This article was downloaded by: [Sonoma State University], [Thomas Atkin]On: 17 April 2012, At: 11:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Wine ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjwr20

Consumer awareness and qualityperceptions: a case for Sonoma CountywinesThomas S. Atkin a & Sandra K. Newton aa School of Business and Economics, Sonoma State University, 1801East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA, 94928, USA

Available online: 10 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Thomas S. Atkin & Sandra K. Newton (2012): Consumer awarenessand quality perceptions: a case for Sonoma County wines, Journal of Wine Research,DOI:10.1080/09571264.2012.676540

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2012.676540

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Consumer awareness and quality perceptions: a case for SonomaCounty wines

Thomas S. Atkin and Sandra K. Newton∗

School of Business and Economics, Sonoma State University, 1801 East Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA,94928, USA

(Received 29 June 2011; final version received 14 December 2011)

The general hypothesis of this study is that the core wine consumer in the USA is not influencedby American Viticulture Area (AVA) (appellations) designation in deciding about wine qualityabove and beyond the geopolitical region designation (such as Sonoma County). Most wineconsumers have higher awareness of the larger geopolitical region than the AVA’s withinthat region. The case of Sonoma County, California, is used to investigate this questionbecause legislation was recently enacted to ensure that the “Sonoma County” designation tobe printed on all wine produced there. The authors assert that this “conjunctive labeling”will improve competitiveness. A national sample of 409 US wine consumers answer the callfor more research on a national level.

Keywords: wine labels; perception; California; USA; Sonoma; country of origin; brand/s;consumer research; product differentiation; extrinsic cues; statistics

1. Introduction

A recent trend has been toward promoting wines based on smaller, more specific places of origin.In order to get a better understanding of this issue, this article focuses on the geopolitical region ofSonoma County in California. Wine is an important industry in California. Sonoma County pro-duces about 9% of California’s total wine production at its 350 wineries. Sales of California wineto the US wine market totaled about $18.5 billion, or 199.6 million cases in 2010 (North BayBusiness Journal, 2011).

Differentiation strategies focusing on the wine place of origin are often used to gain consu-mers’ attention. One strategy, “conjunctive labeling”, has worked effectively in a neighboringwine region, Napa Valley, since 1989, as well as two other California wine-growing regions,Lodi and Paso Robles. Sonoma County vintners explored the idea of conjunctive labeling for anumber of years before the initiative became law on 1 January 2011 (Press Democrat, 2010).This legislation, which was a collaboration among Sonoma County wine industry associations,means that “any wine labeled with an AVA located entirely within Sonoma County – such asRussian River Valley or Dry Creek Valley – must also include the word ‘Sonoma County’ onthe label, starting in 2014” (Halverson, 2010). Anecdotal evidence supported Sonoma Countyvintners’ quest to improve the recognition of their wines and improve the quality perception oftheir wines by consumers through conjunctive label strategies. The Sonoma County Vintners’

ISSN 0957-1264 print/ISSN 1469-9672 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2012.676540

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. Email: newtonsa@sonoma.edu

Journal of Wine ResearchiFirst, 2012, 1–17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

objectives were to build brand equity, increase wine sales and increase the American ViticultureArea (AVA) recognition within Sonoma County (Frey, 2011). Earlier empirical research on winelabels has indicated that displaying the place of origin differentiates wine products, increases con-sumer awareness and indicates quality of the product (Lockshin, 1997). The strategic viability andfunctionality of the wine label remain a critical marketing focus for wineries, as well as continuedresearch interest (Atkin & Johnson, 2010; Bruwer & Johnson, 2010; Johnson & Bruwer, 2009;Van Ittersum, Candel, & Meulenberg, 2003).

Consumers typically use various information sources in combination with prior knowledgeand usage experience when making a decision to purchase wine. Research has shown that thisis a more complex experience than with other consumer products (Lockshin, 2003). Consumerswill make inferences about the quality of the wine from the region of origin of the product(Verlegh & Steenkamp, 1999). Placing the geographic origin of the product on the label can bea major strategy for smaller wineries that aids in distinguishing their product (N. Frey, personalcommunication, August 23, 20011; Van Zanten, Bruwer, & Ronning, 2003).

Content on the wine bottle label contributes to the overall wine package design, offers visi-bility from the retail shelf, and helps to inform and persuade consumers. Duhan, Kiecker,Areni, and Guerrero (1999) found wine enthusiasts looked at the origin of wine as an indicatorof quality and made purchase decisions based on that perception. Tolley (2005) found a shifttoward promoting smaller areas such as Russian River Valley appellation in the USA orBarossa in Australia. Bruwer (2007) indicated that the jury was still out, in that the effects ofthese strategies on consumer purchase decisions are not known. Bruwer and Johnson (2010)later found that regional information on the wine label increased consumer confidence in thequality of the product. Atkin and Johnson (2010) found consumers looked at brand and place-of-origin information, e.g. region, country and state, when making choices in their winepurchases.

A logical next step to extend this research stream would be to assess consumer recognition ofsuch smaller appellations as opposed to the awareness of the larger wine region. The wine label isone place where the product can differentiate itself to benefit from existing consumer awarenessand present itself as an indicator of quality (Lockshin, 1997). Understanding whether wine con-sumers from a geographically diverse sample will have a greater awareness of regional designa-tions (e.g. Sonoma County) over smaller appellations within that region (e.g. Russian RiverValley) is a significant issue for wine business strategy and competitive advantage in productand label development.

First, to better understand the relevance of this research study, the literature framework is pre-sented. Next, the sample and questionnaire are described in Section 3. The results of the analysisand further discussion follow in Section 4. Lastly, the conclusions with management implications,limitations and future research are conferred.

2. Literature framework

The importance of regionality and need for strong regional brands is widely accepted as a basicingredient for the development of brand salience (Bruwer & Johnson, 2010; Perrouty, d’Haute-ville, & Lockshin, 2006; Remaud & Lockshin, 2009). This is especially true for smaller producerswishing to present a perception of quality that will differentiate their wines from those of compet-ing regions both in the USA and internationally (Easingwood, Lockshin, & Spawton, 2011). At arecent seminar, Napa Valley winegrowers discussed perceptions of the global wine market placinga higher value on smaller and smaller geographic areas, especially for the high-end grower. Alsoemphasized in the discussions was the inclusion of the appellations and promoting the wholeNapa Valley (Franson, 2011).

2 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

Wine producers use the product label to emphasize important information about the wine. Thelabel not only signals the content inside the bottle, but also reveals a number of other markers,such as the region or place of origin, grape variety and brand name on the front label. Both anec-dotal evidence and empirical research have found wine to be viewed as a complex product (Lock-shin, Jarvis, d’Hauteville, & Perrouty, 2006), and a part of that complexity is attributed to theconfusing nature of wine label content (Walker, 2006). Consumers review the wine label for infor-mation to aid in their evaluation and selection of a wine product. Lockshin et al. (2006) found thata region of origin that is well known adds value to a wine regardless of other attributes such as thebrand size, level of involvement or price. In addition, Lockshin et al. (2006) found that theregional awareness increased sales for both the small and large brands. Consequently, understand-ing some of the dynamics involved in how consumers choose wine (Lockshin, 2003), and whatvariables are key in their consideration continues to be a research topic of import.

2.1 Region of origin

The geographic location – origin of the grapes – is a key element in product and quality differ-entiation (Thode & Maskulka, 1998), and wineries have opportunities to generate additionalrevenue by distinguishing their products based on geographic origin. Researchers have used amyriad of terms to articulate and define geographic origin, e.g. country, region, sub-region andappellation. Research has found that the country of origin is a major factor and has a positiveinfluence of a consumer’s product evaluation (Ballestrini & Gamble, 2006; Van Ittersum et al.,2003). Van Ittersum et al. (2003) went on to state that when a region and a product match, theregional image influences the consumer evaluation of the product in a positive way.

In Verlegh and Steenkamp’s (1999) meta-analysis, country of origin was found to have a greatereffect on the consumer’s perceptions of quality than on their attitudes toward the product or pur-chase intentions. Other studies have found the importance of the region of origin as one of thekey factors in making wine choice decisions, as well as perceived as an indicator of quality(Duhan et al., 1999; Lockshin et al., 2006; Perrouty et al., 2006). And more recent research hasinvestigated more specific locations, such as appellations or AVA, and the potential strategic impli-cations with place-based marketing (Atkin & Johnson, 2010; Bruwer & Johnson, 2010).

In 2007, Atkin, Nowak, and Garcia found that the geographic origin of wine (with local winespreferred over all other choices presented) was the most important attribute for both Australia andNew Zealand consumers when choosing wines (Atkin, Garcia, & Lockshin, 2007). Their findingssupport the notion that origin information about wine functions as a key reference point fromwhich inferences are made, and especially with unfamiliar wines.

With the trend toward sourcing and promoting grapes from more specific places of origin andpromoting wines on that basis, there has been a proliferation of AVA wine label information relat-ing to smaller and smaller geographic areas. Wine growers place the AVA on the wine label as away to represent the unique characteristics of that specific area. Even though Falls (2000) foundthat the AVA includes no quality-related provisions, such as grape varieties or yield per acre,Johnson and Bruwer (2009) found that consumers may associate certain quality expectationswith those AVA-approved areas.

This assignment of perceived quality is of importance in the product development processbecause the place of origin information claimed on the label is directly related to the source ofthe grapes that went into the wine. In order to claim that a wine originated in a particularcounty (i.e. Sonoma County), the winery must prove that 75% of the grapes were grown inthat county. If an appellation is claimed on the label, 85% of the grapes must come from thatspecific appellation. Thus, there is much more flexibility in sourcing and blending grapes if thewine is promoted on the basis of a region or county.

Journal of Wine Research 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

In this paper, the term “region” is used to refer to a geopolitical area within a country, such as astate or county. Smaller geographic areas within a region will be referred to as “appellations” or“AVAs”. While the creation of a brand name may take many years, region of origin associationsdo not have to be created because most consumers already possess certain associations to thatarea. The image of the region can be actively used to promote the product in the market place.In this paper, we examine the degree of consumer awareness derived from the region of originlabeling versus appellation labeling.

2.2 Intrinsic and extrinsic cues

Consumers use cues as a way to help inform about their choice decisions. With wine, it is oftendifficult to assess its quality without first consuming, therefore the cues, or shortcuts can aid in thedecision process. There are many different cues on the wine package that may influence the con-sumer’s evaluation. Wine packaging might include one or a number of these cues: region, sub-region, country of origin, as well as vintage, grape variety, style and vineyard. There are othervisual cues on the label that are characteristics of the specific product, such as alcohol content,wine style, grape variety and price.

Lockshin and Rhodus (1993) found that the typical wine consumer relies upon extrinsic cues,such as price or region of origin when making decisions about wine quality. Later, Duhan et al.(1999) also found that origin of wine is often perceived as an indicator of quality, and may be usedas the basis in decision-making when purchasing wine. Researchers have also looked at label,brand and shelf position as viable cues for wine choice decisions (Jacoby & Olson, 1985; Lock-shin & Spawton, 2001; Lockshin et al., 2006).

Once a choice decision is made and the wine is consumed, the consumer now has anotherlayer of cues available to them. Consumers may now trust a brand or region due to their satisfac-tion of their decision (Bruwer & Wood, 2005). Consumers have now had the opportunity to assessother quality-related attributes, such as taste and aroma.

Price has been found to be a key differentiator for wine quality, preferences and intended pur-chase. Wine consumers often look at price (for a bottle of wine) as an indicator of quality (Quester& Smart, 1998). Lockshin et al. (2006) found that price had a significant effect on the likelihoodof the consumer’s wine purchase, and that highly involved consumers were more likely to pur-chase higher priced wines than the lower involved consumers. In a later study, McCutcheon,Bruwer, and Li (2009) found price to be an important choice factor in their Australian consumer’swine-buying decisions study.

2.3 Demographic and behavioral factors

In addition to the review of literature for the region of origin and the intrinsic and extrinsic cuesrelated to choice decisions, demographic and behavioral factors have shown to be important vari-ables in the analysis equations. Research studies investigating the behaviors of consumers andbuyers have found definite links to the consumer’s knowledge about wine, their involvementwith the product and their demographic variables. Knowledge about wine, often defined as a con-sumer’s perceived expertise, has been found to be a significant attribute when evaluating wines(for intended purchase) (Perrouty et al., 2006). Research has also found that a consumer, whentheir wine product involvement level is high, uses regional branding cues when making winechoices (Bruwer & Johnson, 2010).

The consumer’s gender has been a more difficult factor to confirm its influence in choicedecisions. While Lockshin and Hall’s (2003) research found that male consumers placedgreater importance on the region of origin of wine over females, McCutcheon et al. (2009)

4 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

found the opposite, in that female consumers placed greater importance on the region of originover males when making choice decisions.

3. Research objectives, hypotheses and methodology

The aim of this research is to extend wine label and marketing research by examining consumerawareness of wine regions, such as Sonoma County, and comparing it to their awareness of thesmaller appellations, such as Russian River Valley. Our research strives to answer the question:

. Does the wine consumer utilize appellation or AVA information when evaluating winequality above and beyond regional designations, such as Napa Valley or Sonoma County?

3.1 Hypotheses

Drawing on the literature framework discussed above, the following hypotheses were tested:

H1: Wine consumer awareness of the region “Sonoma County” will be greater than the awareness ofappellations within Sonoma County, such as “Russian River Valley”.

H2: Core wine consumers will have greater awareness of regional and appellation information thanmarginal wine consumers.

H3: Wine consumers with self-report expertise will have greater awareness of regional and appellationinformation than wine consumers who are not experts.

H4: There will be gender differences in awareness of regional and appellation information among thewine consumers.

3.2 Methodology

Data were collected from adult wine consumers throughout the USA. Potential respondents werescreened to ensure they were at least occasional wine drinkers before proceeding with the survey.Survey Sampling International sourced the target sample, and the respondents completed thesurvey online via the Survey Monkey web survey platform, which was available for 7 days. Atotal of 409 responses were completed and used for this study.

The respondents in this study were a self-select sample, and while the sample represents adiverse group of US wine drinkers, they cannot be taken as a general population sample. Thesample was close to evenly split regarding gender with 48% being male and 52% female. Thissample offers a greater geographic coverage with representation from 46 states with less than17% of the respondents from California (Bruwer & Johnson, 2010; Hussein, Cholette, & Castaldi,2007). While this study is not a random sample, the processes used perhaps mitigate a potentiallimitation found in previous studies where samples were dominated by California residents andhighly involved wine consumers (Atkin, Nowak, & Garcia, 2007; Bruwer & Johnson, 2010;Hussein et al., 2007; Johnson & Bruwer, 2007).

3.3 Measurement

Using adult wine consumers as our sample, we chose to measure the respondents’ traits in twoways. First, we measured their expertise level using the four items adopted by Perrouty et al.(2006) and d’Hauteville and Goldsmith (1998). These four items were: I don’t understandmuch about wine; Compared to others, I know less about the subject of wine; I feel competentin my knowledge about wine and Among my friends, I am the one who is the wine expert.

An informal confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the principal components’extraction method enabling evaluation of the correspondence between the measurement items

Journal of Wine Research 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

in the survey and the construct being measured – expertise level. The results confirmed the val-idity of the four measurement items as they combined together to form one factor. The singlefactor had an eigenvalue of 2.88, where greater than 1 is considered significant, and accountedfor 72.1% of the total variance in the measurement items. Factor solutions that account for60% of the total variance are considered satisfactory (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black,1998). The reliability (Cronbach alpha) of the four-item factor was 0.87 and deteriorates if anymeasurement item is omitted, thus confirming reliability of the composite measurement of thefour items.

Second, we measured their frequency of wine consumption. The Wine Market Council (2008)defines those who drink wine at least once per week as core wine consumers; over 65% of therespondents indicated that they drank wine at least once per week, thus were considered corewine consumers for the purpose of this study. Those who indicated they drank less often thanat least once per week were considered marginal wine consumers for the purpose of this study.Additional demographic data are shared with respect to the two subsamples (core and marginal)and the total sample, and are given in Table 1.

4. Results and discussion

The goal of the study was to further examine wine consumption information generated from amore diverse group of US wine consumers than earlier research studies by assessing the consu-mer’s recognition and awareness of smaller wine appellations when compared to a larger wineregion. The wine label is one place where the product can differentiate itself to benefit from exist-ing consumer awareness and present itself as an indicator of quality (Lockshin, 1997). Under-standing whether wine consumers will have a greater awareness of regional designations (e.g.Sonoma County) over smaller appellations within that region (e.g. Russian River Valley) is a sig-nificant issue for wine business strategy and a competitive advantage in product and labeldevelopment.

Table 1. Core and marginal consumer demographics N ¼ 409.

Category

Core Marginal Total

Wine consumers Wine consumers Wine consumers

Men 125 63 188Women 136 75 211Subtotal 261 138 399

Age21–29 37 21 5830–39 51 25 7640–49 67 38 10550–59 43 24 6760 and above 67 30 97

Subtotal 265 138 403

DrinkRed 156 47 203White 77 62 139Rose 28 25 53Sparkling 6 6 12Subtotal 267 140 407

6 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

4.1 Consumer awareness

Respondents were first asked to name up to five regions worldwide that came to mind of their ownaccord. This was an open-ended question with no hints or reference about country, state, region,appellation, etc. Napa had the higher number of mentions with 259. Napa was followed bySonoma (96), California (79), Bordeaux (52) and Champagne (44). This suggests that Sonomahas a respectable name recognition, but it has a long way to go to catch up with Napa(Table 2). Napa was also cited first by a majority of respondents (196), followed by California(47) and Sonoma (14). Sonoma was most frequently mentioned when respondents listed theirsecond region of choice.

Respondents were then asked to name five regions, AVA’s, or appellations in California thatcame to mind, again of their own accord. Most respondents could only name two. As shown inTable 3, Napa was named more often than all of the other areas combined, when looking at thegrand total of 294. Sonoma came in a distant second with 111 total mentions. There was a signifi-cant decrease in mentions after Sonoma with consumers naming a variety of other locations.

It is important to note that the region of Sonoma with 111 mentions was named more fre-quently than any of the smaller appellations within Sonoma County, i.e. Sonoma Valley (20),Russian River (17), Alexander Valley (5) and Carneros (2). This suggests that the larger

Table 2. Region choices – name recognition.

World region 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total

Napa 196 33 16 9 5 259Sonoma 14 51 18 10 3 96California 47 18 10 2 2 79Bordeaux 4 18 12 11 7 52Champagne 1 13 13 7 10 44New York 1 25 3 4 4 37Tuscany 4 6 6 10 5 31Washington 5 8 9 8 1 31Burgundy 5 2 8 10 4 29France 2 4 7 6 7 26Italy 3 7 6 5 4 25Oregon 6 4 7 3 2 22Finger Lakes 9 9 2 1 1 22

Table 3. California region, AVA, or appellation choice – name recognition.

Region/AVA 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total

Napa 256 27 8 2 1 294Sonoma 29 71 6 3 2 111Temecula 3 7 11 0 3 24Sonoma Valley 2 10 6 2 0 20Russian River Valley 6 1 6 2 2 17Monterey 0 4 7 2 4 17Mendocino 0 3 7 4 2 16Paso Robles 2 2 5 5 0 14Santa Barbara 0 3 7 0 0 10Alexander Valley 0 0 5 0 0 5Carneros 0 0 2 0 0 2

Journal of Wine Research 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

geopolitical region of Sonoma has much greater name recognition than any of the appellationswithin Sonoma County. This finding supports previous research showing that consumersutilize region information more than appellation information when evaluating wines (Atkin &Johnson, 2010).

To validate these findings, we asked consumers to rate their awareness of Napa, Sonoma andseveral Sonoma County appellations on a 5-point Likert scale using poor (1) to great (5) as theendpoints. As expected, Napa had the highest mean at 3.20, then Sonoma County at 2.86. Thisdifference was statistically significant between the two groups (t-test ¼ 6.563, significance ¼0.000).

t-Tests, focusing on the means, were again performed comparing Sonoma County to severalof the appellations in Sonoma County and findings are outlined in Table 4. Significant differ-ences in awareness between the geopolitical region and appellations were observed. The find-ings specific to Sonoma County versus Russian River Valley also offer support for Hypothesis1. It is interesting to note that the appellations had more than twice as many “no opinion”responses as the more recognizable geopolitical region. Over one-third of respondentsclaimed no opinion concerning each of the appellations within Sonoma County. This againillustrates there is a much greater awareness for the Sonoma County region of origin than sur-rounding appellations.

4.2 Consumer traits

Next, we sought to understand whether the region and appellation awareness of consumers variedby wine consumption. For each of the regions and appellations: Sonoma County, Russian RiverValley, Dry Creek Valley, Carneros and Green Valley, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)was performed using the two subsamples of wine consumers, core and marginal, as the indepen-dent variable. Consistent with the findings above, both groups of wine consumers were muchmore aware of the region, Sonoma County, than any of its respective appellations. As hypoth-esized in Hypothesis 2, core wine consumers were significantly more aware of both regionaland appellation information than marginal consumers. Among marginal wine consumers, therewas a greater percentage drop in awareness from region to appellation than among core wine con-sumers. Both groups were significantly more aware of Sonoma County when compared to theappellation choices offered. The one-way ANOVA results with the means and standard deviations(which represent the dispersion of the data for that group) for both core and marginal wine con-sumers are given in Table 5.

The Means Plot diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the significant difference in awareness ofSonoma County and Russian River Valley by core wine consumers over marginal wine consu-mers. It also demonstrates that the drop-off in awareness from Sonoma County to RussianRiver Valley is similar for both core and marginal consumers. In fact, even marginal consumershave a greater awareness of Sonoma County with a mean of 2.37 than core consumers have ofRussian River Valley with a mean of 1.78, the most highly recognized appellation in Sonoma

Table 4. Consumer awareness.

Region/AVA Mean t-Test Significance (two-tailed) No opinion (%)

Sonoma County (to) 2.86 14.1Russian River Valley 1.47 17.059 0.000 35.3Dry Creek Valley 1.32 17.557 0.000 37.3Carneros 1.16 19.898 0.000 40.6Green Valley 1.09 19.624 0.000 40.9

8 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

County. The same effect can be seen when the sample is split according to knowledge, expertise,price category, wine-type preferred and gender in the subsequent results sections.

4.3 Wine knowledge

Self-report of a respondent’s knowledge about wine has been used to enable segmentation of thesample into groups of expertise or not (Bruwer & Johnson, 2010). The respondents were separ-ated into two groups: experts with means greater than 4.0 of a 7-point scale and non-experts withmeans less than 4.0. Expert respondents indicated they were at least “somewhat knowledgeableabout wine”, and demonstrated significantly more awareness of both appellation and region thannon-experts. The non-expert respondents also showed a greater gap in awareness between regionand appellation information.

For each of the regions and appellations: Sonoma County, Russian River Valley, Dry CreekValley, Carneros and Green Valley, a one-way ANOVA was performed using the two subsamplesof wine consumers, experts and non-experts, as the independent variable. Experts were signifi-cantly more aware of Sonoma County and the corresponding appellations over non-experts.Both expert and non-experts were also significantly more aware of Sonoma County over theappellation choices provided. The one-way ANOVA results with the means and standard devi-ations for both expert and non-expert wine consumers are given in Table 6. The findings offersupport for Hypothesis 3. The Means Plot diagram in Figure 2 illustrates the significant differencein awareness of Sonoma County and Russian River Valley by expert consumers over non-expert

Figure 1. Awareness differences by expertise.

Table 5. Awareness by consumer type – expertise.

Core(mean)

Core(SD)

Marginal(mean)

Marginal(SD) F Significance

Sonoma County 3.12 1.49 2.37 1.69 21.233 0.000Russian River Valley 1.78 1.59 0.90 1.19 32.788 0.000Dry Creek Valley 1.54 1.57 0.88 1.08 20.007 0.000Carneros 1.41 1.50 0.71 1.04 24.465 0.000Green Valley 1.29 1.40 0.72 1.05 17.931 0.000

Journal of Wine Research 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

consumers. It also visually demonstrates the significance in awareness differences betweenSonoma County and Russian River Valley, and that non-experts have a greater awareness ofSonoma County with a mean of 2.35 than experts have of Russian Valley with a mean of 1.90.

4.4 Price

Consumer perceptions about quality can be often cued by price (McCutcheon et al., 2009). Whenwe grouped the sample according to the price they typically pay for a bottle of wine (under $15and over $15), a similar pattern emerged with respect to awareness of both region and appellationinformation. The one-way ANOVA results with the means and standard deviations for bothgroups, wine consumers who typically pay under $15 and those who typically pay over $15,are given in Table 7. While almost 75% of the respondents pay under $15.00 a bottle, awarenessof the region and appellation information is significantly greater among those who may pay over$15.00 a bottle.

Both groups were also significantly more aware of Sonoma County over the other appellationsprovided as choices. The Means Plot diagram in Figure 3 illustrates that the over $15 group had asignificantly greater awareness of both places of origin, Sonoma County and Russian River

Figure 2. Awareness and expertise.

Table 6. Wine knowledge.

Expert(mean)

Expert(SD)

Non-expert(mean)

Non-expert(SD) F Significance

Sonoma County 3.28 1.44 2.35 1.65 37.038 0.000Russian River

Valley1.90 1.64 0.95 0.12 43.847 0.000

Dry Creek Valley 1.69 1.61 0.84 1.06 36.569 0.000Carneros 1.51 1.54 0.73 0.98 34.859 0.000Green Valley 1.39 1.45 0.74 1.02 26.062 0.000

10 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

Valley. The Means Plot also visually demonstrates the significance in awareness differencesbetween Sonoma County and Russian River Valley.

4.5 Characteristics of the wine

While this study did not focus on specific brands, the respondents were asked to indicate which typeof wine they usually purchase and consume: red, white, rose, sparkling or fortified. There were noresponses for fortified wine. Respondents who usually drink red wine showed higher awareness ofthe region of Sonoma County. The corresponding means of the respondents according to the type ofwine they usually purchase and consume are shown in Table 8. Red wine consumers were also thelargest group at 49% of the sample. Although sparkling wine drinkers were only 3.4% of thesample, they were very aware of the place of origin. In addition, it is interesting to note that con-sumers of sparkling wine had the greatest relative awareness of the shared appellations.

4.6 Consumer demographics

In trying to further understand gender differences and awareness, for each of the regions andappellations: Sonoma County, Russian River Valley, Dry Creek Valley, Carneros and GreenValley, one-way ANOVA was performed using the two genders, male and female, as the indepen-dent variable. In this study, males tended to possess a higher awareness of both appellation and

Figure 3. Awareness by price.

Table 7. Awareness by price.

Under $15 Over $15

Mean SD Mean SD F Significance

Sonoma County 2.73 1.60 3.25 1.55 8.383 0.004Russian River Valley 1.27 1.43 2.05 1.59 0.000Dry Creek Valley 1.10 1.29 1.90 1.70 0.000Carneros 1.01 1.26 1.65 1.56 0.000Green Valley 0.88 1.09 1.68 1.64 0.000

Journal of Wine Research 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

region information. The one-way ANOVA results with the means and standard deviations for bothgroups, male and female, are given in Table 9. The gender results are consistent with the trend ofearlier analyses with major mean differences from region to the appellation choices provided, andoffer support for Hypothesis 4.

Figure 4 illustrates a greater awareness by males for both places of origin, Sonoma Countyand Russian River Valley. The figure also visually demonstrates the significant difference inawareness between Sonoma County and Russian River Valley for both genders.

4.7 Label experiment

Prior research performed for the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association has shown that the“Sonoma County” designation confers an image of high-quality wines (N. Frey, personal

Table 9. Awareness by gender.

Male Female

Mean SD Mean SD F Significance

Sonoma County 3.17 1.47 2.56 1.66 14.999 0.000Russian River Valley 1.79 1.58 1.18 1.36 17.277 0.000Dry Creek Valley 1.62 1.59 1.02 1.21 18.319 0.000Carneros 1.47 1.49 0.89 1.17 18.747 0.000Green Valley 1.35 1.45 0.89 1.13 13.129 0.000

Figure 4. Awareness by gender.

Table 8. Awareness and wine types.

Red White Rose Champagne

Sonoma County 3.08 2.68 2.45 3.00Russian River Valley 1.70 1.28 0.92 2.17Dry Creek Valley 1.55 1.04 0.94 2.17Carneros 1.42 0.92 0.64 2.00Green Valley 1.26 0.93 0.94 2.17

12 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

communication, October 2008). Results found that these wines were thought to be of consistentlyhigh quality and to contain premium grapes. Awareness of appellations (AVAs) within SonomaCounty was expressed at significantly far lower levels than the region, Sonoma County, thuslisting an AVA in the absence of a Sonoma County designation on the label conferred a lowerconsumer preference.

For the current study, a pair of labels from four AVAs within Sonoma County was presented tothe respondents. One label had only the appellation listed and the other label showed both theappellation and the words “Sonoma County”. Respondents were asked to choose the labelfrom which they would expect the higher quality wine. A chi-square test was performed tocompare the label choices of the respondents. Over 80% of the respondents chose the labelthat contained the words “Sonoma County” regardless of the appellation provided. Table 10shows the chi-square (x2) and significance (p) values of the differences between the number ofrespondents and their selection of AVA or AVA plus Sonoma County.

5. Implications, limitations, future research and conclusion

This research provides a deeper understanding of the strength of regional brands. It adds to thebody of knowledge on wine marketing and the development of effective wine labels. Surveyresults from a national sample of US wine consumers were analyzed to understand consumeruse of the place-of-origin information in the wine evaluation process. The goal of this researchwas to answer further the question whether the wine consumer utilizes appellation or AVA infor-mation when evaluating wine quality above and beyond geopolitical regional designations, suchas Napa Valley or Sonoma County.

5.1 Managerial implications

This study finds support for emphasizing the geopolitical region of origin identity on the label, asopposed to only AVA or appellation. Aside from the most expert and frequent consumers, appel-lation-only information does not really create a great deal of awareness when compared toregional information. For example, the results show that even marginal consumers have agreater awareness of the Sonoma County region than core consumers had of any of the appella-tions within its borders. Wineries are wise to take advantage of the equity of the larger regionthrough regional strategies such as conjunctive labeling.

The label experiment presented here also showed that region is an important signal of qualityto a vast majority of wine consumers. As wineries continue to seek sustainable competitive advan-tage, they will need to justify the superiority of the product. Wine is an “experience good” whosequality cannot be observed until it is consumed. A collective reputation is often established basedon the region’s aggregate quality and this reputation must be protected (Winfree & McClusky,2005). Relevance remains in Thode and Maskulka’s (1998) study, in that producers should estab-lish superiority in the taste of their wine, superiority which equates to that corresponding region oforigin, and continue to find ways to influence consumers to buy the wine at the price point.

Table 10. AVA label comparisons.

AVA AVA + Sonoma County x2 p

Alexander Valley 56 325 394.509 0.000Bennett Valley 38 347 248.003 0.000Knights Valley 59 316 357.452 0.000Russian River Valley 74 304 316.083 0.000

Journal of Wine Research 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

Cooperation between wineries needs to be encouraged so that information on growing techniquesand production methods can be shared.

From a product development perspective, it is important to understand the impact of SonomaCounty on consumer awareness relative to the impact of the more specific but lesser known appel-lations within Sonoma County. The marketing benefit of placing “Sonoma County” on the label isclear from the findings in this study. There is a heightened awareness of the region over its ownappellations. Sonoma County carries a positive image that exerts a halo effect on its products. Itwould be advantageous if wineries were to take this into account during the design phase whenthey create their labels. From a supply chain perspective, the regional designation can also influ-ence who and where grapes are sourced from. Using and promoting grapes with the SonomaCounty designation instead of the smaller appellation may lead to commanding a higher priceon the final product. There is also more flexibility due to US content regulations.

It is essential for managers to understand what will attract the consumer’s attention during theshopping experience and subsequent purchase decision. The low awareness of appellation infor-mation by the wine consumer in the current study must not be minimalized. It may be that theappellation information is too complex to be meaningful, as only wine consumers with substantialexpertise and core wine consumers possessed a stronger awareness of appellations than otherwine consumers in the study. These findings provide relevance and offer credence to theSonoma County vintners’ quest to improve the consumers’ recognition of their wines andimprove the visibility and awareness of their wines through label strategies that include thewording “Sonoma County.”

5.2 Limitations

Although this study provides several new insights, it is not without its limitations. First, the studyis focused upon the region of Sonoma County so the results found here may not generalize to allwine regions. Regions with different traditions and quality reputations may not exhibit the sameeffects shown here.

Second, the study utilizes a geographically diverse sample of wine consumers in the USA.This is a useful sample for assessing wine decision-making habits, but the readers should recog-nize that it is not a totally random sample. It was obtained from a subset of wine consumerswilling and able to take the survey on the internet.

5.3 Future research

This research investigated the wine consumer, their characteristics and their awareness of appel-lation or AVA information versus regional designations when evaluating wine quality. Greaterunderstanding of a wine consumer’s awareness and their judgments across nations might be inorder. An international replication of this study would help wineries that seek to export and inter-nationalize their products.

It will be very interesting to repeat the study with a similar national sample in several years.The conjunctive labeling may have been fully implemented by then. The effects shown in thisstudy may have become more pronounced at that time. The data could also lead to a moredirect tie to marketing theories such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Caccioppo & Petty,1982) or the Heuristic Systematic Model (Bettman, Johnson, & Payne, 1991). The ElaborationLikelihood Model of persuasion could address the attitudes of consumers and has been apopular method for generating useable predictions on how to effect an attitude change. Attitudechanges that result from processing issue-relevant information will be longer lasting than changesresulting from peripheral cues (Caccioppo & Petty 1982). The Heuristic Systematic Model looks

14 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

at the processing of persuasive messages as a compromise between the accuracy of judgments andthe efficiency by which judgments can be made. People may engage in careful analysis of relevantinformation only to the extent necessary to achieve a sufficient level of certainty (Bettman et al.,1991). Researchers may also find it beneficial to examine additional variables of the judgmentprocess, for example, by accounting for the ease and speed of judgments (Orth, Campana, &Malkewitz, 2009).

6. Conclusion

In support of market research indicating that consumers did not really understand AVA’s (PressDemocrat, 2010), Sonoma County vintners lobbied for the initiative to have front labels of allSonoma County wines show both the region “Sonoma County” in addition to the sub-region des-ignation (AVA). This research study validates the reasoning and justification of the SonomaCounty vintners. This study’s findings reinforce the sentiments of Nick Goldschmidt stated atthe neighboring Napa Valley Grapegrower’s seminar in 2011. In recognition of the region’spower of influence he said “Be inclusive in appellations, and promote the whole Napa Valley.Limit promotion of AVAs, Napa overall is more powerful and important” (Franson, 2011).There is great power in regional clusters.

The dominant competitive issue today is not making good wine – it centers on the winery’sability to market and sell its wine effectively (McMillan, 2008). There are almost 5000 wineriesproducing about 7000 brands of wine in the USA (McMillan, 2008). Those brands have tosqueeze through a distribution pipeline with half as many distributors as 10 years ago. The top10 wineries listed in Table 11 represent 82% of domestic wine shipments. The rest – thesmall- and medium-size wineries – have a tough fight on their hands (McMillan, 2008).Knowing that the region of origin on a wine label makes a significant difference, winerieshave the ability to provide a link between perceived quality of the product and the product’splace of origin to improve their competitive stance in the market (Thode & Maskulka, 1998).

We recognize that the selection of a wine does not occur without consideration of a number offactors, several of which were studied here. Region of origin, frequency of consumption, consu-mer expertise, the price of the product and the consumer’s wine-type preferences were found sig-nificantly relevant. These findings provide wineries a much better framework to decide pricing,packaging, advertising and merchandising strategies with greater comprehension of theircurrent and future consumers.

In conclusion, many small and medium sized wineries are not able to compete alongside largewineries with their advertising budgets, so increasing the salience of the wine region they are

Table 11. Top 10 US wine companies list1.

Wine company Annual US case sales

1 E&J Gallo Winery 67,000,0002 The Wine Group 56,000,0003 Constellation Brands 46,000,0004 Bronco Wine Company 20,000,0005 Foster’s Wine Estates 18,000,0006 Trinchero Family Estates 12,000,0007 Ste. Michele Wine Estates 6,000,0008 Diageo Chateau & Estate Wines 5,700,0009 Jackson Family Wines 5,000,000

10 Brown-Forman Wines 4,500,000

Journal of Wine Research 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

located in constitutes a cooperative way to establish brand salience (Ling & Lockshin, 2003). Thisresearch demonstrates promoting wine on a regional basis may be a more beneficial strategy, thanfeaturing appellations alone.

Note1. “The Top 30 U.S. Wine Companies of 2008”, (February 15, 2009) obtained from http://www.

winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=62891, sourced 26 August 2011.

ReferencesAtkin, T.S., Garcia, R., & Lockshin, L. (2007). A multidimensional study of the diffusion of a discontinuous

innovation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 14(2), 17–33.Atkin, T.S., & Johnson, R. (2010). Appellation as an indicator of quality. International Journal of Wine

Business Research, 22(1), 42–61.Atkin, T.S., Nowak, L., & Garcia, R. (2007). Women wine consumers: Information search and retailing

implications. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(4), 327–339.Ballestrini, P., & Gamble, P. (2006). Country of origin effects on Chinese wine consumers. British Food

Journal, 108(5), 396–412.Bettman, J., Johnson, E., & Payne, J.W. (1991). Consumer decision making. In T.S. Robertson & H.H.

Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 50–78). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bruwer, J. (2007). Advanced wine marketing, unpublished study guide, The University of Adelaide,

Adelaide.Bruwer, J., & Johnson, R. (2010). Place-based marketing and regional branding strategy perspectives in the

California wine industry. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(1), 5–16.Bruwer, J., & Wood, G. (2005). The Australian online wine-buying consumer: Motivational and behavioral

perspectives. Journal of Wine Research, 16(3), 193–211.Caccioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

42, 116–131.D’Hauteville, F., & Goldsmith, R.E. (1998). Measuring cross cultural acceptance of an innovation: The case

of low-alcohol wine. In I. Balderjahn, C. Mennicken, & E. Vernette (Eds.), New developments andapproaches in consumer behaviour research (pp. 289–305). Stuttgart: Schaffer- Poeschel Verlag.

Duhan, D.F., Kiecker, P.L., Areni, C.S., & Guerrero, C. (1999). Origin information and retail sales of wine.International Journal of Wine Marketing, 11(3), 44–58.

Easingwood, C., Lockshin, L., & Spawton, A. (2011). The drivers of wine regionality. Journal of WineResearch, 22(1), 19–33.

Falls, C. (2000, November 1). An inside look at the San Francisco Bay AVA. Wines & Vines, 81(11), 16–24.Franson, P. (2011). Napa winegrowers aim ‘Ahead of the Curve’. Wines & Vines. Retrieved March 17, 2011,

from http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?section=news&content=84972Frey, N. (2011). Sonoma County conjunctive labeling. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http://www.

sonomawine.com/about-sonoma-county/conjunctive-labelingHair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle

River NJ: Prentice Hall.Halverson, N. (2010). Viticulture briefs. Retrieved from August 26, 2011, http://www.pressdemocrat.com/

article/20100829/BUSINESS/8291083Hussein, M., Cholette, S., & Castaldi, R. (2007). Determinants of wine consumption of US consumers: An

econometric analysis. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(1), 49–62.Jacoby, J., & Olson, J.C. (1985). Perceived quality: How consumers view stores and merchandise.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Johnson, R., & Bruwer, J. (2007). Regional brand image and perceived wine quality: The consumer perspec-

tive. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 19(4), 276–297.Johnson, R., & Bruwer, J. (2009, January/February). Balancing regionality with American Viticultural

Areas. Practical Winery and Vineyard, 58–73.Ling, B.H., & Lockshin, L. (2003). Components of wine prices for Australian wine: How winery reputation,

wine quality, region, vintage and winery size contribute to the price of varietal wines. AustralasianMarketing Journal, 11(3), 19–32.

16 T.S. Atkin and S.K. Newton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12

Lockshin, L. (1997). Branding and brand management in the wine industry. Australian and New ZealandWine Industry Journal, 12(4), 386–387.

Lockshin, L. (2003). Consumer purchasing behavior for wine: What we know and where we are going.Marches et Marketing du Vin. Bordeaux Ecole de Management, 57-03, Aout.

Lockshin, L., & Hall, J. (2003). Consumer purchasing behaviour for wine: What we know and where we aregoing. Paper presented at International Colloquium in Wine Marketing, University of South Australia,Adelaide.

Lockshin, L., Jarvis, W., D’hauteville, F., & Perrouty, J.P. (2006). Using simulations from discrete choiceexperiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price and awards. Food Quality andPreference, 17(3/4), 166–178.

Lockshin, L., & Rhodus, W. (1993). The effect of price and oak flavor on perceived wine quality.International Journal of Wine Marketing, 5(2), 13–25.

Lockshin, L., & Spawton, A.L. (2001). Using involvement and brand equity to develop a wine tourism strat-egy. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(1), 72–81.

Mccutcheon, E., Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2009). Region of origin and its importance among choice factors in thewine-buying decision making of consumers. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(3),212–234.

Mcmillan, R. (2008, May). 2008–2009 State of the Wine Industry. California: Silicon Valley Bank FinancialGroup.

North Bay Business Journal. (2011). U.S. thirst for wine passes that of France for first time. Retrieved fromMarch 17, 2011, http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/31043/u-s-thirst-for-wine-passes-that-of-france-for-first-time/

Orth, U., Campana, D., & Malkewitz, K. (2009). Formation of consumer price expectation based on packagedesign: Attractive and quality routes. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(1), 23–40.

Perrouty, J.P., D’hauteville, F., & Lockshin, L. (2006). The influence of wine attributes on region of originequity: An analysis of the moderating effect of consumer’s perceived expertise. Agribusiness, 25(3),323–341.

Press Democrat. (2010). Obtained from “Wine Labeling Bill Nearly Law” Retrieved from December 19,2010, http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100829/BUSINESS/8291083

Quester, P., & Smart, J. (1998). The influence of consumption situation and product involvement over con-sumers’ use of product attribute. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(3), 220–238.

Remaud, H., & Lockshin, L. (2009). Building brand salience for commodity-based wine regions.International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(1), 72–92.

Thode, S., & Maskulka, J. (1998). Place-based marketing strategies, brand equity and vineyard valuation.Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(5), 379–399.

Tolley, S. (2005). Applying the Wine Australia toolkit. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal,20(3), 22.

Van Ittersum, K., Candel, M., & Meulenberg, T. (2003). The influence of the image of a product’s region oforigin on product evaluation. Journal of Business Research, 56, 215–226.

Van Zanten, R., Bruwer, J., & Ronning, K. (2003). Integrated marketing communications: The case ofCoonawarra. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 18(4), 102–107.

Verlegh, W., & Steenkamp, J. (1999). A review and meta-analysis of country-of-origin research. Journal ofEconomic Psychology, 20, 521–546.

Walker, L. (2006, May). Designers take on label trends. Wines & Vines, 87(5), 26.Wine Market Council (2008, January 16). The U. S. wine market consumer trends and analysis. St. Helena,

CA: Wine Market Council.Winfree, J.A., & Mccluskey, J.J. (2005). Collective reputation and quality. American Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 87(1), 206–213.

Journal of Wine Research 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sono

ma

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

], [

Tho

mas

Atk

in]

at 1

1:27

17

Apr

il 20

12