Page 1
International Journal of Wine Business Research
The Winery Experience from the Perspective of Generation Z
Journal: International Journal of Wine Business Research
Manuscript ID IJWBR-03-2017-0018.R2
Manuscript Type: Research Article
Methods: Factor Analysis, Importance-Performance Analysis
Topics: Greece, Generation Z, Winescape, Winery, Wine Tourism
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
Page 2
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
1
The Winery Experience from the Perspective of Generation Z
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to investigate the wine tourism
experience from the perspective of Generation Z adults in Greece, following an
actual winery visit.
Design/methodology/approach – Responses were obtained from a total of
306 respondents drawn from student groups visiting a winery in the Achaia
region of the Peloponnese, Western Greece, using convenience sampling. A
list of winescape attributes was adopted for testing and used to structure self-
administered questionnaires. The data collected were analysed using a factor-
analytic and Importance-Performance Analysis framework.
Findings – Five factors that promote understanding of the desired wine
tourism experience of Generation Z adults were identified, namely: Cost
Considerations and Wine & Entertainment both perceived to be important but
the winery’s performance on the same was poor; Destination Attributes and
Service Staff both perceived to be important with good performance; and
Learning about Wine perceived unimportant with low performance.
Originality/value – This is the first academic study focusing specifically on
the winery experience from the perspective of Generation Z. As such it has
provided new and useful insights for researchers and managers in the wine
industry concerning the experience of this under-researched generational
cohort.
Keywords: Greece, Generation Z, Winescape, Winery, Wine Tourism
Page 1 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 3
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
2
Introduction
A significant rise in the number of tourists interested in wine has led many
communities to develop wine tourism. In fact, wine tourism has emerged as a
strong and growing segment of the tourism industry (O’Neill et al., 2002), with
many destinations developing wine trails and wineries as major attractions
(Santeramo et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2016). This trend might not be surprising, in
light of the significant advantages for wine businesses from such visits:
opportunities to sell wines directly to consumers; increase brand loyalty;
improve consumer awareness and knowledge; reinforce the brand image of the
wine product; and develop strong consumer relationships through planned on-
site experiences (Dodd, 1995; Byrd et al., 2016). That said, researchers in this
field have suggested that many of the issues related to the nature of the wine
tourist have yet to be revealed and warrant additional research on the different
wine tourist segments (Hall et al., 2000; Getz and Brown, 2006). This is very
important because “wine tourists are not a single homogeneous group, but seek
different components of the overall wine tourism experience” (Ali-Knight and
Charters, 2001, p. 79). As a result, the need for studies of the wine tourist has
emerged and been manifested in the literature in the significant increase in the
number of studies focusing on visitors’ perspectives (Getz and Brown, 2006;
Quadri-Felliti and Fiore, 2016).
One segment that has been of particular interest to wine tourism
scholars is that of the young wine tourists, with many studies suggesting that
the wine industry needs to look beyond aging markets for its next generation of
consumers if it is to have a long-term future (e.g. Beverland, 2001; Olsen et
al., 2007). In this regard, Carlsen et al. (2006, p. 6) have explicitly called for
research into the characteristics and behaviour of young wine tourists, “as it is
possible that they are searching for something different than previous
generations”. As a quick glance at the reference list of this paper reveals, this
and similar calls were taken up by wine tourism scholars who shifted attention
from older wine consumers (Baby Boomers) to the wine tourism experience of
Page 2 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 4
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
3
younger adults (specifically Generations [Gens] X and Y)1.
Connecting this research orientation to today’s context, Generation Z
(Gen Z) is the generational cohort following Gen Y. Gen Z comprises those
born from the mid-1990s to the late 2000s (Bassiouni and Hackley, 2014). The
fact that the oldest of this generation just turned 21 in 2016 makes this cohort
of current interest to the wine industry, which needs to understand this future
customer base. But very little is known about their wine behaviour and, to the
best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous published studies have focused on
Gen Z and wine tourism. To this end, this study aims to add to the limited
understanding of this new market segment by exploring the winery visitation
experience from the perspective of Gen Z in Greece, in relation to an actual
winery visit. In particular, the focus is on their evaluation of a number of
winescape attributes, in terms of their pre-visit importance and post-visit
performance, utilising an Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA). Based on
this approach, the study aims to promote understanding of their desired wine
tourism experience and provide practical implications for prioritisation and
management of attributes.
Literature Review
Wine tourism is gaining in importance both as an industry and as an area of
research. The wine industry, which initially focused on wine production, has
now extended its scope to the experiential and tourism aspects of wine
consumption (Williams, 2001). Bruwer and Lesschaeve (2012) provide insight
into the relationship between wine and tourism. They explain that wine is
recognised as a lifestyle beverage and wine consumption itself can be
considered as a sensual and pleasurable activity that may take place in a
myriad of potential social experiences, including tourism. They go on to argue
that “the activity of wine tourism is an extension of the rather complex
relationship between wine region as a tourist destination, wineries, and the
1 There is not a general consensus for the birth range of different generations, but the following
age group classifications are generally accepted in mainstream generational research (Johnson
and Johnson, 2010): Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), Gen X (born 1965-1980), Gen Y (born
1981-1994).
Page 3 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 5
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
4
visitor-consumer” (p. 611). The engagement of people in wine tourism would
therefore seem to represent a search for a better acquaintance with the product,
and also for the elements of the wider tourism experience of a region. Wine
tourism is thus related to both wine and tourism demand, representing a niche
tourism product (Croce and Perry, 2017; Wu et al., 2016), When viewed from
this perspective, wine tourism refers to “visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine
festivals and wine shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the
attributes of a grape wine region are the prime motivating factors for visitors”
(Skinner, 2000, p. 298). From this definition it follows logically that the key to
a favourable wine tourism experience is the positive engagement of wine
tourists with the winescape attributes (Thomas et al., 2016).
The winescape is a central tenet in wine-related research. The concept
was coined by Peters (1997, p. 124) as a cultural/viticultural landscape with “a
winsome combination of vineyards, wineries and supporting activities
necessary for modern production”. Subsequently it has often seen use in wine
tourism research, appearing in more than 30 academic studies to date and has
been examined at both the macro-and micro levels of analysis (Thomas et al.,
2016). In the macro-level approach, the attention focuses on the attributes of a
wine region. In contrast to this wide regional scope, the micro approach views
the winescape as the environment at a specific winery. In both cases this
winescape exists in the wider setting of rural tourism where interest in
vineyards and wineries may take place alongside other aspects of rural tourism
from farm visits and stays to countryside recreation. These are themes that
have been explored by, amongst others, Bruwer (2003), Tew and Barbieri
(2012), Barbieri and Mshenga (2008), and most recently by Santeramo et al.
(2017), who have acknowledged that wine tourism represents a significant
component of the regional and rural tourism products of many wine-producing
countries, especially in Europe and the New World.
From an academic perspective, the wine tourism experience has been
more or less explored in relation to the “traditional” wine drinker, who is
middle-aged with an above average income (Charters and Carlsen, 2006).
However, in recent years more emphasis has been placed on younger cohorts
Page 4 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 6
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
5
as the result of an increasing awareness by both the wine and wine tourism
industries that these young people are the next generation of wine consumers
and wine tourists (Fountain and Lamb, 2011). Accordingly, over the last
decade or so there has been a growth in research that has explored the
significance of age/generational groupings as a factor in the wine tourism
experience and wine consumption.
Within this strand of research, generational analysis has become a
serious element in the research space. This approach draws on considerations
of generational segmentation, suggesting that each generation has their own set
of values and subsequent consumer behaviour and preferences, which set them
apart from preceding generations and those that are to come (Noble and
Schewe, 2003). Generational analysis is fundamentally based on the inference
that only by understanding how consuming motivations are tied to the
underlying values of the generation to which they belong, will businesses be
able to cater for the desires of their different customer segments (Velikova et
al., 2013). This understanding, therefore, represents a key competitive
advantage in the marketplace, in the sense that businesses will be in a better
position to anticipate the desires of a specific generation of consumers, rather
than merely be reactive to their dissatisfaction. This approach is not intended
to replace all other segmentation approaches, but it does add a useful
perspective (Howe and Strauss 1991).
This research approach has developed as a useful tool in research on the
winery visitation experience, focusing on comparisons between the
characteristics of younger and older generational cohorts. An early study was
that of Dodd and Bigotte (1997), who found evidence that younger visitors
rated overall service and the price of the wine to be more important in
determining satisfaction with the visit than older customers. They also
suggested that the younger group were generally more critical of winery
service and staff than their older counterparts. This conclusion seems to be
corroborated by Charters and Fountain (2006) who found that older wine
tourists (Baby Boomers) were generally less critical of their winery experience
than younger ones (Gens X and Y). The issue of cost as an inhibiting factor in
buying wine and/or visiting wineries for younger consumers has also been
Page 5 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 7
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
6
brought up in other studies (e.g. Charters et al., 2009; Treloar et al., 2004).
However, Alonso et al. (2007) observed that segments of older visitors with
higher income levels might not necessarily result in higher expenditures.
Bruwer (2002) published work on aspects relating to the visitation of
Gen X consumers to wineries. The results suggested that Gen X consumers
used the cellar door visit not only to taste and buy wines but also to learn more
about wine. This seems to support the findings of previous studies (e.g.
Fountain and Charters, 2010; Mitchell and Hall, 2001), that Gens X and Y are
more interested in furthering their wine knowledge than Baby Boomers,
possibly because of the latter cohort having more experience of wine and
wineries. Likewise, Carlsen et al. (2006) concluded that both Gens X and Y
placed emphasis on the quality of wine and information received about wines
and the winery area, as opposed to focusing on the social elements of the wine
tourism experience. These findings, however, contradict those of Treloar et al.
(2004) that the social and leisure aspects of the winery visit are more important
to Gen Y than learning about wine/cellaring from winery staff and winemakers
themselves.
More recently, Fountain and colleagues have specifically studied
generation Y at the cellar door (Fountain and Charters, 2010; Fountain and
Lamb 2011). These studies provide more balanced findings, suggesting that
Generation Y visitors wish to extend their knowledge of wine and wineries but
also place emphasis on enjoying the entire winery experience with friends.
Further, they seek interaction with winery staff and want their unique needs
understood and catered for. Lack of funds was again raised as a barrier to
visiting wineries and buying wines.
Despite any differences between studies, two common factors are worth
addressing. First, all studies highlight the interest of young generations in wine
and/or their potential for growth both in terms of wine consumption and wine
tourism. Second, stemming from this, they share the conviction that the
development of wine tourism depends on understanding the characteristics of
young generations.
Page 6 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 8
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
7
These studies are limited to English-speaking markets of the New
World comprising Australia, New Zealand and the United States (US). While
not directly relevant to the winery experience, it is interesting to note that a
number of studies on the wine behaviour of different generations to non-
English-speaking countries in Europe do not echo this optimism. These studies
suggest that unlike their counterparts in New World markets, young Europeans
are not particularly fond of wine, and wine consumption among them is falling
(Kevany, 2008; Mueller et al., 2011; Velikova et al., 2013). Based on these
indications of cross-cultural differences among young consumers in
geographically distinct markets, they concur that ongoing research into the
wine-related experiences of young generations is essential to assess whether
any observed differences are due to generational effects or based on lifecycle
or contextual factors.
Against this background, it seems useful to examine the next generation
of wine consumers (Gen Z) to understand their relationship to the winery
experience. This study seeks to explore this in the context of Greece, a country
growing as a wine producing country and as a wine tourism destination. In
fact, today Greece is the seventh largest wine producer in Europe (USDA
Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS], 2015), with more than 700 wineries
operating in the country (Ritchie and Rotsios, 2016). The bulk of winery
visitation in Greece is made up of domestic travellers, who account for
approximately 70% of the total number οf winery visitors (Alebaki and
Iakovidou, 2011). This is a clear manifestation of the natural relationship
Greeks have with wine, with 30% of Greeks drinking wine on a daily basis
(USDA FAS, 2015). Yet, it is also suggestive of the insufficient promotional
efforts by the Greek wine sector to reach international tourists (Critical
Publics, 2008).
While the quality and international recognition of Greek wines has
improved over the last few decades (Ritchie and Rotsios, 2016), wine
producers are today faced with considerable pressure due to the economic
crisis. Greek per capita wine consumption fell by more than 45% between
2010-2014, and consumers are opting for the lowest-priced wines (World
Page 7 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 9
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
8
Health Organisation, 2014; USDA FAS, 2015). There is also the issue of the
younger demographic being especially hard hit by the fiscal realities in the
country. With nearly 50% unemployed (Trading Economics, 2016), younger
Greeks are not spending as much as they might have spent under better
economic circumstances. On top of this, recent data show that 78% of Greek
consumers aged 18-24 prefer other alcoholic beverages to wine (USDA FAS,
2015). With such a large segment currently lying dormant, concern is now
present within the Greek wine industry about the prospects of this market to
take up wine consumption and wine-related travel. The examination of the Gen
Z winery experience in the Greek context is therefore a timely study given its
relevance to the current circumstances of the country’s wine industry.
Research Methodology
The results for this research were gathered over a five-month period (February-
June 2016) through the distribution of a questionnaire survey to a winery in the
Achaia region of the Peloponnese, Western Greece. This winery was selected
as the location for distribution because it regularly hosts field trips for student
groups. Its manager also expressed interest in participating in this research and
learning more about its methodology after hearing about its managerial
implications. This provided the researcher with the opportunity to target 18 to
21 year olds en masse – i.e. those Gen Z-ers over the legal age to buy and
consume alcohol publicly in Greece. This convenience sampling process
resulted in 306 valid responses. It should be noted that the winery visit for all
students was part of wider field trips – i.e. wine was not the exclusive reason
for their trip. However, for the purposes of this research, participants are
referred to as wine tourists.
According to O’Neill et al. (2002), consumer satisfaction in wine
tourism, as in all aspects of tourism, may be usefully conceptualised as a
function of the importance level related to certain winery attributes and the
performance level of these attributes. Studies and practice in tourism
management have shown that determining both importance and performance
levels is critical, because if evaluative factors important to the tourist customer
Page 8 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 10
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
9
are overlooked, the usefulness of measuring only the performance level will be
severely limited (Wade and Eagles, 2003). Given these considerations, this
study adopted the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) proposed by
Martilla and James (1977) as a useful technique to examine the relationship
between the importance and performance of winescape attributes. While
SERVQUAL has been more commonly used than IPA for measuring visitor
satisfaction in winery settings (e.g. Charters and O’Neill, 2000; O’Neill et al.,
2002), a comparison of these methods in a tourism context did not produce
statistically different results (Hudson et al., 2004). Moreover, the application
of SERVQUAL often requires the administration of lengthy survey
instruments and expertise in the interpretation of data. These requirements
were deemed as too complex for a study involving a sample of potentially
inexperienced wine tourists and a winery with limited research experience.
The application of IPA is well-documented and the technique has
shown its capability to provide decision-makers with valuable information for
both satisfaction measurement and the efficient allocation of resources, all in
an easily applicable format. In brief, importance and performance scores
attained from survey instrument Likert scales are plotted onto a two-
dimensional grid and, by a simple visual analysis of this matrix, policy makers
can identify areas where the resources and programs need to be concentrated
(see Figure 1). In the context of this study, the fact that IPA is easily
interpreted by managers meant that it proved attractive to the owner of the
participating winery.
[Figure 1 here]
The study adopted for testing a list of winescape attributes, drawing on
the work of Thomas et al. (2016) who conceptualised the winescape as
specifically encapsulating seven dimensions: setting; atmospherics; wine
quality; wine value; signage; service staff; and complementary products. Their
resultant 20-item scale of winescape attributes was found to be both reliable
and valid across six studies in Australia and the US. For this reason it was used
in the context of this study with minor adaptations, so that the attributes could
Page 9 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 11
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
10
be examined in a micro-perspective, i.e. providing focus to a wine tourist
experience in a specific winery. This process involved rephrasing items,
merging items that were similar in meaning and deleting items that could not
be adapted. An additional five items were added by the researchers to tap
attributes not addressed in the original scale, resulting in 24 attributes in total.
Asking respondents to rate importance and performance in different
sequences has been found to reduce the stereotypical effects associated with
studies rating both dimensions on a single occasion (Lai and Hitchcock, 2015).
Accordingly, a two-part questionnaire was developed and administered on two
separate occasions each time with the same sample. In particular, before
entering the winery premises respondents were asked to complete a first
questionnaire. This asked them to rate the importance of each winescape
attribute, using a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, not at all important
to 7, extremely important). Questions asking demographic information, level
of wine knowledge, and prior visit experience were also present. In a second
questionnaire following the end of their visit to the site, respondents were
asked to rate in a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, completely
dissatisfied to 7, completely satisfied) the performance of the same winescape
attributes. All questionnaires were distributed on tour buses and collected by
researchers accompanying the student groups, then handed to the researchers.
Research Results
Respondent characteristics
As far as demographic and other information is concerned, most respondents
were female (73.6%) and the sample mean age was 20.3. Using Mitchell and
Hall’s (2001) self-ascribed measure of wine knowledge, respondents were
asked to rate their wine knowledge using one of four categories: advanced
knowledge, intermediate knowledge, basic knowledge, or no prior knowledge.
The vast majority of respondents (82.3%) rated their knowledge as basic, with
the remaining respondents (17.7%) indicating they had no prior knowledge. No
respondents had visited a winery before. With winery visits being booked on a
tight schedule, there was only a limited window of time for respondents to
Page 10 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 12
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
11
complete the questionnaire. To keep the questionnaire completion time short,
no further background information was collected.
Factor analysis
The initial results of the perceived importance of the 24 winery attributes
formed the basis for a factor analysis. The procedure of factor analysis was
used here in order to explore the underlying structure of the data and simplify
the subsequent IPA analyses (Chu and Choi, 2000). The analysis was
conducted on the responses of 306 participants, which provide a comforting
number of cases for factor analytic work (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). In
ensuring the factorability of the data, the inter-item correlations among the
variables were inspected for values in excess of 0.30. The reason for this is that
lower correlations indicate items that are producing error and unreliability
(Churchill, 1979). The inter-item correlation matrix revealed numerous
correlations in excess of 0.30 and some considerably higher, suggesting that
the matrix was factorable. Subsequently, the factorability of the data was
evaluated using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling
adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett’s (1954) test of sphericity. The current
study obtained a value of .87 for the KMO measure, which falls in the
“meritorious” category of the 0.80s (Kaiser, 1974, p. 33). With respect to
Bartlett’s test of sphericity, the study obtained a value of 3892.123 and an
associated significance level of 0.000. The high KMO value obtained and the
highly significant level of the test of sphericity are both comfortable
indications that the given set of data was adequate for factor analysis.
Based on the Kaiser (eigenvalue-greater-than-1) and scree-plot criteria,
five factors were extracted through principal component analysis with
orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotation. As another test of the adequacy of the
number of factors, communality values were also inspected. If communalities
equal or exceed 1, the number of factors extracted is wrong (Tabachnick and
Fidell, 1996). Communalities ranged from 0.36 to 0.68, further confirming that
a reasonable number of factors is five. With respect to the variables used in
defining each factor, Comrey and Lee (1992) suggest that loadings in excess of
Page 11 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 13
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
12
0.71 are considered excellent, 0.63 very good, 0.55 good, 0.45 fair, and 0.32
poor. Comrey (1978) also states that if no loadings greater than 0.40 are
identified, then the value of the analysis is limited. In the context of this study,
an examination of the pattern of high and low loadings across variables
revealed a gap. This gap was the cut-off value of 0.50 which was adopted for
inclusion of a variable in interpretation of a factor. This was in line with
Comrey’s rule for meaningful analysis and greater than the minimum cut-off
of 0.32 used in common social science practice. The resultant five-factor
model explained 53.86 percent of the variance and included 16 winescape
attributes, with factor loadings greater than 0.50. The alpha coefficients for the
five factors through the Cronbach’s alpha (α) test ranged from 0.723 to 0.867,
all meeting the minimum acceptable value of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally
(1978). This suggested that, despite small variations in their alpha values, all
factors were internally consistent, thus indicating that the measures used in
each factor were reliable and should therefore be retained for interpretation
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996).
The factor analysis yielded two major factors with eigenvalues higher
than 3.00, which accounted for 39.28% of the total variance, plus three smaller
factors (Table 1). With respect to the two major factors, Factor 1 seems to
reflect a preoccupation with spending power and the price of wines available
for purchase and was therefore named Cost Considerations. Factor 2, named
Wine & Entertainment, was composed of items indicating that wine tasting is
part of a wider experience, offering opportunities for more holistic leisure
activities and entertainment that extend beyond the wine consumption aspect.
As regards the three smaller factors, Factor 3 seems to represent a Destination
Attributes dimension, with emphasis placed on information about and
destination characteristics of the winery region. Items that loaded on Factor 4
appeared to deal with important components of service quality that customer
service staff can provide and was therefore named Service Staff. The final
factor (Factor 5) included items related to the educational aspect of the winery
visit and was named Learning about Wine. Following standard practice in IPA
studies using factor-analytic work (e.g. Chu and Choi, 2000; Pan, 2015;
Page 12 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 14
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
13
Somkeatkun and Wongsurawat, 2017), the ensuing analysis is based on the
presentation of the factors distribution in IPA mapping.
[Table 1 here]
Importance Performance Analysis (IPA)
Table 1 presents the mean and performance scores of the five winescape
factors and the attributes grouped under each factor. A paired-sample t-test was
conducted to assess significant differences between respondents’ perceptions
of importance and performance on the five winescape factors. As Lai and
Hitchcock (2015) explain, only factors which show a significant difference (p
< 0.05) should be transferred to IPA grid presentation for further exploration.
The results revealed that the mean scores for performance were significantly
lower than importance on all factors (F1: t = −15.52, F2: t = −12.20, F3: t =
−7.11, F4: t = −4.28, F5: t = −4.71; all p < 0.05). Accordingly, the importance
and performance means for all factors were plotted in IPA mapping for
interpretation.
Figure 2 illustrates the results of the IPA grid for the winescape factors,
where Importance values form the vertical axis, while Performance values
form the horizontal axis. The IPA grid was divided into four quadrants by
crosshairs based on the overall mean scores of the Importance and
Performance parts. This cross-point selection method was adopted as it carries
the advantage of comparing attributes relative to each other, which is
suggested to be of high management utility in guiding decisions on the
allocation of limited resources between attributes (Junio et al., 2016).
Accordingly, the two axes formed crosshairs at the value of 5.73 (overall mean
score of importance attributes) and 5.03 (overall mean score of performance
attributes).
[Figure 2 here]
According to the grid, two factors fell into each of the “Concentrate
Here” and “Keep up the Good Work” quadrants, one factor was identified in
Page 13 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 15
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
14
the “Low Priority” quadrant and none in the “Possible Overkill” quadrant. The
following provides insights about the quadrant presentation.
Quadrant I – Concentrate Here (high importance/low performance): Cost
Considerations (F1) and Wine & Entertainment (F2) were identified in this
quadrant as illustrated in Figure 2. Cost Considerations, with a mean rating of
6.22, appears to be the most important factor for the winery tourism experience
of participants. Interestingly, this is the only factor where all attributes were
rated above the average score for Importance and below average for
Performance. This is indicative of both strong feelings about the cost of wines
and of the failure of the winery to provide wines at prices that young wine
tourists would consider to be reasonable. Even though the price sensitivity of
young wine tourists is not new to the literature, the financial hardship
experienced by young Greeks may explain the particularly strong importance
attached by respondents to cost considerations while at the winery. As a side-
note in this context, the participating winery prides itself on producing a range
of different wines, including budget-friendly labels with excellent value for
money. This sends a meaningful message to wineries, in that they should
analyse pricing from the perspective of different customer groups – i.e. the
idea of what is considered affordable may be perceived differently by different
types of tourists (Moutinho et al., 2011).
Wine & Entertainment was the next important factor as perceived by
respondents. What is of particular interest here is that “The wines we tasted”
had an Importance mean score marginally lower than the average (M = 5.72),
with all the other winescape attributes in the factor rated above the mean
Importance score. These results suggest that respondents in this study visited
the winery looking for an enjoyable social experience, having no apparent
interest in wine. In this connection, the absence of, or poor, food and
“entertainment opportunities” were found to upset the winery experience of
young wine tourists, who rated them two of the most important but least well
performed winescape attributes.
Page 14 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 16
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
15
Quadrant II – Keep Up the Good Work (high importance/high performance):
Two winescape factors were identified in this quadrant: Destination Attributes
(F3) and Service Staff (F4). The emergence of Destination Attributes as a
winescape factor suggests that respondents perceived the winery region as a
tourist destination. In this context, the winery experience of young consumers
is clearly conceived as more than a typical visit to wineries to taste and
purchase wines, to include destination benefits of the surrounding community,
i.e. appealing environment, scenic beauty, and availability of local products.
This interest on tourism aspects of the winery region is also illustrated by the
importance respondents placed on “information... about the wider area”. It is
interesting to note that respondents were more satisfied with the destination
appeal (i.e. outlook and attractiveness of the scenery) rather than with the
elements that can be directly controlled by the provider (i.e. information
provided about the region and local products sold on the site), suggesting there
is room for further improvement. This draws out the extent to which wine
tourism needs to be seen in the context of broader rural tourism, indicating a
desire to partner the winery visit with natural attractions and, as suggested by
the location of Wine & Entertainment in the Concentrate Here quadrant, a
programme of activities, food and entertainment.
Service Staff is, of course, at the core of the winery visit in terms of
what can be controlled by the supplier (O’Neill and Charters, 2000). The
inclusion of this factor in quadrant II indicates the importance of and
satisfaction with the wine tourism experience delivered by winery employees.
What appear to be crucial attributes in this respect are the individual attention
provided by and, particularly, the friendliness of staff. In fact, friendliness was
rated as the best performed attribute in this study (M = 5.93) and the only one
that generated a higher performance score than its importance score. This
perhaps indicates a conscious evaluation on the part of respondents of what
they are really looking for in their interactions with winery staff. On the other
hand, “the courtesy of the staff” scored below average on importance. Taken
together these findings may suggest that young wine tourists are looking to be
recognised in a casual and friendly atmosphere, as opposed to the crowded,
Page 15 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 17
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
16
often intimidating, impersonal experiences that sometimes characterise winery
visits (Bruwer et al., 2013).
Quadrant III – Low Priority (low importance/low performance): There was
one factor, namely Learning about Wine (F5), allocated to the “Low Priority”
quadrant. The location of this factor in this quadrant is perhaps the most
interesting finding to emerge from the exploration of the three weak factors.
This is because it implies a lack of interest or indifference in the educational
element of wine tourism – i.e. information provided about wine and meeting
the winemaker. This represents a clear departure from the findings of previous
studies on the winery experience of young visitors, which indicated that new
generations have a particular interest in expanding their wine knowledge (e.g.
Bruwer, 2002; Fountain and Charters, 2010). The IPA literature suggests that
attributes in this cell do not require urgent attention and that limited resources
should be expended on them. However, although perceived as less important
than items in the “Concentrate Here” or “Keep up the Good Work” quadrants,
the low performance levels shown in this category may alert managers to
needed improvements (Kuo, 2009). Clearly, this is all the more so in the case
of wine education, which may be a key determinant of added-value by giving
customers a better understanding of wine which will add to their enjoyment of
the core wine product (Byrd et al., 2016). This is very relevant for entry-level
customers like the respondents of this study, who may be intimidated by their
lack of wine knowledge and overwhelmed by the technical elements of wine
education offered (Ali-Knight and Charters, 2001). As such, poor performance
in this area may also generate further dissatisfaction with the winery
experience.
Quadrant IV – Possible Overkill (low importance/high performance): The IPA
analysis did not identify any attributes allocated to the “Possible Overkill”
quadrant. This meant that there was no identified “wasted effort” in resource
input into attributes which are low in terms of importance.
Page 16 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 18
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
17
Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Future Research
To the authors’ best knowledge this is the first academic research to
have focused specifically on the winery experience from the perspective of
Gen Z. As such, and in line with its aims, the study contributes to existing
literature by offering empirical insights concerning the desirable experience of
this under-researched generational cohort and practical implications for winery
managers.
The empirical findings of the study suggest that wine tourism is of
limited appeal to Greek Gen Z winery visitors. At the same time, they are
particularly price-sensitive and do not seem to appreciate the intermediation of
wine experts and information about wine, favouring a more casual approach.
One might argue that the importance attached to cost considerations is
suggestive of their interest in buying wines and, by extension, in wine.
However, given the ongoing economic crisis, it seems more logical to assume
that their display of strong price sensitivity represents a reaction to high wine
prices in relation to their financial situation. As a matter of fact, winery
visitation from the perspective of Gen Z seems to be less about wine and more
about opportunities to enjoy the scenery, entertain themselves, socialise, and
discover local food and products.
The review of the literature identified a number of studies that have
explored the winery experience of younger generations (e.g. Bruwer, 2002;
Treloar et al., 2004; Charters and Fountain, 2006; Fountain and Lamb, 2011)
and these provide a starting point for comparison. However, given that this is
the first study to examine the experience of Gen Z direct comparisons have to
be treated with a degree of caution. Nevertheless, in general, it is fair to say
that the departure of the findings reported here to those from prior studies
concerns the limited appeal of wine to Gen Z and their disinterest in extending
their wine knowledge. Other findings are not particularly surprising in the
sense that they have been repeated in previous research. It is not unexpected,
for example, that young wine tourists seek a broader experience or that they
are sensitive to wine prices. This study is valuable, then, in that it brings these
Page 17 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 19
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
18
findings together to paint a picture of the nature of the desired wine tourism
experience of, the previously unexplored, Gen Z in Greece.
Herein also lies the practical value of IPA in revealing what is most
important to winery visitors, by examining their evaluation of a “real” winery
visit. Following the IPA classification in this study, what appears to be critical
for Greek wineries wishing to approach Gen Z consumers is to focus their
attention on making their wine prices more attractive for young visitors and on
offering opportunities for activities that fall under the realm of entertainment
as it relates to tourism (food-tasting, socialising). In this connection, it might
be necessary to develop alliances with the regional community tourism
industry (local producers, restaurants, tourist information centres, etc.) and
with rural tourism more generally to offer a bundle of activities, services and
benefits with various attractions, instead of relying solely on the winery tour.
In doing so, they need to continue and improve on efforts to highlight the
scenic features of wine tours to give them greater appeal, and provide
opportunities for visitors to enjoy the scenery. They should also ensure that
their Gen Z visitors are treated in a personal and friendly manner by winery
staff, to ensure their desire for a casual atmosphere.
Following the earlier discussion on the importance of wine information
for young segments, they may also attempt to give young consumers the
confidence to engage with wine, by introducing them to wine tasting and
developing their wine knowledge in an informative but fun way. Providing
human interest stories about the winery instead of technical wine information,
and connecting local foods with wine via on-site educational seminars may be
fruitful in this direction. In such a context, both tangible (wines, food) and
intangible aspects of the winery visitation experience (knowledge, friendliness
of staff) may be used to promote an integrated educational experience and this
can provide a guide to marketing to this group.
In closing, it is important to be mindful of the limitations of this study.
First, the fact that it is based solely on the experience of a convenience sample
of young winery visitors in Greece means that the findings are specific to this
sample and, therefore, cannot be generalised to larger populations or other
cultures. Second, the empirical analysis covers only student responses. Recent
Page 18 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 20
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
19
studies have found student samples to differ significantly from the general
public and even from non-student samples within the same age group in terms
of their wine and alcohol behaviour (Carter et al., 2010; Mueller et al., 2008).
Third, the study has adopted a micro-approach to the winescape, which was
winery-specific and restricted to the specific context of the participating
winery and, therefore, of limited scope.
It is important to consider these results in the light of these limitations.
They present the micro-perspective of one winery in Greece visited by
students. But in doing so, they point, for the first time, to some potentially
important characteristics of the next generation of wine tourists and wine
drinkers. This investigation could now usefully be extended to international
comparative studies to examine whether generational similarities across
countries exist or whether cultural and contextual differences are more
significant than age-related similarities. It is hoped that the issues raised here
will stimulate interest to further understand the wine tourism experience of
Gen Z consumers.
References
Alebaki, M. and Iakovidou, O. (2011), “Market segmentation in wine tourism:
a comparison of approaches, Tourismos: An International
Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 123-140.
Ali-Knight, J. and Charters, S. (2001), “The winery as educator: do wineries
provide what the wine tourist needs?”, Australian and New Zealand
Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 79-86.
Alonso, A., Fraser, R. and Cohen, D. (2007), “Investigating differences
between domestic and international winery visitors in New Zealand”,
International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 No 2, pp.
114-126.
Barbieri, C. and Mshenga, P.M. (2008), “The role of the firm and owner
characteristics on the performance of agritourism farms”, Sociologia
Ruralis, Vol. 48 No 2, pp. 166-183.
Page 19 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 21
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
20
Bartlett, M.S. (1954), “A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square
approximations”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 16
(Series B), pp. 296-298.
Bassiouni, D.H. and Hackley, C. (2014), “Generation Z’ children’s adaptation
to digital consumer culture: a critical literature review”, Journal of
Customer Behaviour, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 113-133.
Beverland, M. (2001), “Generation X and Wine Consumption”, Wine Industry
Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 91-95.
Bruwer, J. (2002), “Marketing wine to Generation X consumers through the
cellar door”, The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and
Winemaker, No. 467, pp. 67-70.
Bruwer, J. (2003), “South African wine routes: some perspectives on the wine
tourism industry’s structural dimensions and wine tourism product”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 24, pp. 423-435.
Bruwer, J. and Lesschaeve, I. (2012), “Wine tourists’ destination region brand
image perception and antecedents: conceptualization of a winescape
framework”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 29, pp.
611-628.
Bruwer, J., Lesschaeve, I., Gray, D. and Sottini, V.A. (2013), “Regional brand
perception by wine tourists within a winescape framework”, paper
presented at the 7th
International Conference of the Academy of Wine
Business Research (AWBR), 12-15 June, St. Catharines, Ontario,
available at: http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/Bruwer-Lesschaeve-Sottini-Gray.pdf
(accessed 31 March 2017).
Byrd, E.T., Canziani, B., Hsieh, Y.C., Debbage, K. and Sonmez, S. (2016),
“Wine tourism: motivating visitors through core and supplementary
services”, Tourism Management, Vol. 52, pp. 19-29.
Carlsen, J., Getz, D. and Willcock, C. (2006), “What do generations X and Y
want in a wine tourism experience: an application of Importance-
Performance evaluation to a youth-targeted wine tour”, paper presented
at the 3rd International Wine Business Research Conference, 6-8 July,
Montpellier, Languedoc-Roussillon, available at:
Page 20 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 22
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
21
http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-
content/uploads/2010/05/Carlsen.pdf (accessed 22 February 2-17).
Carter, A.C., Brandon, K.O. and Goldman, M.S. (2010), “The college and
noncollege experience: a review of the factors that influence drinking
behavior in young adulthood”, Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 742-750.
Charters S. and Carlsen, J. (2006), “Conclusion: the future of wine tourism
research, management and marketing”, in Carlsen, J. and Charters, S.
(Eds), Global Wine Tourism: Research Management and Marketing,
CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 263-275.
Charters, S. and Fountain, J. (2006), “Younger wine tourists: a study of
generational differences in the cellar door experience”, in Carlsen, J.,
and Charters, S. (Eds) Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management
and Marketing, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 153-122.
Charters S., Fountain, J. and Fish, N. (2009), “You felt like lingering...
Experiencing ‘real’ service at the winery tasting room”, Journal of
Travel Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 122-134.
Charters, S. and O’Neill, M. (2000), “Delighting the customer: how good is the
cellar door?”, Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol.
15 No. 4, pp. 11-16.
Chu, R.K.S. and Choi, T. (2000), “An importance-performance analysis of
hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison
of business and leisure travellers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.
363-377.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-
73.
Comrey, A.L. (1978), “Common methodological problems in factor analytic
studies”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 46, pp.
648-659.
Comrey, A.L., and Lee, H.B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd
ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, NJ.
Page 21 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 23
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
22
Critical Publics (2008), “Greek wine industry”, available at:
http://www.keosoe.gr/pdf/marketing/dierefnisi/paradoteo1.3parartima/g
lobal%20public%20rhetoric%20analysis/grwineindustry.pdf (accessed
10 February 2017).
Croce, E. and Perry, G. (2017), Food and Wine Tourism (2nd ed.), CABI,
Wallingford, UK.
Dodd, T. (1995), “Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine
industry”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp.
5-16.
Dodd, T. and Bigotte, V. (1997), “Perceptual differences among visitor groups
to wineries”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 46-51.
Fountain, J. and Charters, S. (2010), “Generation Y as wine tourists: their
expectations and experiences at the winery cellar door”, in
Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G. and Pendergast, D. (Eds), Tourism and
Generation Y, CABI Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 47-57.
Fountain, J. and Lamb, C. (2011), “Generation Y as young wine consumers in
New Zealand: how do they differ from generation X?”, International
Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 107-124.
Getz, D. and Brown, G. (2006), “Benchmarking wine tourism development:
the case of Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada”, Journal of
Wine Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 78-97.
Hall, C.M., Johnson, G., Cambourne, B., Macionis, N., Mitchell, N., &
Sharples, L. (Eds.) (2000), Wine Tourism around the World:
Development, Management and Markets, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, UK.
Howe, N., and Strauss, W. (1991), Generations, William Morrow and
Company, New York, NY.
Hudson, S., Hudson, P. and Miller, G.A. (2004), “The measurement of service
quality in the UK tour operating sector: a methodological comparison”,
Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 305-312.
Johnson, M. and Johnson, L. (2010), Generations, Inc.: From Boomers to
Linksters - Managing the Friction between Generations at Work,
American Management Association, New York, NY.
Page 22 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 24
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
23
Junio, M.M., Kim, J.H. and Lee, T.J. (2016), “Competitiveness attributes of a
medical tourism destination: the case of South Korea with importance-
performance analysis”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol.
34 No. 4, pp. 444-460.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 31-36.
Kevany, S. (2008), “French Millenials drinking less, Americans more”, Wine
Business International, Vol. 3, pp. 13-17.
Kuo, C.M. (2009), “The managerial implications of an analysis of tourist
profiles and international hotel employee service attitude”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp.
302-309.
Lai, I.K.W. and Hitchcock, M. (2015), “Importance-performance analysis in
tourism: a framework for researchers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48,
pp. 242-267.
Martilla, J. and James, J. (1977), “Importance-performance analysis”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 77-79.
Mitchell, R. and Hall, C.M. (2001), “Self-ascribed wine knowledge and the
wine behaviour of New Zealand winery visitors”, Australian and New
Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 115-122.
Mueller, S., Francis, L. and Lockshin, L. (2008), “The relationship between
wine liking, subjective and objective wine knowledge: does it matter
who is in your ‘consumer’ sample?”, paper presented at the 4th
International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research
(AWBR), 17-19 July, Siena, Italy, available at:
http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/The-
relationship-between-wine-liking_paper.pdf (accessed 03 January
2017).
Mueller, S., Remaud, H. and Chabin, Y. (2011), “How strong and
generalisable is the Generation Y effect? A cross-cultural study for
wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol 23 No. 2,
pp. 125-144.
Page 23 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 25
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
24
Moutinho, L., Ballantyne, R. and Rate, S. (2011), “Consumer behaviour in
tourism”, in Moutinho, L. (Ed.), Strategic Management in Tourism (2nd
ed.), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 83-126.
Noble, S.M. and Schewe, C.D. (2003), “Cohort segmentation: an exploration
of its validity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 12, pp. 979-
987.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.), McGraw Hill, New
York, NY.
Olsen, J.E., Thach, L. and Nowak, L.I. (2007), “Wine for my generation:
exploring how US wine consumers are socialised to wine”, Journal of
Wine Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
O’Neill, M. and Charters, S. (2000), “Service quality at the cellar door:
implications for Western Australia’s developing wine tourism
industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 112-122.
O’Neill, M., Palmer, A. and Charters, S. (2002), “Wine production as a service
experience: the effects of service quality on wine sales”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 342-362.
Pan, F.C. (2015), “Practical application of importance-performance analysis in
determining critical job satisfaction factors of a tourist hotel”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 46, pp. 84-91.
Peters, G.L. (1997), American Winescapes: The Cultural Landscapes of
America's Wine Country, Westview Press, New York, NY.
Pettigrew, S. (2003), “Wine consumption contexts”, International Journal of
Wine Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 37-45.
Quadri-Felliti, D. and Fiore, A.M. (2016), “Wine tourism suppliers’ and
visitors’ experiential priorities”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 397-417.
Ritchie, C. and Rotsios, K. (2016), “Greece: reclaiming a lost heritage at
Gerovassiliou Winery (Ktima), Greece”, in Thach, L. and Charters, S.
(Eds), Best Practices in Global Wine Tourism: 15 Case Studies From
Around the World, Miranda Press, New York, NY, pp 225-238.
Skinner A.M. (2000), “Napa Valley, California: a model of wine region
development”, in Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and
Page 24 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 26
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
25
Macionis, N. (Eds), Wine Tourism around the World: Development,
Management and Markets, Routledge, Oxford, UK, pp. 283-297.
Santeramo, F.G., Seccia, A. and Nardone, G. (2017), “The synergies of the
Italian wine and tourism sectors”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 71-74.
Somkeatkun W. and Wongsurawat, W. (2017), “Perceptions of the spa
industry: an Importance Performance Analysis”, Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, ahead-of-print, doi:
10.1080/1528008X.2016.1250241.
Tabachnik, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd
edition), Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Tew, C. and Barbieri, C. (2012), “The perceived benefits of agritourism: The
provider’s perspective”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33, pp. 215-224.
Thomas, B., Quintal, V.A. and Phau, I. (2016). “Wine tourist engagement with
the winescape: scale development and validation”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Research, ahead-of-print, doi:
10.1177/1096348016640583.
Trading Economics (2016), “Greece youth unemployment rate 1998-2016”,
available at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-
unemployment-rate (accessed 11 January 2017).
Treloar, P., Hall, C.M. and Mitchell, R.D. (2004), “Wine tourism and the
generation Y market: any possibilities?”, paper presented at the
CAUTHE 2004 Conference, 10-13 February, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia, available at:
https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/687/Treloar%20
et%20al.%20CAUTHE%20full.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
(accessed 15 January 2017).
USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2015), “Wine annual report and statistics
2015”, available at:
https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Wine%20
Annual_Rome_EU-28_3-16-2015.pdf (accessed 26 January 2017).
Velikova, N., Fountain, J., de Magistris, T., Seccia, A. and Wilson, D. (2013),
“My first glass of wine: A comparison of Gen Y early wine experiences
Page 25 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 27
International Journal of Wine B
usiness Research
26
and socialisation in New and Old world markets”, paper presented at
the 7th
AWBR International Conference, 12-15 June, St. Catharines,
Canada, available at: http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/Velikova-Fountain-de-Magistris-Seccia-
Wilson.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017).
Wade, D.J. and Eagles, P.F.J. (2003), “Analysis and market segmentation for
tourism management in parks and protected areas: an application to
Tanzania’s national parks, Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp.
196-212.
Williams, P. (2001), “Positioning wine tourism destinations: an image
analysis”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.
42-58.
World Health Organisation (2014), “Global status report on alcohol and health
2014”, available at:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112736/1/9789240692763_eng
.pdf (accessed 6 January 2017).
Wu, D., Song, H. and Shen, S. (2016), “New developments in tourism and
hotel demand modelling and forecasting”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 507-529.
Xu, S., Barbieri, C., Anderson, D., Leung, Y.F. and Rozier-Rich, S. (2016),
“Residents’ perceptions of wine tourism development”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 55, pp. 276-286.
Page 26 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 28
International Journal of Wine Business Research
Figure 1 IPA Grid
Source: Martilla and James (1977)
Page 27 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 29
International Journal of Wine Business Research
Table 1 Factor Analysis Results and Mean Scores of Winescape Factors and
Attributes in Importance and Performance Dimensions
a53.86% of cumulative variance explained. bMean scale: 1 – Not at all important to 7 – Extremely important.
cMean scale: 1 – Completely dissatisfied to 7 – Completely satisfied.
*: Grand mean scores of factor.
Factors Factor
Loadings
(Sorted)
Eigenvalue Pct. of
variancea
Importance
Meanb
Performance
Meanc
F1 – Cost Considerations (a = .867) 7.317 26.94 6.22* 4.66*
The cost of the wines sold .676 6.11 4.64
Wines available at prices within my
spending budget
.627 6.36 4.56
Reasonable pricing of wine at the cellar
door
.606 6.20 4.77
F2 – Wine & Entertainment (a = .834) 3.432 12.34 6.07* 4.92*
The wines we tasted .664 5.72 5.57
Entertainment opportunities .613 6.12 4.54
The food we ate .588 6.26 4.31
The people on the tour with me .564 6.19 5.25
F3 – Destination Attributes (a = .769) 1.789 6.12 5.97* 5.53*
The scenic outlook .637 5.93 5.76
The attractive scenery .618 6.14 5.58
The information we received about the
wider area
.596 5.83 5.45
Local products from the region on offer .512 5.91 5.34
F4 – Service Staff (a = .748) 1.331 5.34 5.77* 5.50*
The friendliness of the staff .642 5.89 5.93
The courtesy of the staff .575 5.61 5.31
The individual attention provided by staff .548 5.81 5.27
F5 – Learning about Wine (a = .723) 1.076 3.12 4.63* 4.55*
Meeting the winemaker .527 4.56 4.52
The information we received about wine .512 4.69 4.57
Overall mean score 5.73 5.03
Page 28 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 30
International Journal of Wine Business Research
Figure 2 IPA Grid for Winescape Factors
Quadrant I Quadrant II
Quadrant III Quadrant IV
Page 29 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 31
International Journal of Wine Business Research
We would like, once again, to thank the Editor for his constructive suggestions and for giving us the
opportunity to revise our manuscript, as well as the two referees for their kind comments, thorough
reviews and constructive suggestions.
Editor
Comments Revisions
1. Please change the heading of
the last section to read:
Conclusions, implications,
limitations and future research
We have changed the heading of the last section (p. 17). Clearly
the heading now reflects more accurately the content of the section.
Thank you for this suggestion.
2. Please attend to the points
raised by Reviewer 1.
We have addressed the comments made by the Reviewer 1 and we
provide relevant details below.
3. Give the paper another
thorough proofreading to
eliminate grammatical and
typographical errors.
Please accept our apologies for the overlooked errors. We have
carefully edited our text to eliminate these.
Referee 1
Comments Revisions
1. The paper still does not
demonstrate an adequate
understanding of the relevant
literature in the field and fails to
cite an appropriate range of
literature sources. In particular,
the link between rural tourism
and wine industry should be
further stressed. Let me suggest
relevant papers on rural tourism
and on wine industry [list of
papers follows]
Thank you for this constructive comment and for taking the time to
suggest a range of useful studies, providing us with all the relevant
details. We have now stressed the link between rural tourism and
wine (p. 4, lines 20-28). In doing so, we have followed your
recommendation and have included four of your proposed studies
here. To further stress this link, we also added a sentence on p. 15
(lines 15-19) and p. 18 (lines 11-12).
2. It is never a good idea to state
that “a direct comparison
between these findings and
those of other studies on the
winery experience of young
generations is difficult” and fail
to cite papers that have
addressed similar issues. You
are communicating the idea that
either your research question is
of no relevance, or that you
have no sufficient knowledge of
the literature to compare your
results with existing studies.
More efforts should be devoted
to this issue.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We have deleted
this sentence and re-written part of this paragraph to address your
comment (p. 17, lines 20-25). In doing so, we have followed your
suggestion to cite papers that have addressed similar issues,
drawing links between our findings and literature review.
3. It is a bit frustrating to read
that “given study limitations the
results have no claims to
generalisability” and that
therefore you “argue that
findings should be taken as
preliminary and suggestive”. If
so, why should we pay attention
to your study? More effort must
be devoted in communicating
when and where your results
may be valid and when and
where they are not.
Thank you for noting this issue. Following your comment we have
deleted this sentence and re-written part of the closing paragraph of
the paper to provide a clear link between study limitations, the
scope of our results, and directions for future research (p. 19, lines
7-11).
4. Apart from a careful reading Thank you for your comment. We have carefully edited our text.
Page 30 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Page 32
International Journal of Wine Business Research
to eliminate awkward
expressions, I have no further
comments.
Page 31 of 31
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr
International Journal of Wine Business Research
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960