries may be sole purpose of visit to destination
Likely to be mature with high income and education levels
Highly likely to purchase at winery and add name to mailing list
Wine interested High interest in wine but not sole purpose of visit to destination
Familiar with wine making procedures
Moderate to high-income bracket, tend to be university educated
Likely to purchase at winery and add name to mailing list
Curious tourist Moderately interested in wine but not familiar with wine making procedures
Winery tour a by product of visit to region as visiting was for unrelated purposes
Moderate income and education
May purchase at winery but will not join mailing list
Source: Adapted from Hall (1996)
Table I.
Wine tourism market
segments as derived from
Hall (1996)
Variable Wine lover Wine interested Curious tourist
Age 41 þ (mature) 3 Non speci?c 2.5 Non speci?c 2.5
Income . mean 3 ¼ mean þ 2.5 ¼ mean 2 2
Education Second or higher
degree
4.5 University 4 Secondary/TAFE 3
Sole purpose of
trip
Agree – strongly
agree
4.5 Neither agree nor
disagree
3 Disagree 2
Purchase wine Strongly agree 5 Agree 4 Neither agree nor
disagree
3
Mailing list Strongly agree 5 Agree 4 Disagree 2
Winemaking
process
Agree – strongly
agree
4.5 Agree 4 Disagree 2
Notional minimum mean score 4.21 3.41 2.36
Table II.
Wine tourism market
segment categories,
variables and values
based on Hall’s (1996)
wine tourism segments
IJCTHR
2,1
70
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Note that the three wine tourist types are not decisively different in every category to
the other groups, but the collective grouping of the identi?ed attributes separates the
types. If a respondent is totally true to type, the mean score recorded for each wine
tourist type is the minimum that might be expected.
Results of the research
Table III summarizes the outcomes relating to age, income and educational
characteristics. Note: persons under 18 years of age are not legally able to purchase or
consume alcohol at a commercial licensed venue. Therefore, while the age categories
were determined by a desire to have equal value groups across the spectrum,
traditionally this group (18-21) are not wine drinkers and it was decided that their
small number did not warrant a separate category (Hooke, 2001).
The survey also included a series of behavioural or attitudinal statements designed
to measure the strength of consensus or disagreement expressed by the respondents
(Table IV).
A K-means clustering procedure allows the movement of respondents into a user
speci?ed number of clusters based on characteristics they possess (Hair et al., 1998).
Hair et al. (1998) suggest that when successful these clusters should then exhibit strong
similarities within the clusters and between clusters, wide differences. The choice of
method placed respondents within categories based on the answers they provided to
the seven key variables and it was the method successfully used by Dodd and Bigotte
(1997) in a similar study of wine tourists. This resulted in the following three categories
(Table V).
The evidence suggests that Cluster 1 could be assigned the label “wine lovers” as it
?ts many of the characteristics identi?ed in Table II with a mean score (4.0) being close
to the optimal minimum mean (4.2). Two areas where the score is noticeably less than
Age Income ($) Education
18-30 25.8 ,20,000 5.1 Secondary 25.8
31-40 25.7 20,001-35,000 10.6 Technical and further education 20.1
41-50 25.7 35,001-50,000 22.6 University degree 35.6
51-60 17.6 50,001-70,000 23.4 Higher degree 18.5
61 þ 5.2 70,000-100,000 22
.100,00 19.1
Table III.
Surveyed wine festival
attendee’s distribution by
age, income and
education (shown as
percentage)
Agree Disagree Ambivalent
The opportunity to visit the wineries was the sole
purpose of my trip to this region 57.3 31.3 11.4
When I visit a winery I am very likely to purchase
wine 80 9 11
When I visit a winery, if the opportunity arises, I add
my name to the winery’s mailing list 38.4 39.9 21.7
I am quite familiar with the wine making process 53 21.8 25.2
Table IV.
Wine festival attendee’s
responses relating to
winery visits (shown as
percentage)
Classifying
wine festival
customers
71
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
expected are the responses to the “mailing list” and “winemaking process” questions.
Cluster 2 (wine interested) and 3 (curious tourist) while distinctively different in some
facets are similar and close in score. Most noticeable is the difference in responses to
the “sole purpose” question. Hall suggests that for the “wine interested” type of tourist,
the trip to the region is part of the appeal but not the sole motivator, while for the
“curious tourist” it was at best, a secondary attraction. This is not supported in
this case.
Employing a second technique enabled the veri?cation or con?rmation of the
results of the K-means cluster analysis. The use of multiple techniques (triangulation)
enables the researcher to take advantage of the strengths of each technique to verify
the reliability and accuracy of the data (Stoddard, 1982). This technique made use of
the software program PATN that has the ability to analyse and display patterns in
data. Belbin (1988) says that pattern analysis has the capacity to summarize and
display data de?ned in a matrix of objects (rows) and attributes (columns) and is
suitable to analyse the differences between groups. In this instance the process of
hierarchical polythetic agglomerative clustering or the fusing together of the closest
pair reiterates until the designated number cluster of groups is achieved. It differs from
the K-means cluster analysis in that it makes use of the Unweighted Pair Group
ArithMetic Averaging strategy which is recommended because it enables the best ?t
between the input association measures (Belbin, 1988). Three groups were designated
and to enable determination of signi?cant indicators of the de?ned groups the data
were ordinated using Semi Strong Hybrid Multidimensional Scaling (Belbin, 1995).
The signi?cance of each of the dependant variables were tested using principle axis
correlation that is a method that determines if these groupings are responding in any
systematic way to variables. The use of this second procedure enabled a pictorial
representation of the cluster groups to be developed (Figure 1) in addition to offering a
test of the results gleaned from the ?rst analyses.
Figure 1 shows the distribution by type of the individual wine festival attendees.
The de?ning variables, numbered 1-7 (Table V) are shown in the upper half of the
graph and show that each line is a directional vector and the wine tourist groupings are
responding to that strength of direction to pull the grouping towards a particular point
on the graph.
Cluster
1
Wine lovers
2
Wine interested
3
Curious tourist
Number of cases 267 246 240
Level of education var5 3.91 3.50 2.87
Age var6 2.79 2.53 2.00
Family income var7 4.94 4.09 2.71
Sole purpose of trip var1 4.36 1.72 4.29
Purchase wine var2 4.52 3.66 3.92
Mailing list var3 3.80 2.47 2.56
Wine making process var4 3.80 3.21 3.12
Mean score 4.02 3.03 3.07
Note: n ¼ 828
Table V.
Cluster centers for
festival attendees
IJCTHR
2,1
72
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
The three groups are clearly distinguishable. Group 3 (white) can be categorised as the
“wine lovers”. This group clusters towards the top of the graph with the majority of
their scores in the high to moderate range, which is the characteristic of this group
(Table V). They represent the largest cohort and exhibit a relatively tight grouping
with relatively few individuals falling below the mid range.
Groups 1 (black) and 2 (grey) represent the “wine interested” and “curious tourists”
respectively. The graph con?rms the early ?ndings of the K-means cluster analysis
(Table V) that these two groups are not as distinctively different from each other as the
?rst group. The wine interested exhibit scores widely dispersed across the entire
spectrum but with a tendency towards the left hand and lower quadrant. That is, they
exhibit a signi?cant difference to the curious tourist group in terms of higher education
and income levels. They constitute the next largest group in the sample. The “curious
tourist” group (2) exhibiting, as previously observed, many of the same characteristics
are also widely dispersed but with a trend towards the right hand lower quadrant.
The two analytical techniques employed generated similar responses, although in
some instances the values differed. However, it was felt that the use of a triangulation
technique achieves value as these analyses clearly complement each other. They show
that there are differences between the types of people who attended wine festivals.
Conclusion
Given the ambivalence of winery operators as to whether wine festivals discourage the
serious wine drinkers – their preferred customer, and acknowledging the shift in
marketing practice, it was of interest to examine wine festival attendees to try to
determine whether they could be segmented into “types”. The ability to do this might
resolve the winery’s uncertainties and provide a better understanding of the variations
amongst their patrons.
The effort to categorise the sample was partially successful. One group emerges
who are noticeably different from the other two and they display many of the
characteristics of the “wine lover”. Areas were noted however where a stronger
Figure 1.
Scatterplot image of wine
festival attendees grouped
by selected variables
–2.5
–2
-1.5
–1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
–2.5 –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
HMDS Ordination Axis 1
H
M
D
S
O
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
x
i
s
2
Group 1- Wine Interested Group 2- Curious Tourists Group 3 - Wine Lovers Determinant Variables
var1
var7
var6
var5
var4
var3
var2
Classifying
wine festival
customers
73
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
response might have been expected, the most noticeable being in the relatively low
score the respondents recorded for adding their names to winery mailing lists.
Explanations as to why they were not as interested in the mailing lists as might have
been expected could include a re?ection of either their lack of interest in that form of
marketing or perhaps a desire to source their own purchases, independent of external
in?uences. The other area in which the participants registered a low score, was that of
knowledge of the wine making process, is perhaps more explainable. The researcher,
while not able to comment on those who ?lled in the self completion cellar door
surveys, did note that many of those who professed a deep interest in wine also
acknowledged the complexity of the wine making process and indicated that they had
“a lot to learn”. These respondents felt that the more they learnt about wine making the
less sure they were that they understood the process. Whereas asserting that they
understood how wine was made was a claim made by less experienced patrons.
The other two groups though different were not as decisively different. For
example, the group that exhibited the characteristics closest to the “wine interested”
type scored low when asked if the opportunity to visit the wineries was the sole reason
for their visit to the region, whereas the “curious tourist” group registered a high score
(higher in fact than the “wine lovers”). This may re?ect an inclination by the “curious
tourist” to make a special trip to satisfy their curiosity in contrast to the other two
groups who are aware of what is on offer in various regions and avail themselves of an
opportunity as it arises. The higher score recorded for purchasing wine and joining a
mailing list may be a sign of this curiosity and be an indication of less selective
behavior.
The cluster analysis results therefore give credence to the proposition that wine
festival attendees are classi?able into relatively homogeneous groups but suggest
these categories are not as decisively different as those attributed by Hall to wine
tourists. In fact, of the 753 attendees classi?ed there are very similar numbers in each
category (267, 246, and 240) which con?rms that many different types of people attend
wine festivals. Based on these outcomes it would seem that wine festivals do attract the
“serious wine drinker” along with the novice. The wineries that promote these events
should continue to do so with the knowledge that these festivals attract a diverse
group.
Several issues were raised by the literature on festivals and trade/consumer fairs
and discussions with promoters of wine festivals. This research investigates and
suggests answers to some of them but in doing so indicates that other areas would
bene?t from further research. For example:
.
The value of staging festivals with a specially designed theme developed to
appeal to speci?cally targeted consumer groups. Examples might include an
event for serious wine connoisseurs aligned with introducing premium labels or
a festival for novice wine consumers incorporating a high-wine education
component.
.
Case studies of other regions both within Australia and globally to determine the
reliability of these ?ndings.
.
Further analysis of cellar door patrons who have never attended festivals to
investigate their characteristics and preferences.
IJCTHR
2,1
74
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
Wine festivals do have the potential to be successful strategies for the promotion of a
winery (Houghton, 2005); any future research agenda should include further study of
how best to identify wine festival “types” to achieve more targeted marketing
outcomes.
References
Australian Wine Foundation (1996), Strategy 2025: The Australian Wine Industry, Winemakers
Federation of Australia, Adelaide.
Belbin, L. (1988), “The analysis of pattern in bio-survey data”, in Margules, C. and Austin, M.
(Eds), Nature Conservation: Cost Effective Biological Surveys and Data Analysis, CSIRO,
Canberra.
Belbin, L. (1995), PATN Analysis Package, CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Canberra.
Cambourne, B. (1998), “Wine tourism in the Canberra District”, in Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J.
(Eds), Proceedings of the 1st Australian Wine Tourism Conference, 1998, Margaret River,
Western Australia, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Collins, C. (1996), “Drop in for more than just a drop”, Weekend Australian, 9 March, p. 3.
Dickman, S. (1999), Tourism and Hospitality Marketing, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Dodd, T. (1994), “In?uences of consumer attitudes and involvement on purchase behaviour in an
industrial tourism context”, PhD thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Dodd, T. H. and Bigotte, V. (1995), Visitors to Texas Wineries: Their Demographic Characteristics
and Purchasing Behavior, Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute, Lubbock, TX.
Dodd, T. and Bigotte, V. (1997), “Perceptual differences among visitor groups to wineries”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 46-51.
Fry, C. (1999), Key Drivers in Cellar Door Sales, Book of Abstracts of the 2nd Australian Wine
Tourism Conference, Rutherglen, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Getz, D. (1991), Festivals, Special Events and Tourism, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hall, C.M. (1996), “Wine tourism in New Zealand”, in Kearsley, G. (Ed.), Tourism Down Under II,
towards a more Sustainable Tourism, Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Hall, C.M. and Johnson, G. (1998), “Wine and tourism: an imbalanced partnership? Wine tourism:
perfect partners”, in Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J. (Eds), Proceedings of the 1st Australian
Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River, Western Australia, Bureau of Tourism
Research, Canberra.
Hall, C.M. and Macionis, N. (1998) in Hall, C. and Jenkins, J. (Eds), Wine Tourism in Australia and
New Zealand. Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hooke, H. (2001), “Australia’s wine show system”, The Wine Magazine, April/May, pp. 92-4.
Houghton, M. (2005), “Wine festivals: the promoters perspective”, in Boyle, A. and Trembaly, T.
(Eds), Proceedings of Sharing Tourism Knowledge, CAUTHE, Refereed Research Paper,
Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs.
Ivers, T. (1999), “Breaking into new markets – spending less to get more”, Proceedings of the 2nd
Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Rutherglen, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Jago, L., Issaverdis, J.P. and Graham, D. (2000), “The wine tourist: what’s in a name”, in Michael, E.
(Ed.), Proceedings fromPeak Performance in Tourismand Hospitality Research, CAUTHE,
Refereed Research Paper, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Classifying
wine festival
customers
75
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
King, C. and Morris, R. (1998), “Wine tourism: costs and returns”, in Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J.
(Eds), Proceedings of the 1st Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River,
Western Australia, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra.
Kohli, A. and Jaworski, B. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18.
Kotler, P., Chandler, P., Gibbs, R. and McColl, R. (1989), Marketing in Australia, 2nd ed.,
Prentice-Hall of Australia Pty Ltd, Brisbane.
McKinna, D. (1998), “Developing marketing strategies for wines”, cited in Macionis, N. and
Camborne, B. (1998), ”Wine tourism. Just what is it all about?“, Wine Industry Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
McKoll-Kennedy, J. and Kiel, G. (2000), Marketing: A Strategic Approach, Nelson Thomson
Learning, Victoria.
Macionis, N. and Camborne, B. (1998), “Wine tourism. Just what is it all about?”, The Australian
and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-7.
Nauman, E. and Shannon, P. (1992), “What is customer driven marketing”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 44-53.
Rasterhof, J. (1996), “Market solutions pay”, Victorian Wineries Tourism Council Activity
Statement, Victorian Wineries Tourism Council, Melbourne.
Seaton, A.V. and Bennett, M.M. (1996), Marketing Tourism Products, International Thomson
Business Press, London.
Spawton, T. (1998), “Understanding wine purchasing: knowing how the wine buyer behaves can
increase sales”, cited in Macionis, N. and Camborne, B. (1998), ”Wine tourism. Just what is
it all about?”, Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 41-47.
Stoddard, R. (1982), Field Techniques and Research Methods in Geography, Kendall Hunt
Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.
Telfer, D. (2000), “The northeast wine route”, in Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and
Macionis, N. (Eds), Wine Tourism Around the World, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Uncles, M. (2000), “De?ning market orientation”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Williams, A. and Young, I. (1999), “Wine tourism: white wine casks or bottled reds”, Proceedings
of the 2nd Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Rutherglen, Victoria, Bureau of Tourism
Research, Canberra.
Further reading
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001), available at: www.abs.gov.au (accessed 6 November
1999).
Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (1998), “Image and reimaging of rural areas”, in Hall, C. and Jenkins, J.
(Eds), Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas, Wiley, New York, NY.
Macionis, N. (1998), “Wine tourism: making it work in the long term”, Wine Industry Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 127-31.
Corresponding author
Meg Houghton can be contacted at: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
IJCTHR
2,1
76
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Arturo Molina, Mar Gómez, Belén González-Díaz, Águeda Esteban. 2015. Market segmentation in wine
tourism: strategies for wineries and destinations in Spain. Journal of Wine Research 26, 192-224. [CrossRef]
2. Young Hoon Kim, Jen Duncan, Byung Woong Chung. 2015. Involvement, Satisfaction, Perceived Value,
and Revisit Intention: A Case Study of a Food Festival. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 13,
133-158. [CrossRef]
3. Athina Nella, Evangelos Christou. 2014. Segmenting Wine Tourists on the Basis of Involvement with
Wine. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 31, 783-798. [CrossRef]
4. Young Hoon Kim, Jen L. Duncan, Tun-Min (Catherine) Jai. 2014. A case study of a southern food
festival: using a cluster analysis approach. Anatolia 25, 457-473. [CrossRef]
5. Govindasamy Ramu, Kelley Kathleen. 2014. Agritourism consumers’ participation in wine tasting events.
International Journal of Wine Business Research 26:2, 120-138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Sarah Tanford, Rhonda Montgomery, Jean Hertzman. 2012. Towards a Model of Wine Event Loyalty.
Journal of Convention & Event Tourism 13, 77-99. [CrossRef]
7. Aaron Tkaczynski, Sharyn R. Rundle-Thiele. 2011. Event segmentation: A review and research agenda.
Tourism Management 32, 426-434. [CrossRef]
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
P
O
N
D
I
C
H
E
R
R
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
A
t
2
2
:
0
5
2
4
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
2
0
1
6
(
P
T
)
doc_726083203.pdf