Marketing Pinotage to South African student millennials

International Journal of Wine Business Research Marketing Pinotage to South African student millennials Margaux Vannevel, Nick Vink, Jeanne Brand, Valeria Panzeri,

Downloaded by Stellenbosch University, Professor Nick Vink At 04:58 15 October 2018 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Margaux Vannevel, Nick Vink, Jeanne Brand, Valeria Panzeri, (2018) "Marketing Pinotage to South African student millennials", International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 30 Issue: 3, pp.331-342, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-03-2017-0013 Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-03-2017-0013 Downloaded on: 15 October 2018, At: 04:58 (PT) References: this document contains references to 44 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 25 times since 2018*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2018),"Shared brands and sustainable competitive advantage in the Brazilian wine sector", International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 30 Iss 2 pp. 243-259 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-04-2017-0019 (2018),"The winery experience from the perspective of Generation Z", International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 30 Iss 2 pp. 169-184 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-03-2017-0018

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Token:Eprints:J5JFXUJ2E5PDCJES62KY:

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.


*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1062.htm

Marketing Pinotage to South African student millennials

Marketing Pinotage

Margaux Vannevel and Nick Vink Department of Agricultural Economics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa Downloaded by Stellenbosch University, Professor Nick Vink At 04:58 15 October 2018 (PT)

Jeanne Brand Department of Viticulture and Oenology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, and

331 Received 15 March 2017 Revised 11 September 2017 2 December 2017 Accepted 4 December 2017

Valeria Panzeri Institute for Grape and Wine Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the relevance of expert opinions as a marketing tool for Pinotage amongst young South African student millennials by means of sensory hedonic testing.

Design/methodology/approach – Sensory hedonic testing was used because it is necessary to examine the extent to which extrinsic cues influence a wine’s intrinsic merit, as this can influence future purchase decisions. Thus, it combines marketing factors and sensory science and explores the sensory liking of food products by consumers. A total of 126 South African student millennial consumers were analysed. Findings – The results confirm that expert opinions are an effective marketing tool. While positive expert opinions did not reinforce perceived quality for already generally liked wines, they increased perceived quality for wines that were not liked. Female student millennials specifically seem to be influenced by expert opinions and packaging, even though they show a relative dislike for Pinotage under blind tasting. These results are useful in the design of marketing strategies. Research limitations/implications – Because of the chosen research approach, it may be difficult to generalize the research results. However, future research could apply this methodology to investigate the perceived quality of wine and other food products in different countries. Furthermore, replicating this study could provide interesting comparative results. Originality/value – Little is known about the liking for Pinotage wines by young South African consumers or about the cues that make them respond positively to marketing.

Keywords South Africa, Hedonic models, Pinotage, Sensory analysis, Student millennials Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction South Africa has a long history of wine making and is currently the world’s seventh largest wine producer by value (OIV, 2015). Pinotage (Vitis vinifera cv. Pinotage) was created at the University of Stellenbosch in 1925 and makes up 6 per cent of the total planting of wine grapes in South Africa, placing it seventh among all cultivars and third amongst the red cultivars (SAWIS, 2016). In 2014, 79 339 tons of Pinotage were used for wine making purposes (SAWIS, 2016). South Africa has a total population of around 56.5 million people (StatsSA, 2017). Just under 36 per cent is aged between 20 and 39 years – they can be defined as an approximate Generation Y (20-38 years old, also referred to as millennials). Due to their importance as a

International Journal of Wine Business Research Vol. 30 No. 3, 2018 pp. 331-342 © Emerald Publishing Limited 1751-1062 DOI 10.1108/IJWBR-03-2017-0013

IJWBR 30,3


332

consumer group, numerous studies have focussed on their consumption patterns (Spielmann et al., 2016). However, research cannot be generalized globally as cross-cultural differences occur in wine consumption behaviour, also of millennials (de Magistris et al., 2011). While there is some disagreement about the exact dates of this generation, this study follows Nielsen’s(2014) age limits: a group of people born between 1977 and 1995. In 2015, this generation were thus aged 20-38 years old. However, due to its size, it is possible that behaviour within this segment differs (Debevec et al., 2013). Therefore, this research is focused on the younger segment (20-28 years old), and specifically on university students. Finally, while Pinotage is known as the South Africa grape, almost no research has been done on consumer liking of Pinotage. The aim of this study is therefore to investigate the relevance of one specific cue, namely, expert opinions, on the perceived quality of Pinotage amongst South African student millennials. 2. Literature review 2.1 Perceived quality Original models for the quality perception process focus mainly on before-purchase evaluation or expected quality (Steenkamp, 1990). However, classic quality perception models have been subject to critique. As a result, Grunert et al. (1996) introduced an updated model, “The Total Food Quality Model” (TFQM), which additionally focusses on afterpurchase evaluations (experienced quality), in addition to expected quality. Experienced quality is essential for marketers, as the final trade-off between expected and experienced quality can eventually lead to future purchases (Mueller et al., 2010). Based on the level of expertise of the person judging the wine, there are two levels of quality: from the viewpoint of wine makers and experts (i.e. objective quality) and from the viewpoint of the consumers (i.e. subjective or perceived quality) (Saenz-Navajas et al., 2015). As most wine consumers are not experts, it is important for wine marketers to gain insight into the quality perception process of consumers. For wine, quality is a multi-dimensional construct which entails both intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions (Chocarro and Cortinas, 2013). Spawton (1991) introduced his benefits spectrum for wine in which he identifies wine as a bundle of tangible and intangible attributes that can be used to differentiate a wine from its competition. Intangible features include information sources such as awards and image. These expert opinions are a generally acknowledged marketing tool in the wine industry (Stuen et al., 2015). Not many scholars deal with both expected and experienced quality. Priilaid (2006) examined the extent to which extrinsic cues such as price and region of origin influence a wine’s intrinsic merit (i.e. taste). He argues that the brain literally tastes the available extrinsic cues (Priilaid, 2006). Henley et al. (2011) found that quality perception changes when it is sighted tasting compared to blind tasting. Mueller et al. (2010) combined a discrete choice experiment to test expected quality with an informed sensory tasting to test experienced quality. Their research confirms the link between expected quality, experienced quality and repurchase intentions for wine. Further research on wine quality indicates a correlation between positive expert opinions and experienced quality (Chocarro and Cortinas, 2013). Positive information on the wine received before tasting positively influences hedonic rating. Incorporating the TFQM with Spawton’s (1991) wine quality model, this study measures the trade-off between expected and experienced quality of Pinotage wine, where expected quality can be inferred from one intangible feature – expert opinions.


2.2 Market segmentation The aim of market segmentation is to identify market segments or “sets of buyers” (Tynan and Drayton, 1987). Once these sets are defined, it is up to the seller to decide which ones to target. There are different ways to segment a market. Research has revealed that generational segmentation is successful in identifying consumer groups (Schewe and Meredith, 2004). A generational cohort is a group of individuals who shared similar experiences when they were “coming of age”, developing unique values, preferences, attitudes and buying behaviour that remain over a lifetime (Schewe and Meredith, 2004). There are four principal generational cohorts: the Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, often referred to as the millennial generation or millennials, and most recently Generation Z (Dupont, 2015). Generation Y, the focus of this study, is unique and their behaviour differs considerably from the previous generations (van den Bergh and Behrer, 2013). It is currently South Africa’s largest economically empowered population, dominating every industry (VinIntell, 2013). As the importance of this generation has become clear to the wine industry, more academics have been focussing on their consumption patterns. A study conducted by Thach and Olsen (2006) in the USA attempted to identify perceptions and attitudes of Generation Y. For millennials, wine is a drink to enjoy with food and friends in a relaxed setting (Thach and Olsen, 2006). This generation acts in a similar way to older wine consumers, as their quality perception and wine choice is greatly influenced by label design (Henley et al., 2011). Research conducted in Australia showed that the Generation Y drink wines less frequently than the older generation and are willing to pay slightly more (Teagle et al., 2010). However, this could be attributed to the difference in age rather than the difference in generation. Other findings mention that millennial wine consumers in the USA attach more importance to wine attributes such as “someone recommended it” and attractiveness of the label compared to older generations (Chrysochou et al., 2010). However, results cannot be generalized at a global level. Cross-cultural research has indicated differences in wine consumption behaviour of millennials in different countries (de Magistris et al., 2011). Generation Y in South Africa can be defined as the “post-apartheid” generation. Research shows that historical events have influenced their mindset, attitudes, values and aspirations (Duh and Struwig, 2013). They are quality conscious, hedonistic, confused by overchoice, habitual, brand loyal and fashion conscious (Mandhlazi et al., 2013, p. 161). They are large in number, educated, confident and growing in spending power (Duh and Struwig, 2013). Their alcohol consumption is dominated by beer, ciders and other “ready-to-drinks” (SAWIS, 2016); thus, wine producers will need to focus on changing their consumption behaviour. Over the years, there has been a growing consensus to segment wine consumers based on behavioural factors, more specifically based on product involvement (Parsons and Thompson, 2009). Involved consumers respond differently to a product category as quality cues affect them differently. High-involved consumers will consciously spend more time and effort considering their product choice, while low-involved consumers will simplify the wine choice through risk-reduction strategies (Barber et al., 2008). These include purchasing known brands or relying on recommendations from wine connoisseurs (Parsons and Thompson, 2009). Bruwer et al. (2017) interpreted four wine consumer segments in South Africa based on lifestyle behaviour, socio-demographics and product involvement. These segments are basic wine drinker, highly knowledgeable wine drinker, enjoyment-oriented social wine drinker and conservative knowledgeable wine drinkers. Research by Atkin et al. (2007) suggests that information search behaviour and subsequently buying behaviour differ for male and female wine consumers. Women rely more on expert opinions such as store personnel or awards and medals when making a wine

Marketing Pinotage

333

IJWBR 30,3


334

selection. Furthermore, it has been shown that gender differences for Generation Y wine consumption behaviour also occur (Dlacic and Kadic-Maglajlic, 2013). This study attempts to understand how one extrinsic quality cue, expert opinions, influences student millennials’ quality perception of Pinotage wine. The possible impact of level of wine involvement on the use of expert opinions as a risk-reduction strategy was researched, as well as potential gender differences. 3. Research method Consumer behaviour research mostly emphasizes marketing-related issues such as the decision processes before or during purchase (Grunert, 2003). In contrast, sensory scientists focus on sensory liking of products but are mainly interested in evaluation of food products by experts to obtain objective facts about the products (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). Furthermore, the limited number of sensory studies that are focussed on consumers are mainly uninterested in the purchase intent, effect of branding and/or cost factors (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). Therefore, as marketing factors can evidently influence the consumers’ perception of the sensorial quality of a product, it is important to incorporate sensory science in the study of consumer behaviour. Studies focussing on wine frequently use a discrete choice experiment approach to explore the importance of extrinsic cues in visual liking of wines (Mueller et al., 2010). These experiments concentrate on the effect of extrinsic attributes on the purchase decision, but it is also necessary to examine the extent to which extrinsic cues influence a wine’s intrinsic merit, as this can influence future purchase decisions (Siegrist and Cousin, 2009). Sensory hedonic testing combines marketing factors and sensory science and explores the sensory liking of food products by consumers. For the purpose of this study, seven different Pinotage wines were selected: in similar studies, four-eight wines were used (Mueller et al., 2010). Retail price per bottle ranged from R27.50 to R155, indicating some quality difference between the wines. The wines were stored at 15°C from delivery to use. Before each tasting, four sets of seven 30 mL samples were poured for each participant in ISO 3591:1977 tasting glasses and covered with petri dish lids to avoid loss of aroma (Jacobsen, 2006). Unknown to the participants, each set contained the same seven wines. After each set, respondents took a 5-min break and were asked not to discuss their evaluation with fellow tasters. Each glass was coded with a unique three-digit label, and each set was randomized for every participant using the William’s Latin design to control for order and carry-over effects (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). Experimental design was generated and data were collected using Compusense® @Hand software (Compusense, Guelph, Canada). To keep the wines in perfect condition after a day of tasting, remaining wine was stored in smaller glass bottles that had been rinsed with an ethanol solution before use. The bottles were filled to overflow to prevent detrimental oxygen damage such as reduction of quality and loss of fruit character (Jacobsen, 2006). The panel consisted of 126 South African millennial participants, of which 44.5 per cent were male and 55.5 per cent were female. All were 20-28 years old, with 55.4 per cent being 20-22 years old. They were recruited through e-mails sent to all staff and students at a South African university and selected on a first-come first-serve basis. As an incentive to join, all participants had the chance of winning one of three cases of wine. The group of participants consisted of both wine connoisseurs and non-connoisseurs and did not receive any training prior to participating in the tasting. However, because convenience sampling was used, care should be taken in generalizing the results, mainly because while 80 per cent of the South African population is African, the majority of the participants in this study were white.


Acceptance testing was used to measure consumer sensory evaluation. The most common and widely used acceptance scale in the food industry is the nine-point hedonic scale (De Beuckelaer et al., 2015), comprising of nine verbal categories ranging from dislike extremely at the lower end to like extremely at the upper end with a neither like nor dislike centre point. The nine-point scale is often favoured because of its simplicity, reproducibility of reliable results with both large and small groups and accurate prediction of purchase intention (Stankus, 2008). The first set of wines were tasted blind and could only be identified through their threedigit label. Once a liking had been indicated for a wine, it was impossible to go back and adapt previous likings. The second set of wines were again tasted blind. However, this time, the aim was to discover respondents’ willingness-to-pay for each wine. Results for this set are not discussed in this article. In the third set, each wine was paired with an expert rating from several national and international wine competitions (Table I). The positive/negative column indicates how positive or negative the rating was intended to be according to the subjective opinion of the authors. Respondents could see and/or read the expert opinion about the wine they tasted. When the expert opinion included a medal, the medal was displayed on the screen. Respondents were again asked to rate the wine on a nine-point hedonic scale.

Wine

Vintage

W1

2014

W2

2013

W3

2014

W4

2014

W5

2013

W6

2013

W7

2014

Expert opinion In 2015, this was one of the Top 20 South African Pinotage wines as part of the SA Wine Classification, which tracks wines over 10 years and highlights the best 20 Pinotage wines in South Africa This Pinotage has won a Silver Medal in the International Wine and Spirit Competition Wine Enthusiast Magazine writes about this Pinotage: “Red plum & cherry aromas struggle to overcome notes of rubber and wet forest floor. Light weight with soft tannins and a short finish” – 84 points This Pinotage has won a Gold Medal in the Michelangelo International Wine and Spirits awards This Pinotage has won a Gold Medal in the Veritas Awards, a local South African competition that recognizes wines of exceptional quality. The panel of tasters consists of winemakers, researchers, academics and merchants, and wines are tasted blind This Pinotage has received the RECM Best Value Pinotage Award. The RECM panel score and value each wine with the purpose of describing wines in terms useful to consumers Simon Woods writes about this Pinotage: “Classic Pinotage characters of spice-infused berries and bananas, along with notes of chocolate. There is a savoury tomato note in there too, alongside some (not unpleasant) rusting iron-like notes. Very enjoyable stuff, with a brawny, earthy honesty” – 87 points

Positive/ negative

Price/bottlea

þþ

R155,00

þ

R90,00

–

R60,00

þþ

R124,00

þþ

R29,00

þ

R46,00

–/þ

R90,00

Note: aAt the time that this research was done, the exchange rate was approximately US$1 = ZAR13.00

Marketing Pinotage

335

Table I. Expert ratings

IJWBR 30,3


336

The fourth and final set of wines included the total packaging of the wine. For each wine, the complete bottle was shown on the computer screen. The wines that received an award in the expert ratings also had the award sticker on the bottle. Price was not shown on the screen. Consequently, only in the final set did participants know which wines they were tasting. Apart from the usual demographic information, respondents were also asked to state their level of involvement with wine. To measure involvement, the revised Personal Involvement Inventory (Zaichkowsky, 1994) was used. All data were captured over four days in ten 1-h tasting sessions in the sensory lab of a South African university. Data were analysed using StatSoft STATISTICA 12®. The possible influences of expert opinions and packaging on hedonic liking were investigated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant means analysis (LS means). Normality of the data was checked and all analyses were performed at a 5 per cent significance level. Normal probability plots of the raw residuals of the data were used to investigate the normality of the sample set data. Due to incomplete or incorrectly completed data sets, 101 complete datasets were eventually used. Lim (2011) argues that this is sufficient to approximate normality. 4. Results and discussion Most participants stated that they drank wine more than once a week (37.62 per cent) or once a week (36.63 per cent); a level of consumption to be expected as wine consumers will be more inclined to participate in a wine tasting study. Only few participants (2.97 per cent) never drank wine. Using Zaichkowsky’s (1994) Personal Inventory Index, 33.66 per cent of participants have a low involvement in wine, 24.75 per cent a medium involvement and 41.58 per cent are highly involved. The average liking scores for each wine range from 5.11 to 6.69, demonstrating the general tendency for participants to avoid using extreme categories in the nine-point hedonic scale (Lawless and Heymann, 2010). In blind tasting, the wines were liked slightly, with the average hedonic liking ranging from 5.11 to 6.33, with the mean score of Wine 4 significantly lower than the scores of the other wines (p # 0.05). Furthermore, Wine 5 was liked significantly more than Wine 1 (p = 0.008 # 0.05), Wine 2 (p = 0.038 # 0.05), Wine 4 (p # 0.01) and Wine 6 (p # 0.01). This confirms the findings of Goldstein et al. (2008) that average wine drinkers in blind tastings prefer less expensive wines, as Wine 5 is the cheapest in the collection. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA analyses show that participants tended to rate the wines significantly higher when there was information available, regardless of what information was provided. Both the expert opinions (p # 0.01) in the third tasting treatment and the provided packaging (p # 0.01) in the fourth tasting treatment resulted in generally higher liking scores. 4.1 The influence of expert opinions To investigate the influence of expert opinions on hedonic liking of Pinotage, the following null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis are assumed: H01. Expert opinions do not influence student millennials’ hedonic liking of Pinotage. HA1. Expert opinions do influence student millennials’ hedonic liking of Pinotage. Results from the two-way repeated measures ANOVA show a significant difference in the liking of two wines. Therefore, H01 is rejected. Table II provides an overview of the p-values of the ANOVA and the provided expert opinions for each wine. The liking of Wine 1 (p # 0.01)


and Wine 4 (p # 0.01) differ significantly in the informed expert opinion tasting from blind tasting. Therefore, expert opinions had a limited influence on the hedonic liking for these wines. To deduct the meaning behind these significant differences, a closer look is needed. Wines 1 and 4 received a significantly higher rating when a very positive expert opinion was paired with it. Both wines received a neutral scoring in the blind tasting. Wine 4 was the least liked significantly while Wine 1 was rated significantly lower than Wine 5 (p = 0.008 # 0.05) and Wine 7 (p = 0.018 # 0.05) in the blind tasting. Therefore, Wine 1 was not preferred. In the expert opinion tasting, Wine 4 was again rated significantly lower than Wine 1 (p # 0.01), Wine 5 (p = 0.011 # 0.05) and Wine 7 (p = 0.016 # 0.05). However, the hedonic liking of Wine 4 did not differ significantly from the other wines (p > 0.05). The perceived quality of Wine 4 increased to a similar level as the other wines due to the expert opinion. Wine 1 in the expert opinion tasting received a similar rating (p 0.05) as Wine 5 and Wine 7 but was liked significantly more than the other wines (p # 0.05). Again, due to its very positive expert opinion, Wine 1 became one of the three most preferred wines. The ANOVA did not show significant results for the other wines. This suggests that expert opinions will positively influence the hedonic liking of Pinotage when very positive and the wine is not preferred when tasted blind. These results confirm previous research in demonstrating the ability of expert opinions to influence perceived quality of wines (Veale, 2008).

Marketing Pinotage

337

4.2 The influence of packaging The following null hypothesis was tested for the influence of packaging on hedonic liking of Pinotage: H02. Packaging does not influence student millennials’ hedonic liking of Pinotage. HA2. Packaging does influence student millennials’ hedonic liking of Pinotage. Analysis of the results of the packaging tasting sessions only provides significant results for Wine 4. Wine 4 (p # 0.01) received a significantly higher liking score when the packaging was shown compared to the blind tasting (Table II). This suggests that packaging has only a limited influence on hedonic liking of Pinotage, and H02 can only be partially rejected. As Wine 4 was the least liked wine when tasted blind, packaging will only influence hedonic liking of Pinotage when the wine is disliked and there is a very positive expert opinion.

Wine W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7

p-values (blind and expert opinions comparison)

p-values (blind and packaging comparison)

Expert opiniona

Blind means

Expert opinion means

Packaging means

0.000 0.076 0.363 0.000 0.495 0.716 0.388

0.069 0.203 0.146 0.000 0.275 0.716 0.413

þþ þ þþ þþ þ /þ

5.70 5.84 5.88 5.11 6.33 5.65 6.26

6.69 6.23 6.08 5.88 6.48 5.73 6.45

6.10 6.12 6.20 5.92 6.09 5.73 6.44

Medalb No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No

Notes: a = negative expert opinion; /þ = neutral expert opinion; þ = good expert opinion; þþ = very good expert opinion; bIf the wine was paired with a medal in the expert opinion section, the medal was shown on the bottle in the packaging section. Other expert opinions were not shown in the packaging section

Table II. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA – blind versus informed expert opinion versus packaging

IJWBR 30,3

However, caution is needed in interpreting these results. The packaging of the wine includes among other things brand name, wine name, vintage and label design. Each variable can have a different effect on the hedonic liking of the wine, and these can further have an interactive effect on each other. While packaging influences hedonic liking, these results do not allow inferences about the extent of the effect of each variable.

338

4.3 The interaction effect of involvement and gender Next, the interaction effect of involvement was analysed using the following hypotheses:


H03. Hedonic liking is not influenced by involvement level. HA3. Hedonic liking is influenced by involvement level. In general, the results suggest no significant differences between the three involvement levels in each tasting session. However, while low- and high-involved student millennials appear to significantly increase their liking scores when information is available compared to tasting Pinotage blind (p # 0.05), medium-involved respondents do not seem to be influenced by expert opinions or packaging (p > 0.05). Analysis of each wine only shows a significant difference between medium-involved (M = 5.20, SD = 2.33) and high-involved (M = 6.29, SD = 2.23) respondents’ liking for Wine 4 in the expert opinion tasting sessions (p = 0.022 # 0.05). In the packaging session, a significant difference was found for Wine 4 between low-involved (M = 6.21, SD = 2.21) and medium-involved (M = 5.12, SD = 2.28) student millennials (p = 0.028 # 0.05) and between medium-involved and high-involved (M = 6.17, SD = 2.34) student millennials (p = 0.027 # 0.05). No other differences were found between the different involvement levels. Therefore, there is a limited effect of involvement on the influence of expert opinions and packaging on student millennials’ hedonic liking of Pinotage. Only when a wine is disliked in a blind tasting will high-involved and low-involved student millennials be influenced more positively than medium-involved student millennials by a very positive expert opinion. Aqueveque (2015) found similar results regarding high-involved wine consumers. Experts’ positive word-of-mouth will influence liking of wines for high-involved consumers when the wine is disliked. However, the difference in consumer behaviour between low- and highinvolved wine consumers as demonstrated by previous studies (Chocarro and Cortinas, 2013) cannot be confirmed in this study. Based on these results, HA3 can only be partially accepted. 4.4 The interaction effect of gender Finally, the interaction effect of gender was also analysed: H04. Hedonic liking is not influenced by gender. HA4. Hedonic liking is influenced by gender. Preliminary analysis of the data demonstrates a significant difference between male and female student millennials’ hedonic liking of Pinotage in the blind tasting (p = 0.039 # 0.05). In general, female students rate the liking of the wines significantly lower than men. Furthermore, female student millennials appear to significantly increase their liking score when information is available, while male students do not. Results from a previous study in Australia revealed that women favour white wine more than their male counterparts (Bruwer et al., 2011). Bruwer et al. (2011) also found that younger women prefer a sweeter wine style. Furthermore, the study states that women often prefer subtle white wines over red wines with dry tannin astringency and bitterness. This could explain the tendency for


female student millennials to rate Pinotage significantly lower than their male counterparts when tasting blind in this study. Male student millennials only significantly increased (p = 0.011 # 0.05) hedonic liking for Wine 4 when information was available. No other significant differences were found for them (p # 0.05). More significant differences were found for female student millennials. Table III provides an overview of the significant differences. Wine 1 (p # 0.01), Wine 2 (p = 0.032 # 0.05), Wine 4 (p = 0.012 # 0.05) and Wine 7 (p = 0.032 # 0.05) were rated significantly higher when the expert opinions were shown. All wines were paired with a generally positive expert opinion. Wine 5 (p = 0.951 0.05) was not rated significantly higher when the expert opinion was shown, even though it was paired with a very positive expert opinion. This may be attributed to the fact that Wine 5 was already one of the most like wines in the blind tasting. In the packaging tasting, female student millennials rated Wine 1 (p # 0.01), Wine 4 (p # 0.01) and Wine 7 (p = 0.037 # 0.05) significantly higher compared to the blind tasting. Expert opinions and packaging appear to impact hedonic liking of Pinotage considerably more for female student millennials than men. These results are supported by previous research on gender-related differences in perception of quality and product selection. While men appear to process information in a more analytical way, women rely more on visual cues (Holbrook, 1986). Atkin et al. (2007) found that women rely more on labels, shelf tags and awards when making a wine selection. Thus, H04 can be rejected and its alternative HA4 can be accepted.

Marketing Pinotage

339

5. Conclusions, implications, limitations and future research The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of expert opinions and packaging on South African student millennials’ perceived quality of Pinotage. Findings from this study confirm previous research in demonstrating the ability of expert opinions to influence perceived quality of wines (Chocarro and Cortinas, 2013). This study adds to the current literature by focussing on one target market in South Africa. While positive expert opinions did not reinforce perceived quality for wines that were already generally liked, they increased perceived quality for wines that were not generally liked. Wine marketers would do well to consider using positive expert opinions as part of their marketing strategy. Furthermore, as technology plays an important part in the life of Millennial students, expert opinions and awards can be marketed through social media outlets to reach them quicker and more efficiently. Finally, packaging can slightly offset the influence of a positive expert

MEN/ wine W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7

p-values (blind and expert opinions comparison)

p-values (blind and packaging comparison)

0.000 0.032 0.327 0.012 0.951 0.066 0.032

0.002 0.270 0.540 0.010 0.624 0.178 0.037

Expert Blind opiniona means þþ þ þþ þþ þ /þ

5.39 5.64 5.93 4.84 6.39 5.34 5.84

Expert opinion means

Packaging means

6.75 6.27 6.21 5.57 6.41 5.88 6.46

6.30 5.96 6.11 5.59 6.25 5.73 6.45

Notes: a = negative expert opinion; /þ = neutral expert opinion; þ = good expert opinion; þþ = very good expert opinion

Table III. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA – female millennials

IJWBR 30,3


340

opinion on the perceived quality of Pinotage. However, this effect is limited and does not seem to invalidate the positive influence of expert opinions. Female student millennials specifically seem to be influenced by expert opinions and packaging. The results show that young women do not like Pinotage as much as young men when tasting Pinotage blind. This confirms previous findings that women often prefer subtle white wines over red wines with dry tannin astringency and bitterness (Bruwer et al., 2011). Expert opinions and packaging increased the liking of Pinotage significantly for women. Thus, educating female millennials on red wine, and specifically Pinotage, should be part of a red wine-producing winery’s marketing strategy. This can be done through social media channels or on site at the winery’s tasting room. Furthermore, female student millennials can be targeted successfully with extrinsic cues such as expert opinions and packaging. Due to the convenience sampling of study participants at a single university, some caution is due when generalizing the results to the South African student millennial population at large, or to their wider age cohort. In this regard, it is recommended that future research include students from other universities and working youth as a more representative sample for the millennial population. Further caution is needed in interpreting the influence of packaging in this study. The packaging of the wine includes among other things brand name, wine name, vintage and label design. Each variable can have a different effect on the hedonic liking of the wine, and these can further have an interaction effect on each other. This research does not allow inferences about the extent of effect of each variable, and further research is required in this regard. This is also the case with the difference in consumer behaviour between low- and high-involved wine consumers, where the results were inconclusive. Therefore, it is recommended that this part of the study should be repeated with a greater focus on the level of involvement. Further research should focus on the credibility of different expert opinions to increase the effective use of this marketing tool. Moreover, this study focusses solely on how perceived quality is influenced by expert opinions and packaging. This was done in a closed research environment and might not be representative of real life. Future research should investigate to what extent young millennials will actually depend on expert opinions and packaging and if these factors will influence a purchasing or repurchasing decision. Furthermore, participants could have experienced tasting fatigue due to the large number of samples that needed to be tasted. Future research should take this into account. Finally, future research should investigate the strength of the influence of each type of expert opinion for student millennials to increase the effectiveness of the marketing tool. References Aqueveque, C. (2015), “The influence of experts’ positive word-of-mouth on a wine’s perceived quality and value: the moderator role of consumers’ expertise”, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-11. Atkin, T., Nowak, L. and Garcia, R. (2007), “Women wine consumers: information search and retailing implications”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 327-339. Barber, N., Almanza, B. and Dodd, T. (2008), “Relationship of wine consumers’ self-confidence, product involvement, and packaging cues”, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 45-64. Bruwer, J., Roediger, B. and Herbst, F. (2017), “Domain-specific market segmentation: a wine-related lifestyle (WRL) approach”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 4-26. Bruwer, J., Saliba, A. and Miller, B. (2011), “Consumer behaviour and sensory preference differences: implications for wine product marketing”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 5-18. Chocarro, R. and Cortinas, M. (2013), “The impact of expert opinion in consumer perception of wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 227-248.


Chrysochou, P., Krystallis, A., Mocanu, A. and Lewis, R.L. (2010), “Generation Y preferences for wine: an exploratory study of the US market applying the best-worst scaling”, British Food Journal, Vol. 114 No. 4, pp. 516-528. De Beuckelaer, A., Zeeman, M. and Van Trijp, H. (2015), “Assessment of the cross-national validity of an end-anchored 9-point hedonic product liking scale”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 1267-1286. De Magistris, T., Groot, E., Gracia, A. and Albisu, L.M. (2011), “Do millennial generation’s wine preferences of the ‘new world’ differ from the ‘old world’?”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 145-160. Debevec, K., Schewe, C.D., Madden, T.J. and Diamond, W.D. (2013), “Are today’s millennials splintering into a new generational cohort? Maybe!”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-31. Dlacic, J. and Kadic-Maglajlic, S. (2013), “The role of gender and situational factors in wine consumption of generation Y”, South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 53-61. Duh, H. and Struwig, M. (2013), “Justification of generational cohort segmentation in South Africa”, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 89-101. Dupont, S. (2015), “Move over millennials, here comes generation Z”, Public Relations Tactics, Vol. 22, p. 19. Goldstein, R., Almenberg, J., Dreber, A., Emerson, J.W., Herschkowitsch, A. and Katz, J. (2008), “Do more expensive wines taste better? Evidence from a large sample of blind tastings”, Journal of Wine Economics, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-9. Grunert, K.G. (2003), “Purchase and consumption: the interdisciplinary nature of analysing food choice”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 14, pp. 39-40. Grunert, K.G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H.H. and Madsen, T.K. (1996), Market Orientation in Food and Agriculture, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA. Henley, C.D., Fowler, D.C., Yuan, J., South, B.L. and Goh, B.K. (2011), “Label design: impact on millennials’ perceptions of wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 7-20. Holbrook, M. (1986), “Aims, concepts and methods for the representation of individual differences in aesthetics responses to design features”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 337-347. Jacobsen, J.L. (2006), Introduction to Wine Laboratory Practices and Procedures, 1st ed., Springer, New York, NY. Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. (2010), Sensory Evaluation of Food: principles and Practices, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, NY. Lim, J. (2011), “Hedonic scaling: a review of methods and theory”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 733-747. Mandhlazi, L., Dhurup, M. and Mafini, C. (2013), “Generation Y consumer shopping styles: evidence from South Africa”, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 14, pp. 153-164. Mueller, S., Lockshin, L. and Louviere, J.J. (2010), “What you see may not be what you get: asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 335-350. Nielsen (2014), “Millennials – breaking the myths”, available at: www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/ us/en/reports-downloads/2014%20Reports/nielsen-millennial-report-feb-2014.pdf (accessed 5 May 2015). OIV (2015), “State of the vitiviniculture world market”, available at: www.oiv.int/oiv/info/ en_conjoncture_viticole_mondiale_OIV_avril_2015 (accessed 11 May 2015). Parsons, A.G. and Thompson, A.-M. (2009), “Wine recommendations: who do I believe?”, British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 9, pp. 1003-1015. Priilaid, D.A. (2006), “Wine’s placebo effect: how the extrinsic cues of visual assessments mask the intrinsic quality of South African red wine”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 17-32. Saenz-Navajas, M.-P., Avizcuri, J.M., Ballester, J., Fernandez-Zurbana, P., Ferreira, V., Peyron, D. and Valentin, D. (2015), “Sensory-active compounds influencing wine experts’ and

Marketing Pinotage

341

IJWBR 30,3


342

consumers’ perception of red wine intrinsic quality”, Food Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 400-411. SAWIS (2016), “South African wine industry statistics no. 40”, available at: www.sawis.co.za/info/ download/Book_2016_engels_final_web.pdf (accessed 26 January 2017). Schewe, C.D. and Meredith, G. (2004), “Segmenting global markets by generational cohorts: determining motivations by age”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 51-63. Siegrist, M. and Cousin, M.E. (2009), “Expectations influence sensory experience in a wine tasting”, Appetite, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 762-765. Spawton, T. (1991), “Marketing planning for wine”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 2-49. Spielmann, N., Babin, B.J. and Verghote, C. (2016), “A personality-based measure of the wine consumption experience for millennial consumers”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 228-245. Stankus, T. (2008), “It is not just a matter of taste: 19th century psychophysics and 21st century sensory evaluation surveys of food and beverages: a brief review with illustrative readings”, Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, Vol. 27 Nos 3/4, pp. 125-139. StatsSA (2017), “Mid-year population estimates 2017”, available at: www.statssa.gov.za/publications/ P0302/P03022017.pdf (accessed 13 November 2017). Steenkamp, J.-B. (1990), “Conceptual model of the quality perception process”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 309-333. Stuen, E.T., Miller, J.R. and Stone, R.W. (2015), “An analysis of wine critic consensus: a case study of Washington and California wines”, Journal of Wine Economics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-61. Teagle, J., Mueller, S. and Lockshin, L. (2010), “How do millennials’ wine attitudes and behaviour differ from other generations?”, Paper presented at the 5th International Association of Wine Business Research Conference, 8-10 February, Auckland. Thach, E.C. and Olsen, J.E. (2006), “Market segment analysis to target young adult wine drinkers”, Agribusiness, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 307-322. Tynan, A.C. and Drayton, J. (1987), “Market segmentation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 301-335. Van den Bergh, J. and Behrer, M. (2013), How Cool Brands Stay Hot: branding to Generation Y, EBSCO eBooks, London. Veale, R. (2008), “Sensing or knowing? Investigating the influence of knowledge and self-confidence on consumer beliefs regarding the effect of extrinsic cues on wine quality”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 352-366. VinIntell (2013), “Future scenarios for the South African wine industry – Part 5: Generation Y, the new wine market colossus”, available at: www.sawis.co.za/info/download/ VinIntell_June_2013_part_5_issue_16.pdf (accessed 16 October 2015). Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), “The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70. Corresponding author Nick Vink can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]