Wine tourists’ use of sources of information when visiting a USA wine region

Abstract

This study investigates the sources of information people (n = 334) use when deciding to embark on a wine tourism excursion by visiting a USA wine region environment. The study’s overall aim was to establish whether there are differences between first-time and repeat and between in-state- and out-of-state-based visitors in terms of sources of information they use to plan their visit to a wine region and how situational and sociodemographic variables relate to these. Specific differences exist in the information sources used by first-time and repeat wine tourists. Repeat visitors use informal sources such as exposure to a regional winery’s label, attending a tasting elsewhere and previous visits to the region significantly more than first-time visitors, who are more inclined to use formal sources such as brochures/pamphlets and the visitor information bureau. Word of mouth is used more than any other source by both in-state- and out-of-state-based visitors. Across the board, wine tourists did not differ much in their use of these sources by gender or age generation, with the exception of female millennials, in which case word of mouth and brochures/pamphlets were used significantly more.

Keywords

Consumer behaviour information sources tasting room US wine tourism word of mouth

Introduction

The US wine market is not only the largest, valued at $34.3 billion in 2011 (Euromonitor International, 2012), but also one of the fastest growing in the world. The US has a large and vibrant domestic wine industry that produced 2.089 billion litres in 2010, almost 73% of the country’s total wine consumption of 2.882 billion litres (Institute of Wine and Spirit Record, 2011). There are more than 6700 wineries in the US and their numbers are still increasing (Fisher, 2011).

In tandem with the prominence of the US wine industry is an increase in the popularity of wine regions as tourism destinations. This has created an opportunity for wine producers to interact directly with consumers through their visits as wine tourists to winery tasting rooms (Bruwer, 2002a; Carmichael, 2005).

A distinctive characteristic of the global wine industry is its high degree of fragmentation, with literally a plethora of winery businesses competing and with very few enjoying a market share of size. As a direct result, the marketing budgets of wineries are small in relative terms, specifically those of small- and medium-size wineries. These have little or no choice but to rely on other ways to advertise and promote their products to potential and actual consumers (Bruwer and Lesschaeve, 2012). Having already invested considerable amounts of money in the bricks and mortar of a tasting room and the associated staff costs, small- and medium-size wineries in particular have the opportunity to use this direct marketing vehicle to the full. This requires knowledge about their visitor profiles and how they obtain information about the winery prior to visiting it (Charters et al., 2009). Sweeney et al. (2012) highlight the fact that modern consumers have become less attentive to traditional advertising in a world in which they are bombarded with a plethora of information from many different sources. This contention is therefore also likely to hold sway for wine tourists.

While the consumption aspect of the wine tourism product (and experience) received some attention in recent studies (Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Bruwer et al., 2012; Quadri-Felitti and Fiore, 2012), the information sources and information-seeking process of tourists have not been much in focus. Wine is widely recognized as an information-intensive product, one that requires a considerable amount of information to describe it completely (Bruwer and Johnson, 2010; Chaney, 2000; Dodd et al., 1996). Wine also presents tourists with the rather unique opportunity to have a pleasurable experience by visiting its production source, namely, the winery, in tranquil and scenic rural settings. The winery is often the core attraction of the wine tourism destination (Alant and Bruwer, 2010), and it is thus prudent to look at the use of information sources aspect as it relates to the winery.

The main starting point for building an enduring direct marketing relationship with wine consumers is more often than not a previous visit to a winery’s tasting room (Bruwer and Lesschaeve, 2012). However, most tasting rooms are located in remote locations far away from the major cities and the reality is that many tasting room visitors do not come back for another visit, let alone regularly, simply because of the tyranny of distance between source area and end destination (Bruwer and Lesschaeve, 2012; Famularo et al., 2010). However, Brown and Getz (2005) indicated that there is a general absence of travel-related content in wine consumer research. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the tasting room is without doubt the main catchment area for an ongoing direct marketing opportunity to convert visitors into entering into a more enduring relationship with the winery (Alant and Bruwer, 2010; Bruwer, 2003; Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Hall et al., 2000). This position is becoming more and more difficult to achieve mainly as a result of the cluttering effect brought about by the increasing number of wineries opening their doors for business. For example, the study area, namely, the Finger Lakes Wine Region (FLWR) in New York state in the US, already has in excess of 100 wineries competing with one another as tourist destinations.

This article identifies and discusses the use of the various sources of information by visitors, investigates their relationship to winery tasting rooms and makes recommendations of how to articulate these for mutual benefit.

Literature review

Consumers face purchase decisions of products and services almost on a daily basis. Every purchase decision involves some degree of uncertainty (risk). Some decisions are more complex than others and require greater effort in searching for information to reduce uncertainty or risk (Barber et al., 2009; Bruwer and Wood, 2005). The travel decision, particularly to remote destinations, and the associated decisions on travel mode, type of accommodation and places to visit are likely to be relatively complex (Sweeney et al., 2012) as they are made infrequently and involve a relatively high degree of financial risk. Johnson and Bruwer (2007: 278) contended that ‘wine is widely regarded as a complicated product from the viewpoint of consumers and the employment of risk-reduction strategies (RRS) by them is the order of the day’. Focusing research on the sources of information consumers choose to reach the decision thus makes a lot of sense (Barber et al., 2009; Lacey et al., 2009).

Types of communication and communication channels

Today’s consumer lives in the electronic age and information overload from an ever-increasing number of media and sources has become part and parcel of everyday life. In this cluttered information environment, the senders of messages (in this study, wineries) must know their target audiences’ characteristics well to stand a chance of these having a high degree of persuasiveness. The communication process between sender and receiver can be broadly split into interpersonal and impersonal types, or external and internal influences, based on where they search for information (Allen et al., 2010). Communication that occurs in face-to-face interaction between two or more individuals is interpersonal.

It is useful to distinguish between ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ communication channels within organizations. Formal communication occurs through official channels, whereas informal communication occurs outside of recognized channels (Miller, 2011). This distinction is important for wine tourism, because wineries and destination marketing organizations generally rely on formal communication channels such as brochures, magazine articles, official websites, advertising and winery maps/signage to communicate with potential wine tourists. However, informal communication channels, such as word of mouth (WOM) and increasingly social media sites, are equally powerful in wine tourism situations (Hall, 2007; Olsen and Hermsmeyer, 2009). Historically, WOM communication was regarded as being largely confined to one-on-one person communication but the emergence of the Internet is changing that perception (Harrison-Walker, 2001). Moreover, the meteoric rise of social media such as Facebook, Twitter and others has prompted some to observe that these are also prominent vehicles of WOM communication (Keller and Berry, 2006; Plummer, 2007; Thach and Bruwer, 2012). The fact that no research study has been developed to explain variation in preferred sources of information by tourists (Hyde, 2006) and that only a limited number of studies have addressed the question of the timing of information search (Perdue, 1985) is indeed somewhat surprising. Our study addresses both these issues.

There is a lack of research into information source use in the wine tourism literature and hence the direction for this study is partly derived from the work of Bruwer and Reilly (2006) and Fodness and Murray (1999), who designed a model of tourist information search behaviour (later restructured by Grønflaten, 2009) into a choice framework of how and where travellers search for information. Both studies categorized travellers’ choice of information search strategy into personal (sociodemographic), situational (planning horizon, travel party, etc.) and tourism product variables (purpose of trip, travel mode, duration of trip, etc.).

Word of mouth as a source of communication

Recognition of the power of WOM communication goes back a long way, for example, Day (1971) found that WOM was nine times as effective as formal advertising at converting neutral or unfavourable perception into favourable attitudes. Some researchers even went as far as to state that WOM is the ultimate product success factor (Murray, 1991; Price and Feick, 1984). It is clear that the power positive recommendations has on consumer purchasing behaviour is widely recognized and there is good reason to believe that it has more potential impact than any other communication channel (Buttle, 1998; Mayzlin and Godes, 2002).

WOM communication can be defined as an ‘informal, person-to-person communication between a perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a product, an organization, or a service’ (Harrison-Walker, 2001: 63). The nature of the definition of WOM prompted much research to measure WOM in terms of its frequency and the number of people who receive it (Godes and Mayzlin, 2004). Moreover, ‘what distinguishes WOM is that it is uttered by sources that are assumed by receivers to be independent of corporate influence’ (Buttle, 1998: 242–243). Litvin et al. (2008: 459) also confirmed that ‘the key defining characteristic of WOM is the perceived independence of the source of the message’. There is agreement that the key characteristic of the influence of WOM is that it is interpersonal and informal and takes place between two or more people, none of who represents a commercial selling source that would gain directly from the sale of ‘something’ (Jin et al., 2001). It is regarded as more credible, reliable and trustworthy by consumers in contrast with ‘formal’ firm-initiated communications (Allsop et al., 2007; Brown et al., 2007). The research did not investigate the quality of the messages or the processing of the information, and this is something future research should explore further. Another aspect of WOM that warrants further investigation is its antecedents (Brown et al., 2005).

Most WOM messages are either very positive or very negative (Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002). The notion that negative WOM has a greater impact on a receiver has been refuted in recent research highlighting an equal impact across positive and negative WOM (Anderson, 1998; East et al., 2008). Hall (2007) emphasized that WOM is a key element in the promotion and marketing of tourism products and organizations.

Bishop and Barber (2012) found that sources of information are used differently among individuals with differing levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Individuals with higher self-esteem relied more on themselves and impersonal sources for information, as did individuals with lower self-efficacy, and vice versa. Referrals in the WOM communication process are often obtained from so-called opinion leaders and hence inextricably linked to opinion leadership (Chaney, 2001). The emergence of social media and online communities provides new avenues for companies to engage their consumers and build the involving relationship between them and their product. Whether consumers share with their friends or family promotional email messages, comment on their experience with the product on company websites, or become a fan of a brand on their social network, they become more involved in sharing their opinions, which can influence certain aspects (Lesschaeve and Bruwer, 2010). Wineries in the US are increasingly adopting social media strategies, such as setting up Facebook fan pages and establishing Twitter accounts, so they may engage with current and potential wine tourists and encourage WOM via electronic networking (Olsen and Hermsmeyer, 2009; Thach and Bruwer, 2012).

There are only a few studies that underline how significant WOM’s influence is in wine tourism decision-making and wine buying, for example, in Australia (Bruwer and Reilly, 2006). Chaney (2000) concluded that there is no over riding information source, but several sources cumulate to provide the information consumers require. In her study, ‘comments from friends’ (WOM) rated third on a list of 16 information sources used to make a wine buying decision in the UK retail market. Hall et al. (2000) found that WOM was by far the most important source (41% incidence) in attracting visitors to New Zealand wineries, while Bruwer and Lesschaeve (2012) found the same in Canada, with WOM topping the list at 32% incidence. In two further studies in New Zealand, it was confirmed that WOM was indeed the main motive behind respondents’ winery visits in that it accounted for 44% of the responses (Alonso, 2005), and that domestic and international visitors to wineries use different sources of information when deciding to visit wineries (Alonso et al., 2007). There are nevertheless some significant challenges associated with measuring WOM. The most common approach is to use simple counts. To understand the nature of the link, the dynamic relationship between consumer behaviour and WOM needs to be well understood (Mayzlin and Godes, 2002). Our study contributes by providing specific insights on the use of information sources in the wine tourism decision and the various factors that have a moderating influence on them.

WOM and opinion leadership

The level of involvement of consumers plays a role in their perception of risk when faced with making a decision about consumption of the tourism product (Atkin et al., 2007). The interplay between these aspects has a bearing on whether or not they seek information from other person or persons and what their relationship with these person or persons is. Opinion leadership is the process by which one person (the opinion leader) informally influences the actions of others (the opinion seekers or receivers) (Schiffman et al., 2011). Opinion leaders facilitate much of the transmission of WOM due to their high levels of commitment to the product or business (Chaney, 2001). Because opinion leaders often base their product comments on first-hand experience, their advice reduces the perceived risk or anxiety of opinion receivers often inherent in buying new products.

The very fact that opinion leaders provide both favourable and unfavourable WOM information also adds to their credibility (Jin et al., 2001). Opinion leaders are therefore the key WOM players (Chaney, 2000, 2001) and this influence is often product-specific. Chaney (2001) found that opinion leaders were also the heavy buyers of wine. The opinion leadership construct and its relationship with RRS are, however, not the core focus of our study and should be further investigated in future purpose-designed research studies.

Distance from end destination, gender, age and previous visitation antecedents

Distance is a dissuasive element of destination choice (Nicolau and Mas, 2006). Distance, or the geographical situation of tourists relative to destinations, is a restriction of destination choice due to temporal and monetary causes (Som and Badarneh, 2011). Getz and Brown (2006) typify long-distance wine tourists as people who do not live near a wine region. For example, the sample population used by Getz and Brown (2006) required respondents to negotiate a nine-hour journey by car or a one-hour flight to the nearest wine region. Bruwer and Lesschaeve (2012) examined the differences between international (overseas-based) and local (domestic-based) wine tourists. When visiting a wine region, these wine tourists invariably have to spend one or more nights away from their permanent home and are by definition long-distance and mainly international wine tourists. Whereas it is evident that no clear delineation in terms of distance from the end destination exists, it was decided to divide visitors into in-state and out-of-state visitors in our study. This made sense with Ithaca as the main town in the FLWR (geographical area of the study), located 439 km and a four-hour drive from New York city, the largest city in New York state.

Kolyesnikova et al. (2009: 200) stated that ‘gender is a social construct that is intertwined with virtually all aspects of human life’ and that ‘substantial variation has been noted between the behaviour of males and females’. Bishop and Barber (2012) suggested that males and females differ in how they select information sources, process information and make decisions. Females tend to exhibit a higher sensitivity to information details when making judgements and often engage in more detailed analysis of message content (Meyers-Levy and Sternthal, 1991). Barber (2009) found that men use fewer sources of information than women, which could be linked to their greater actual and self-assessed wine knowledge. Our study also probes this phenomenon. Men rely more on themselves and external (impersonal) sources for information when making a purchase decision, while women prefer information sources that are more personal (external) in nature (Bishop and Barber, 2012). Guided by these findings, our study will therefore test for gender differences in the use of information sources in the wine tourism decision-making process.

Closely associated with gender is the age of consumers, a demographic variable known to exhibit differences in the wine tourism behaviour of winery visitors (Bruwer et al., 2012). Nowak and Newton (2008: 53) point to the fact that the millennial generation (21–34 years of age) is ‘the first group of consumers to grow up immersed in a digital and Internet driven world’. They found that the website is a significant predictor of increased trust in the winery. Other studies also found strong differences between millennial and older age generations in terms of some wine tourism metrics (Bruwer and Alant, 2009; Bruwer et al., 2011). Our study also examines whether there are differences in the use of information sources between millennial and older age generations.

Tourists to any destination consist of both first-time and repeat visitors and their visit decision is influenced by a number of antecedents (Um et al., 2006). The general consensus is that a high proportion of repeat visitors to a tourism destination denotes loyalty and lower risk in the visit decision process (Osti et al., 2012; Quintal and Polczynski, 2010). The phenomenon of a high incidence of first-time or repeat visitation in wine tourism could in some instances be attributed to the spatial relationship (or lack thereof) of the destination region with a big source market as well as through product-related experiences (Dodd, 1999). A high incidence of repeat visitation in wine tourism has been confirmed in diverse studies in Canada (Bruwer and Lesschaeve, 2012; Carmichael, 2005), Israel (Jaffe and Pasternak, 2004), New Zealand (Mitchell, 2006) and Australia (Bruwer, 2002a, 2004). It thus seems logical to expect that first-time and repeat visitors use different information sources and hence this aspect is further examined in our study.

Research methodology

Research questions and contribution

The main purpose of this study is to seek answers on whether there are significant differences between in-state and out-of-state visitors to winery tasting rooms in terms of the sources of information they use to plan their visit and how various antecedents relate to these. The other related questions to which the research sought answers are:

Do first-time differ from repeat visitors in the sources of information they use before and during their visit to winery tasting rooms in a wine region?

Are there differences between the timing of the final decision to visit the wine region between in-state and out-of-state visitors?

What are the main antecedents used by wine tourists for their winery excursions?

What are the differences between gender, age generation and one-day and multi-day trippers in terms of their main sources of information about the winery they visit?

This study adds to the wine tourism (and general tourist travel) knowledge base in that it examines most of the previously discussed variables and strategies. It provides a first-time investigation of the differences between formal and informal information sources in the US and their use by different tourist segments and the antecedents of these sources for several situational and tourism product variables.

Research design, sampling and data collection

The primary data collection instrument was a purpose-designed highly structured questionnaire based on the research questions. The questionnaire had 36 questions in total, most closed-ended. Respondents managed to answer questionnaires within a 10- to 12-minute time period on average.

The sampling unit was 10 tasting rooms within the Finger Lakes Wine Region (FLWR) in New York, USA. The tasting rooms represented a broad range of sizes of winery/tasting room businesses varying from boutique size (less than 5000 cases of wine produced per annum (p.a.) to large (more than 60,000 cases of wine produced p.a.) to obtain as wide as possible a range of visitors and have an acceptable degree of fit with the region’s winery size distribution. The research questionnaires were administered at 10 tasting rooms during a three- to four-week period during Fall. Tasting room staff were given clear instructions on ensuring randomness when recruiting visitors to participate in the survey. For example, only one respondent from a household could participate in the survey and a time-based systematic random sampling technique was used, intercepting visitors randomly as they arrived during different times of the day and days of the week (see Figure 1). The amount of time needed to complete the questionnaire was explained and respondents were given an assurance of complete confidentiality regarding their personal information. The final sample size is 334 respondents.

Figure 1.

Sample distribution of respondents by day of the week.

Research limitations

The research was conducted at tasting rooms in the FLWR and was limited to tasting rooms open seven days per week to maximize potential respondent numbers.

Participants in the study were above 21 years old, legal drinking age, who are core and marginal wine drinkers consuming wine at least once every two months (Wine Market Council, 2011), and thus excluded non-drinkers of wine.

The research did not distinguish between positive and negative WOM.

The study was conducted at an early stage of the development of popular social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter and hence their effect could not be measured.

The data were entered and manipulated in the PASW 18.0 statistical software program and information compared and extracted in accordance with the nature of the data collected.

Research results and discussion

Visit antecedents

The ‘real-world’ applications of the previously discussed communication concepts are overwhelmingly evident in the findings of this research study. In terms of geographic segmentation, somewhat surprisingly, most respondents are out-of-state visitors from Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio as the main feeder sources of all out-of-state visitors (59%), with the balance of 41% coming from New York (in-state).

The age group distribution of the sample confirms earlier work by Bruwer (2002a, 2002b, 2004), in which he found that the millennial and generation-X age groups are highly active and prominent as tasting room visitors in Australia. Table 1 shows that 42% of our study’s sample were between 21 and 45 years of age, thus representing the millennial and generation-X groups. While the gender split was weighted towards females (66%), there were markedly more millennial females (74%) than males (26%). The educational status of the total sample was high, with 75% in possession of a post-secondary qualification. Household size was generally small with on average less than three persons per household. This is not surprising, given their high socioeconomic characteristics and high level of mobility due to few children living in the household. The household income levels are weighted heavily to the middle and the upper levels and are in all likelihood functions of the relatively high education level and small household membership size of the respondents.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of the Finger Lakes Wine Region’s visitors.

Characteristic	Male (%) (n = 115)	Female (%) (n = 219)	Total (%) (n = 334)
Gender	34.4	65.6	100.0
Age group (years)
21–24	3.5	10.5	8.1
25–34	16.5	20.1	18.9
35–44	20.0	25.1	23.3
45–54	24.3	25.1	24.8
55–65	20.9	13.7	16.2
65+	14.8	5.5	8.7
Education level
No post-secondary qualification	25.4	20.8	22.3
Undergraduate post-secondary qualification	47.5	54.0	60.4
Postgraduate qualification	27.1	25.2	17.3
Annual household income* level
≤$50,000	20.8	24.6	23.3
$50,001–$75,000	31.7	27.8	29.0
$75,001–$100,000	31.7	25.6	27.7
$100,001–$150,000	5.9	13.3	10.8
$150,001–$200,000	4.0	5.6	5.1
$200,000+	5.9	3.1	4.1
Number of persons in household (mean)
Persons younger than 21 years	0.43	0.64	0.57
Persons of 21 years or older who drink wine	1.83	1.93	1.89
Persons in household (minimum size)	2.26	2.57	2.46

*Income denoted in US$.

**41% of visitors reside in New York state.

^#59% of all visitors live in other US sates.

As a first step, the prior experience level of visitors of the destination region was examined. From Table 2 it follows that 44% of the visitors are visiting the region for the first time ever, while 56% are repeat visitors (mean = 2.99 visits). There are significant differences between in-state and out-of-state visitors in terms of visitation incidence and the number of previous visits by repeat visitors. We conclude that, as expected due to the tyranny of distance, the awareness and prior visitation experience levels are higher among local (in-state-) versus out-of-state-based visitors.

Table 2.

Prior visit experience incidence of the wine tourists with the region.

Awareness and previous visits	Visitor groups by origin			Test statistics
Awareness and previous visits	Overall % (n = 334)	In-state % (n = 137)	Out-of-state % (n = 197)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
Visited the wine region before	55.7	65.5	48.7	3.071	0.042*
Never visited the wine region before	44.3	32.4	67.6	9.226	0.002*
				Analysis of variance
				F	Significance (two-sided)
Number of previous visits to region (mean)	2.99	3.95	2.30	6.440	0.012*

*Significant at 0.05 level; grouping variable: in-state-based (New York) versus out-of-state-based visitors.

One of this study’s aims was to determine what the influencing factors were that led the visitor to the tasting room. Table 3 shows who the visitor travelled to the tasting room with and who could thus have had an influence as informal communication sources. A meagre 3% of the visitors travelled on their own, in the process basically isolating them from these influences. If one argues that travelling with a business colleague (2%) or with a packaged tour group are more formal sources, then that leaves a significant 91% of the visitors travelling with someone who they are either blood-related, married or de facto partner to, or friends with. Opinion leadership and group dynamics could be at play here. As engaging in wine tourism and visiting tasting rooms is largely a social experience, the potential for (informal) WOM communications is huge. The relational aspect of members of a travel group should be investigated in further research.

Table 3.

Persons accompanying the visitor to the wine region and the length of the visit.

Persons accompanying	Visitor groups by origin			Test statistics
Persons accompanying	Overall % (n = 334)	In-state % (n = 137)	Out-of-state % (n = 197)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
Partner/spouse	54.1	47.5	59.0
Friends	20.4	23.7	17.9
Family	16.8	16.5	16.9	13.313	0.021*
Package tour group	3.3	2.9	3.6
Nobody (travel on own)	3.0	6.5	0.5
Business colleague	2.4	2.9	2.1
Length of the visit
1 day visitors	46.4	53.2	41.5	42.859	0.000*
Multi-day visitors	53.6	46.8	58.5	40.849	0.000*
				Analysis of variance
				F	Significance (two-sided)
Number of days stayed in region	4.23	3.88	4.43	1.090	0.298
Number of nights stayed in region	3.37	3.02	3.57	1.058	0.305

*Significant at 0.05 level; grouping variable: in-state-(New York) versus out-of-state-based visitors.

It also follows that most one-day visitors (53%) are from New York state, while most multi-day visitors (59%) are from out of state (asymptotic significance = 0.000* at .05 level in both cases).

A situational variable that could impact on the choice of information source is the length of the planning horizon (Fodness and Murray, 1999; Sparks, 2007) or, otherwise put, the length of the time period prior to the actual visit during which the final decision to visit is made (see Table 4).

Table 4.

When final decision was made by visitor to visit the wine region on this trip.^a

Timing of decision	Visitor groups by origin			Test statistics
Timing of decision	Overall % (n = 334	In-state % (n = 137)	Out-of-state % (n = 197)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
While driving past (curb appeal)	11.1 (11.1)	12.7 (12.7)	9.0 (9.0)
During the past 24 hours	17.5 (28.6)	20.1 (32.8)	15.4 (24.4)
During the past week	18.2 (46.8)	23.1 (55.9)	14.9 (39.3)
During the past month	21.8 (68.6)	20.9 (76.8)	22.9 (62.2)	11.137	0.133
During the past 3 months	22.2 (90.8)	17.2 (94.0)	26.1 (88.3)
4–6 months ago	3.7 (94.5)	3.0 (97.0)	4.3 (92.6)
7–12 months ago	5.2 (99.7)	3.0 (100.0)	6.9 (99.5)
More than 1 year ago	0.3 (100.0)	–	0.5 (100.0)

^aValues given in parentheses indicate cumulative %; grouping variable: in-state-(New York) versus out-of-state-based visitors.

It is insightful that there are no significant differences between in-state- and out-of-state-based visitors in the overall sense. A relatively high percentage (47%) of visitors made the final decision to visit in less than one week, 69% within one month and 91% within three months prior to the visit. Table 4 shows that despite the long travel distance involved in the case of many visitors who had to travel interstate, the final decision was made a relatively short period before their departure and arrival. The potential for influencing by both formal and informal sources shortly before the visit, but by informal sources in particular, is substantial. One can conclude that the remote locations from the viewpoint of the wine tourist do not necessarily result in a very long period elapsing between the final decision and actual visit.

Table 5 reflects the main purpose of the visit to the wine region, both overall and contrasted between first-time and repeat visitors. There were no significant differences between the groups. Wine tourism (52%) is clearly the main reason for visiting the region, followed by holidaying (21%), recreation (8%) and so on and hence examining the use of the sources of information in making the decision to visit the wine tourism destination is justified.

Table 5.

Main purpose of the visit to the wine region (first-time versus repeat visitors).

Main purpose	Total study		First-time		Repeat		Test statistics
Main purpose	N	%	n	%	n	%	χ ²	df	Significance
Wine tourism	173	51.7	78	52.6	95	51.0	0.087	1	0.767
Holiday	70	21.0	34	23.0	36	19.4	0.651	1	0.420
Recreation (sport or hobby)	26	7.8	10	6.8	16	8.6	0.391	1	0.532
Visit friends or relatives	25	7.5	10	6.8	15	8.1	0.204	1	0.652
Business/conference	21	6.3	7	4.7	14	7.5	1.094	1	0.295
Just passing through	19	5.7	9	6.1	10	5.4	0.076	1	0.782
Total	334	100.0	148	100.0	186	100.0	–	–	–

Sources of information used

As previously discussed, the sender of a message can be a formal or informal source. In general, unlike formal sources, informal sources (i.e. family, friends or colleagues) have nothing to gain commercially from the consequences of their message or opinion impartation. A formal source on the other hand is likely to represent either a commercial or non-profit organization (Schiffman et al., 2011). In the case of wine tourism, this distinction is by no means easy to make.

Table 6 reflects the information environment of the wine tourists. In analysing these results, a rather conservative approach to the issue of whether a communication source is truly informal (or formal) has been followed. It is, for example, arguable whether the attendances of a wine festival event, wine show or conference are, in fact, formal sources.

Table 6.

Sources of information on wine region used by the tasting room visitors (overall).^a

	Responses	Sample %	Total %
Word of mouth (from family, friends, work colleagues, etc.)	197	59.0	24.9
Brochure/pamphlet or region’s brochure/map	132	39.5	16.7
Previous exposure to a winery in the region’s label elsewhere	92	27.5	11.7
Previous visit(s) to the Finger Lakes Wine Region	86	25.7	10.9
Internet (region and/or winery websites)	77	23.1	9.7
Wine tasting attendance elsewhere	65	19.5	8.3
Visitor Information Bureau/Tourism Centre	29	8.7	3.7
Newspaper or magazine article	24	7.2	3.1
Automobile Association (AAA)	22	6.6	2.8
Attending a wine festival or event	14	4.2	1.8
Liquor store/wine store	12	3.6	1.5
Local convention or conference attendance	10	3.0	1.3
Newspaper or magazine advertising	8	2.4	1.0
Tour guide or travel agent	6	1.8	0.8
Billboards/road signage when driving past (curb appeal)	6	1.8	0.8
TV program	4	1.2	0.5
Attending a wine show or trade fair	4	1.2	0.5
Total	N = 788	n = 334	100.0
Mean number of responses per respondent (788/334)	2.36	–	–

^aValues in boldface indicate informal sources/channels.

The data in Table 6 underline the power of all forms of WOM, with 59% of all information source responses ‘classified’ in this category. This finding is in keeping with the theory that WOM is spontaneous and informal. It is evident that a major portion (in this case, 440/788 = 55.8%) of visitors form their preferences for wine region visits based on informal channels of communication. This is also consistent with findings from studies conducted in Canada (Bruwer and Lesschaeve, 2012) and in Australia in the McLaren Vale (Bruwer and Reilly, 2006) and Grampians wine regions (Clark et al., 2005), in which WOM on its own had a 32%, 53% and 48% representation, respectively. Clearly then, WOM is a highly ‘potent’ communication force in wine tourism.

Having established the overall situation as far as the use of the various information sources is concerned, the next step was to test whether first-timers are more inclined than repeat visitors to use formal sources of information about the wine region they are about to visit (see Table 7). The basis of this supposition is that first-time visitors are less likely to have access to the informal sources of information by virtue of the fact that they will less often come in to contact with people who could provide this form of information.

Table 7.

Sources of information about the winery used by tasting room visitors (first-time versus repeat).^a

	Overall % (n = 334)	First-time % (n = 148)	Repeat % (n = 186)	Pearson’s χ ²	Asymptotic significance (two-sided)
Word of mouth (from family, friends, work colleagues, etc.)	59.0	58.9	59.1	0.000	0.998
Brochure/pamphlet or region’s map	39.5	41.1	38.4	0.252	0.616
Previous exposure to a winery in the region’s label elsewhere	27.5	17.1	36.2	14.822	0.000*
Previous visit(s) to the Finger Lakes Wine Region	25.7	13.7	35.7	20.494	0.000*
Internet (region and/or winery websites)	23.1	21.2	24.9	0.603	0.437
Wine tasting attendance elsewhere	19.5	8.2	28.6	21.581	0.000*
Visitor Information Bureau/Tourism Centre	8.7	11.0	7.0	1.578	0.209
Newspaper or magazine article	7.2	6.2	8.1	0.458	0.498
Automobile Association (AAA)	6.6	6.8	6.5	0.017	0.895
Attending a wine festival or event	4.2	4.8	3.8	0.206	0.650
Liquor store/wine store	3.6	1.4	5.4	3.804	0.501
Local convention or conference attendance	3.0	2.1	3.8	0.833	0.362
Newspaper or magazine advertising	2.4	2.7	2.2	0.115	0.734
Tour guide or travel agent	1.8	2.1	1.6	0.086	0.769
Billboards/road signage when driving past (curb appeal)	1.8	2.1	1.6	0.086	0.769
TV program	1.2	2.1	0.5	1.567	0.211
Attending a wine show or trade fair	1.2	1.4	1.1	0.057	0.811
Mean number per respondent (788/334)	2.36	–	–	–	–
Mean number per first-time visitor respondent (299/148)	–	2.02	–	–	–
Mean number per repeat visitor respondent (496/186)	–	–	2.67	–	–

*Significant at 0.05 level; grouping variable: first-time versus repeat visitors to region.

^aValues in boldface indicate informal sources/channels.

Table 7 shows that first-time visitors use informal sources such as brochures/pamphlets (41%) and the region’s information bureau (11%) more than repeat visitors. On the other hand, repeat visitors use previous exposure to a winery’s label (36%), previous visits to the region (36%) and wine tastings (29%) significantly more than first-time visitors, thus signifying relative familiarity with the area and individual wineries. They also use a higher number of sources on average than the first-time visitor (2.7 versus 2.0).

An important finding of this research is that, even on a collective basis, the above-the-line mass media (TV, newspapers and magazines) have very little incidence (11% collectively) as sources of information that attract a visitor to the region. This could be a cause–effect situation brought about by the regional association with a small marketing budget being unable to use these media to their full potential. Having established the relative importance of the various sources of information, the next step was to test the top five sources only in terms of various antecedents as this would make for more meaningful answers from a managerial viewpoint. These are conducted to test various situational and demographic (personal) variables (Grønflaten, 2009), as outlined earlier. The obvious place to start is with gender as it has often proven to be the basis for differences in wine consumption of people (Atkin et al., 2007; Bruwer and Lesschaeve, 2012). Table 8 reflects the results.

Table 8.

Visitors to the wine region’s top sources* of information used by gender group.

Information source	Gender group			Test statistics
Information source	Overall % (n = 334)	Males % (n = 115)	Females % (n = 219)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
Word of mouth ⁽¹⁾	59.0	⁽¹⁾ 58.8	⁽¹⁾ 59.0	0.001	0.970
Brochure/pamphlet or region’s brochure/map ⁽²⁾	39.5	⁽²⁾ 42.1	⁽²⁾ 38.2	0.465	0.495
Previous exposure to a winery’s label elsewhere ⁽³⁾	27.5	⁽⁶⁾21.1	⁽³⁾ 31.3	3.938	0.047**
Previous visits to the FLWR and/or winery ⁽⁴⁾	25.7	⁽³⁾26.3	⁽⁴⁾ 25.8	0.010	0.920
Internet (region and/or winery websites) ⁽⁵⁾	23.1	⁽⁴⁾ 22.8	⁽⁵⁾ 23.5	0.020	0.887
Wine tasting attendance elsewhere ⁽⁶⁾	19.5	⁽⁵⁾21.9	⁽⁶⁾18.4	0.579	0.447

*Sources represent cumulatively > 80% of all sources used.

**Significant at 0.05 level; grouping variable: first-time versus repeat visitor.

( ) Ranking.

Of the top five sources of information used about the region, only previous exposure to a winery’s label is significantly different between the genders, with females recording the higher incidence (31%).

Differences between age groups have also often proven to be an explanatory factor, in both wine tourism and wine consumption behaviour (Alant and Bruwer, 2004; Getz and Carlsen, 2008). Table 9 shows the findings when examining whether there are differences between the younger (millennial 21- to 34-year-olds) and the older age generations.

Table 9.

Visitors to the wine region’s top sources* of information used by age generation group.

Information source	Age generation group			Test statistics
Information source	Overall % (n = 334)	< 35 years % (n = 115)	≥ 35 years % (n = 219)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
Word of mouth ⁽¹⁾	59.0	⁽¹⁾ 77.5	⁽¹⁾ 52.1	17.428	0.000**
Brochure/pamphlet or region’s brochure/map ⁽²⁾	39.5	⁽²⁾ 48.3	⁽²⁾ 36.4	3.886	0.049**
Previous exposure to a winery’s label elsewhere ⁽³⁾	27.5	⁽³⁾ 34.8	⁽³⁾ 25.2	3.004	0.083
Previous visits to the FLWR and/or winery ⁽⁴⁾	25.7	⁽⁴⁾28.1	⁽⁴⁾ 25.1	0.281	0.596
Internet (region and/or winery websites) ⁽⁵⁾	23.1	⁽⁵⁾ 27.0	⁽⁵⁾ 21.9	0.935	0.333
Wine tasting attendance elsewhere ⁽⁶⁾	19.5	⁽⁶⁾ 20.2	⁽⁶⁾ 19.4	0.027	0.870

*Sources represent cumulatively > 80% of all sources used.

**Significant at 0.05 level; grouping variable: millennial (< 35 years old) versus generation-X and older visitors.

( ) Ranking.

The age generations differ significantly on their use of WOM and brochures/pamphlets of the region as information sources, with millennials using these far more frequently. Although not much statistical significance could be found, it is still evident that there is some practical significance in terms of the different results between the age generation groups.

The results in Table 10 probe another situational factor, namely, whether the duration of the visit had an effect, and, if so, to what extent.

Table 10.

Visitors to the wine region’s top sources* of information used by one-day versus multi-day visitors.

Information source	Duration of the visit			Test statistics
Information source	Overall % (n = 334)	One-day % (n = 115)	Multi-day % (n = 219)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
Word of mouth ⁽¹⁾	59.0	⁽¹⁾ 58.2	⁽¹⁾ 59.6	0.065	0.799
Brochure/pamphlet or region’s brochure/map ⁽²⁾	39.5	⁽²⁾ 37.3	⁽²⁾ 41.6	0.642	0.423
Previous exposure to a winery’s label elsewhere ⁽³⁾	27.5	⁽³⁾ 26.2	⁽³⁾ 29.2	0.386	0.534
Previous visits to the FLWR and/or winery ⁽⁴⁾	25.7	⁽⁵⁾24.8	⁽⁴⁾ 27.0	0.194	0.660
Internet (region and/or winery websites) ⁽⁵⁾	23.1	⁽⁴⁾ 26.1	⁽⁵⁾ 20.8	1.323	0.250
Wine tasting attendance elsewhere ⁽⁶⁾	19.5	⁽⁶⁾ 20.3	⁽⁶⁾ 19.1	0.070	0.791

FLWR: Finger Lakes Wine Region. *Sources represent cumulatively > 80% of all sources used.

Grouping variable: one-day only versus multi-day visitors.

( ) Ranking.

There are no significant differences in Table 10 as far as one-day and multi-day visitors to the region are concerned. The findings in Table 10 lead to the conclusion that the top five sources of information used about the region do differ between one-day and multi-day visitors.

The final situational variable tested is the origin of the visitor’s permanent residence. One would logically assume that, when from a state of origin outside of the destination region, it would lead to higher usage of the ‘formal sources’ (Table 11). This is largely true, with the exception of in-state visitors using previous exposure to a winery’s label significantly more than out-of-state visitors.

Table 11.

Visitors to the wine region’s top sources* of information used by in-state versus out-of-state origin.

Information source	Origin of permanent residence			Test statistics
Information source	Overall % (n = 334)	In-state % (n = 137)	Out-of-state % (n = 197)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
Word of mouth ⁽¹⁾	59.0	⁽¹⁾ 65.2	⁽¹⁾54.9	3.463	0.063
Brochure/pamphlet or region’s brochure/map ⁽²⁾	39.5	⁽²⁾ 46.7	⁽²⁾35.2	4.329	0.037**
Previous exposure to a winery label elsewhere ⁽³⁾	27.5	⁽³⁾ 37.0	⁽⁵⁾21.8	9.184	0.002**
Previous visits to the FLWR and/or winery ⁽⁴⁾	25.7	⁽⁴⁾ 27.4	⁽⁴⁾25.4	0.167	0.682
Internet (region and/or winery websites) ⁽⁵⁾	23.1	⁽⁶⁵⁾ 18.5	⁽³⁾ 26.9	3.138	0.076
Wine tasting attendance elsewhere ⁽⁶⁾	19.5	⁽⁵⁾ 23.0	⁽⁶⁾17.1	1.740	0.187

^a Significant at 0.05 level; grouping variable: in state (New York) vs. Inter-state (all other states of origin).

^b Sources represent cumulatively > 80% of all sources used. ( ) Ranking.

These findings lead to the conclusion that the top five sources of information used about the region differ between in-state and out-of-state visitors. Table 12 indicates specific differences between visitors from in-state (New York) and the three main out-of-state origins, namely, Pennsylvania, Ohio and all other US states.

Table 12.

Visitors to wine region’s top sources* of information used by other state versus all other-states of origin.

Information source	State of origin of permanent residence				Test statistics
Information source	NY % (n = 137)	PA % (n = 70)	OH % (n = 16)	Other % (n = 111)	χ ²	Asymptotic significance
Word of mouth ⁽¹⁾	⁽¹⁾ 64.5	⁽¹⁾61.8	⁽¹⁾50.0	⁽¹⁾ 51.4	65.962	0.000**
Brochure/pamphlet or region’s brochure/map ⁽²⁾	⁽²⁾ 45.7	⁽²⁾35.3	⁽³⁾25.0	⁽²⁾ 36.7	53.348	0.000**
Previous exposure to winery label elsewhere ⁽³⁾	⁽³⁾ 36.2	⁽³⁾ 32.4	⁽⁴⁾6.3	⁽⁵⁾17.4	34.422	0.000**
Previous visits to the FLWR and/or winery ⁽⁴⁾	⁽⁴⁾ 26.8	⁽⁴⁾27.9	⁽³⁾25.0	⁽³⁾ 23.9	28.140	0.000**
Wine tasting attendance elsewhere ⁽⁶⁾	⁽⁵⁾ 23.2	⁽⁶⁾ 26.5	⁽⁴⁾6.3	⁽⁶⁾12.8	24.139	0.000**
Internet (region and/or winery websites) ⁽⁵⁾	⁽⁶⁾ 18.1	⁽⁵⁾ 26.9	⁽²⁾ 37.5	⁽⁴⁾ 24.8	19.990	0.000**

FLWR: Finger Lakes Wine Region; NY: New York; PA: Pennsylvania; OH: Ohio.

*Sources represent cumulatively > 80% of all sources used.

**Significant at 0.05 level; grouping variable: in state (NY) versus inter-state of origin (boldface values).

( ) Ranking.

The use of WOM appears to decline with increasing distance from the destination region and there is a significant difference between New York (65%) and other US states (51%). The same applies in the case of the other sources, with the exception of using the Internet. It follows that the top five sources of information used about the region differ between visitors from in-state (New York) and other US states.

In the end, WOM was so high in its use by all groups as an information source that wine regions and stakeholders within simply have to find ways in which to catalyse it. The most obvious strategy is to give visitors an unforgettable experience when they visit tasting rooms.

Conclusions, managerial implications and recommendations

Conclusions

This study provides a first-time investigation of the differences between formal and informal information sources and their use by different wine tourist segments in the US and the antecedents of these sources for several situational and tourism product variables. It also provided new insights on whether there are differences between in-state and out-of-state visitors to winery tasting rooms in terms of the sources of information they use to plan their visit.

A key finding of the research is the major role played by the so-called informal sources of information in the wine tourist’s visit. WOM communication is confirmed as the primary source of information for both first-time and repeat visitors to the region, regardless of whether they are from an in-state or out-of-state origin. It was also found that the timing of the final decision to visit the tourism destination was notably shorter for in-state in comparison with out-of-state visitors, which is a phenomenon that could be linked to lower risk perception as there is less chance of loss or other negative consequences.

What emerged in the broader sense is that specific differences exist in the types of information sources used by first-time and repeat wine tourists. First-time visitors use formal sources such as a brochure/pamphlet or the region’s map, the visitor information bureau, and a TV program more than repeat visitors. The repeat visitors use previous exposure to a regional winery’s label, previous visits to the region and attendance of a wine tasting significantly more than first-time visitors, signifying their relative familiarity with the area. Both visitor groups use WOM almost equally and more than any other information source.

The research also found that the prior visitation experience levels are higher among in-state- versus out-of-state-based visitors and that local visitors are significantly more likely to be one-day visitors, while out-of-state-based visitors are significantly more likely to be multi-day visitors to the wine region. It is insightful that no significant difference could be found in the timing of the final decision to visit the wine region between the visitor types.

Across the board, wine tourists differed significantly in their use of some of the top five information sources by gender and age generation, but the length of the visit (one-day versus multi-day) did not strongly differentiate the sources of information used by the visitor groups. There were, however, significant differences between the use of all the top five information sources between in-state (New York) and out-of-state visitors (from Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere in the US).

Managerial implications

WOM communication is indeed a powerful force in convincing people to visit a specific wine region. Whereas its value cannot be overemphasized, it should always be remembered that WOM is a two-way street in that negative WOM will reach, and probably influence, as many people as would positive WOM.

It is possible to reach a large portion of the wine tourism market (in-state- as well as out-of-state-based tourists) by articulating the informal communication sources, mainly WOM, other wineries in the region, and local accommodation providers. The findings also reflect several aspects that a regional association can work on to increase the impact of, for example, the visitor centre, referrals between wineries in the region, wider distribution of its brochure/pamphlet at local accommodation providers and so forth.

Every person that has had contact with the wineries, products and staff is a potential WOM source for the region. This powerful marketing force can unleash its persuasive power, provided these actors make a positive overall impression, becomes increasingly vital in order to clearly differentiate them from others. The emergence of social media shall provide tools to monitor WOM that are affordable (if not free) and easy to access and to use. Wineries should integrate social media in their overall marketing strategy and build new and long-term relationships with visitors and customers.

Recommendations for further research

Although it was proven that informal sources of information are indeed a potent force in attracting visitors to a wine region, it needs to be established how to best articulate these sources, particularly WOM. The consequences of WOM and determining what the antecedents of WOM are should form part of this focused effort. This, and all the underlying reasons (antecedents), including the role of RRS and their relationship with opinion leadership, should be confirmed in future purpose-designed research studies. Further research should also be conducted to develop the distinction between formal and informal sources of information more clearly. Future research could also investigate the complexity of the processing of information by receivers. Research in other country (and wine regional) environments should be conducted to expand this knowledge base and for comparative purposes.

The interaction effects between multiple sources of information should be investigated as it is the reinforcing effects of one communication source on others that may be critical to a consumption decision.

Very few people engage in wine tourism by themselves and most groups of two or more people include a member of both genders. There may well be influencing at play that manifests in their behaviour and this should be investigated in further studies. The use of dyadic or network methodology to examine the WOM communication network in a social context is therefore recommended.

Conceptualizing WOM simply as the frequency of consumer message exchange is an overly simplistic approach and the frequency measures can be enhanced through an analysis of the quality of the individual WOM messages in future research.

Knowledge about tapping into the ‘word of mouth’ aspect of social media can be beneficial, as denoted by Thach and Bruwer (2012); hence, the synergy between social media and traditional WOM should be investigated in future research studies.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Alant

Bruwer

(2004) Wine tourism behaviour in the context of a motivational framework for wine regions and tasting rooms. Journal of Wine Research 15(1): 27–37.

Alant

Bruwer

(2010) Winery visitation sets: Intra-regional spatial movement of wine tourists in branded wine regions. International Journal of Wine Business Research 22(2): 191–210.

Allen

O’Toole

Harris

. (2010) Festival and Special Event Management. (5th edn). Milton, Queensland: John Wiley and Sons Australia.

Allsop

Bassett

Hoskins

(2007) Word-of-mouth research: Principles and applications. Journal of Advertising Research 47(4): 398–411.

Alonso

(2005) Wine tourism experiences in New Zealand: An exploratory study. Doctoral thesis, Lincoln University, New Zealand, pp. 1–212.

Alonso

Fraser

Cohen

(2007) Investigating differences between domestic and international winery visitors in New Zealand. International Journal of Wine Business Research 19(2): 114–126.

Anderson

(1998) Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research 1(1): 5–17.

Atkin

Nowak

Garcia

(2007) Women wine consumers: information search and retailing implications. International Journal of Wine Business Research 19(4): 327–339.

Barber

(2009) Wine consumers information search: Gender differences and implications for the hospitality industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research 9(3): 250–269.

10.

Barber

Dodd

Kolyesnikova

(2009) Gender differences in information search: Implications for retailing. Journal of Consumer Marketing 26(6): 415–426.

11.

Bishop

Barber

(2012) A market segmentation approach to esteem and efficacy in information search. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29(1): 13–21.

12.

Brown

Broderick

Lee

(2007) Word of mouth communication within online communities: Conceptualizing the online social network. Journal of Interactive Marketing 21(3): 2–20.

13.

Brown

Getz

(2005) Linking wine preferences to the choice of wine tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research 43(3): 266–276.

14.

Brown

Barry

Dacin

. (2005) Spreading the word: Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 33(2): 123–138.

15.

Bruwer

(2002a) The importance and role of the winery tasting room in the Australian wine industry: Some perspectives. The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker 463: 96–99.

16.

Bruwer

(2002b) Marketing wine to generation-X consumers through the winery tasting room. The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker 467: 67–70.

17.

Bruwer

(2003) South African wine routes: Some perspectives on the wine tourism industry’s structural dimensions and wine tourism product. Tourism Management 24(4): 423–435.

18.

Bruwer

(2004) The love affair of generation-X consumers with the winery tasting room. The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker 491: 19–24.

19.

Bruwer

Alant

(2009) The hedonic nature of wine tourism consumption: An experiential view. International Journal of Wine Business Research 21(2): 235–257.

20.

Bruwer

Johnson

(2010) Place-based marketing and regional branding strategy perspectives in the California wine industry. Journal of Consumer Marketing 27(1): 5–16.

21.

Bruwer

Lesschaeve

(2012) Sources of information used by tourists travelling to visit Canadian winery tasting rooms. Tourism Planning and Development 9(3): 269–289.

22.

Bruwer

Reilly

(2006) The power of word-of-mouth communication as an information source for winery tasting room visitors. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 21(3): 43–52.

23.

Bruwer

Wood

(2005) The Australian online wine-buying consumer: Motivational and behavioural perspectives. Journal of Wine Research 16(3): 193–211.

24.

Bruwer

Lesschaeve

Campbell

(2012) Consumption dynamics and demographics of Canadian wine consumers: Retailing insights from the tasting room channel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19(1): 45–58.

25.

Bruwer

Saliba

Miller

(2011) Consumer behaviour and sensory preference differences: Implications for wine product marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing 28(1): 5–18.

26.

Buttle

(1998) Word of mouth: Understanding and managing referral marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing 6(3): 241–254.

27.

Carmichael

(2005) Understanding the wine tourism experience for winery visitors in the Niagara Region, New York, Canada. Tourism Geographies 7(2): 185–204.

28.

Chaney

(2000) External search effort for wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing 12(2): 5–21.

29.

Chaney

(2001) Opinion leaders as a segment for marketing communications. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 19(5): 302–308.

30.

Charters

Fountain

Fish

(2009) You felt like lingering. Experiencing the real service at the winery tasting room. Journal of Travel Research 48(1): 122–134.

31.

Clark

Chapell

Liddle

. (2005) Barriers to Wine Visitation: Visitor Perceptions and Travel Motivations in the Grampians Wine Region. University of Ballarat, School of Business, Working Paper Series, ISSN 1832–6846.

32.

Day

(1971) Attitude change, media and word of mouth. Journal of Advertising Research 11(6): 31–40.

33.

Dodd

(1999) Attracting repeat customers to wineries. International Journal of Wine Marketing 11(2): 18–27.

34.

Dodd

Pinkleton

Gustafson

(1996) External information sources of product enthusiasts: Differences between variety seekers, variety neutrals, and variety avoiders. Psychology and Marketing 13(3): 291–304.

35.

East

Hammond

Lomax

(2008) Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth and brand purchase probability. International Journal Research in Marketing 25(3): 215–224.

36.

Euromonitor International (2012) Wine in the US, Passport Report. Euromonitor International, Chicago, February, pp. 1–27.

37.

Famularo

Bruwer

(2010) Region of origin as choice factor: Wine knowledge and wine tourism involvement influence. International Journal of Wine Business Research 22(4): 362–385.

38.

Fisher

(2011) U.S. wineries grow 9% to 6,785. Wine Business Monthly Online. Available at: http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=85190 (accessed 22 November 2011).

39.

Fodness

Murray

(1999) A model of tourist information search behavior. Journal of Travel Research 37(3): 220–230.

40.

Getz

Carlsen

(2008) Wine tourism among generations X and Y. Tourism: An Interdisciplinary Journal 56(3): 257–269.

41.

Getz

Brown

(2006) Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: A demand analysis. Tourism Management 27(1): 146–158.

42.

Godes

Mayzlin

(2004) Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science 23(4): 545–560.

43.

Grønflaten

(2009) Predicting travelers’ choice of information sources and information channels. Journal of Travel Research 48(2): 230–244.

44.

Hall

(2007) Introduction to Tourism in Australia: Development, Issues and Change. (5th edn). NSW, Australia: Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest.

45.

Hall

Longo

Mitchell

. (2000) Wine tourism in New Zealand. In: Hall

Sharples

Cambourne

. (eds) Wine Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 150–174.

46.

Harrison-Walker

(2001) The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research 4(1): 60–75.

47.

Hyde

(2006) Contemporary information search strategies of destination-naïve international vacationers. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 21 (2/3): 63–76.

48.

Institute of Wine and Spirit Record (2011) The IWSR Drinks Record 2010. London, UK: IWSR.

49.

Jaffe

Pasternak

(2004) Developing wine trails as a tourist attraction in Israel. International Journal of Travel Research 6(4): 237–249.

50.

Jin

Bloch

Cameron

(2001) A comparative study: Does the word-of-mouth communications and opinion leadership model fit opinions on the Internet? In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on Social Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, 6–9 January 2001.

51.

Johnson

Bruwer

(2007) Regional brand image and perceived wine quality: The consumer perspective. International Journal of Wine Business Research 19(4): 276–297.

52.

Keller

Berry

(2006) Word-of-mouth: The real action is offline. Advertising Age 4: 1–3.

53.

Kolyesnikova

Dodd

Wilcox

(2009) Gender as a moderator of reciprocal consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing 26(3): 200–213.

54.

Lacey

Bruwer

(2009) The role of perceived risk in wine purchase decisions in restaurants. International Journal of Wine Business Research 21(2): 99–117.

55.

Lesschaeve

Bruwer

(2010) The importance of consumer involvement and implications for new product development. In: Jaeger

MacFie

(eds) Consumer-driven Innovation in Food and Personal Care Products. (1st edn). Woodhead Food Series No. 195, Cambridge: UK: Woodhead Publishing Ltd, pp. 193–208.

56.

Litvin

Goldsmith

Pan

(2008) Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management 29(3): 458–468.

57.

Maxham

JG III

Netemeyer

(2002) A longitudinal study of complaining customers' evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal of Marketing 66(4): 57–71.

58.

Mayzlin

Godes

(2002) Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Harvard Business School Marketing Unit: Research Paper No. 02-01, May.

59.

Meyers-Levy

Sternthal

(1991) Gender differences in the use of message cues and judgments. Journal of Marketing Research 28(1): 84–96.

60.

Miller

(2011) Organizational Communication: Approaches and Processes. Menlo Park, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

61.

Mitchell

(2006) Influences on post-visit wine purchase (and non-purchase) by New Zealand winery visitors. In: Carlsen

Charters

(eds) Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management & Marketing. Cambridge, MA: CAB International, pp. 95–109.

62.

Murray

(1991) A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information acquisition activities. Journal of Marketing 55(1): 10–25.

63.

Nicolau

Mas

(2006) The influence of distance and prices on the choice of tourist destinations: The moderating role of motivations. Tourism Management 27(5): 982–996.

64.

Nowak

Newton

(2008) Using winery web sites to launch relationships with millennials. International Journal of Wine Business Research 20(1): 53–67.

65.

Olsen

Hermsmeyer

(2009) Winery direct to consumer and wine 2.0. In: Thach

Matz

(eds) Wine: A Global Business. NY: Miranda Press., pp. 219–234.

66.

Osti

Disegna

Brida

(2012) Repeat visits and intentions to revisit a sporting event and its nearby destinations. Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1): 31–42.

67.

Perdue

(1985) Segmenting state travel information inquirers by timing of the destination decision and previous experience. Journal of Travel Research 23(3): 6–11.

68.

Plummer

(2007) Word of mouth: A new advertising discipline? Journal of Advertising Research 47(4): 385–386.

69.

Price

Feick

(1984) The role of interpersonal sources in external search: An informational perspective. Advances in Consumer Research 11: 250–255.

70.

Quadri-Felitti

Fiore

(2012) Experience economy constructs as a framework for understanding wine tourism. Journal of Vacation Marketing 18(1): 3–15.

71.

Quintal

Polczynski

(2010) Factors influencing tourists’ revisit intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 22(4): 554–578.

72.

Schiffman

O’Cass

Paladino

. (2011) Consumer Behaviour. (5th edn). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.

73.

Som

APM

Badarneh

(2011) Tourist satisfaction and repeat visitation: Toward a new comprehensive model. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences 6(1): 38–45.

74.

Sparks

(2007) Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict tourist behavioural intentions. Tourism Management 28(5): 1180–1192.

75.

Sweeney

Soutar

Mazzarol

(2012) Word of mouth: Measuring the power of individual messages. European Journal of Marketing 46 (1/2): 237–257.

76.

Thach

Bruwer

(2012) Using social media to promote wine tourism. Wine Business Monthly 11: 1–2.

77.

Chon

(2006) Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research 33(4): 1141–1158.

78.

Wine Market Council (2011) USA Consumer Market Survey. Iwoa City, IA: Merrill Research.