The Winery Experience from the Perspective of Generation Zepubs.surrey.ac.uk/845458/1/The Winery Experience from... · 2017. 12. 19. · International Journal of Wine Business Research

International Journal of Wine Business Research

The Winery Experience from the Perspective of Generation Z

Journal: International Journal of Wine Business Research

Manuscript ID IJWBR-03-2017-0018.R2

Manuscript Type: Research Article

Methods: Factor Analysis, Importance-Performance Analysis

Topics: Greece, Generation Z, Winescape, Winery, Wine Tourism

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijwbr


International Journal of Wine B

usiness Research

1

The Winery Experience from the Perspective of Generation Z

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to investigate the wine tourism

experience from the perspective of Generation Z adults in Greece, following an

actual winery visit.

Design/methodology/approach – Responses were obtained from a total of

306 respondents drawn from student groups visiting a winery in the Achaia

region of the Peloponnese, Western Greece, using convenience sampling. A

list of winescape attributes was adopted for testing and used to structure self-

administered questionnaires. The data collected were analysed using a factor-

analytic and Importance-Performance Analysis framework.

Findings – Five factors that promote understanding of the desired wine

tourism experience of Generation Z adults were identified, namely: Cost

Considerations and Wine & Entertainment both perceived to be important but

the winery’s performance on the same was poor; Destination Attributes and

Service Staff both perceived to be important with good performance; and

Learning about Wine perceived unimportant with low performance.

Originality/value – This is the first academic study focusing specifically on

the winery experience from the perspective of Generation Z. As such it has

provided new and useful insights for researchers and managers in the wine

industry concerning the experience of this under-researched generational

cohort.

Keywords: Greece, Generation Z, Winescape, Winery, Wine Tourism

Page 1 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

2

Introduction

A significant rise in the number of tourists interested in wine has led many

communities to develop wine tourism. In fact, wine tourism has emerged as a

strong and growing segment of the tourism industry (O’Neill et al., 2002), with

many destinations developing wine trails and wineries as major attractions

(Santeramo et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2016). This trend might not be surprising, in

light of the significant advantages for wine businesses from such visits:

opportunities to sell wines directly to consumers; increase brand loyalty;

improve consumer awareness and knowledge; reinforce the brand image of the

wine product; and develop strong consumer relationships through planned on-

site experiences (Dodd, 1995; Byrd et al., 2016). That said, researchers in this

field have suggested that many of the issues related to the nature of the wine

tourist have yet to be revealed and warrant additional research on the different

wine tourist segments (Hall et al., 2000; Getz and Brown, 2006). This is very

important because “wine tourists are not a single homogeneous group, but seek

different components of the overall wine tourism experience” (Ali-Knight and

Charters, 2001, p. 79). As a result, the need for studies of the wine tourist has

emerged and been manifested in the literature in the significant increase in the

number of studies focusing on visitors’ perspectives (Getz and Brown, 2006;

Quadri-Felliti and Fiore, 2016).

One segment that has been of particular interest to wine tourism

scholars is that of the young wine tourists, with many studies suggesting that

the wine industry needs to look beyond aging markets for its next generation of

consumers if it is to have a long-term future (e.g. Beverland, 2001; Olsen et

al., 2007). In this regard, Carlsen et al. (2006, p. 6) have explicitly called for

research into the characteristics and behaviour of young wine tourists, “as it is

possible that they are searching for something different than previous

generations”. As a quick glance at the reference list of this paper reveals, this

and similar calls were taken up by wine tourism scholars who shifted attention

from older wine consumers (Baby Boomers) to the wine tourism experience of

Page 2 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

3

younger adults (specifically Generations [Gens] X and Y)1.

Connecting this research orientation to today’s context, Generation Z

(Gen Z) is the generational cohort following Gen Y. Gen Z comprises those

born from the mid-1990s to the late 2000s (Bassiouni and Hackley, 2014). The

fact that the oldest of this generation just turned 21 in 2016 makes this cohort

of current interest to the wine industry, which needs to understand this future

customer base. But very little is known about their wine behaviour and, to the

best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous published studies have focused on

Gen Z and wine tourism. To this end, this study aims to add to the limited

understanding of this new market segment by exploring the winery visitation

experience from the perspective of Gen Z in Greece, in relation to an actual

winery visit. In particular, the focus is on their evaluation of a number of

winescape attributes, in terms of their pre-visit importance and post-visit

performance, utilising an Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA). Based on

this approach, the study aims to promote understanding of their desired wine

tourism experience and provide practical implications for prioritisation and

management of attributes.

Literature Review

Wine tourism is gaining in importance both as an industry and as an area of

research. The wine industry, which initially focused on wine production, has

now extended its scope to the experiential and tourism aspects of wine

consumption (Williams, 2001). Bruwer and Lesschaeve (2012) provide insight

into the relationship between wine and tourism. They explain that wine is

recognised as a lifestyle beverage and wine consumption itself can be

considered as a sensual and pleasurable activity that may take place in a

myriad of potential social experiences, including tourism. They go on to argue

that “the activity of wine tourism is an extension of the rather complex

relationship between wine region as a tourist destination, wineries, and the

1 There is not a general consensus for the birth range of different generations, but the following

age group classifications are generally accepted in mainstream generational research (Johnson

and Johnson, 2010): Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), Gen X (born 1965-1980), Gen Y (born

1981-1994).

Page 3 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

4

visitor-consumer” (p. 611). The engagement of people in wine tourism would

therefore seem to represent a search for a better acquaintance with the product,

and also for the elements of the wider tourism experience of a region. Wine

tourism is thus related to both wine and tourism demand, representing a niche

tourism product (Croce and Perry, 2017; Wu et al., 2016), When viewed from

this perspective, wine tourism refers to “visitation to vineyards, wineries, wine

festivals and wine shows for which grape wine tasting and/or experiencing the

attributes of a grape wine region are the prime motivating factors for visitors”

(Skinner, 2000, p. 298). From this definition it follows logically that the key to

a favourable wine tourism experience is the positive engagement of wine

tourists with the winescape attributes (Thomas et al., 2016).

The winescape is a central tenet in wine-related research. The concept

was coined by Peters (1997, p. 124) as a cultural/viticultural landscape with “a

winsome combination of vineyards, wineries and supporting activities

necessary for modern production”. Subsequently it has often seen use in wine

tourism research, appearing in more than 30 academic studies to date and has

been examined at both the macro-and micro levels of analysis (Thomas et al.,

2016). In the macro-level approach, the attention focuses on the attributes of a

wine region. In contrast to this wide regional scope, the micro approach views

the winescape as the environment at a specific winery. In both cases this

winescape exists in the wider setting of rural tourism where interest in

vineyards and wineries may take place alongside other aspects of rural tourism

from farm visits and stays to countryside recreation. These are themes that

have been explored by, amongst others, Bruwer (2003), Tew and Barbieri

(2012), Barbieri and Mshenga (2008), and most recently by Santeramo et al.

(2017), who have acknowledged that wine tourism represents a significant

component of the regional and rural tourism products of many wine-producing

countries, especially in Europe and the New World.

From an academic perspective, the wine tourism experience has been

more or less explored in relation to the “traditional” wine drinker, who is

middle-aged with an above average income (Charters and Carlsen, 2006).

However, in recent years more emphasis has been placed on younger cohorts

Page 4 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

5

as the result of an increasing awareness by both the wine and wine tourism

industries that these young people are the next generation of wine consumers

and wine tourists (Fountain and Lamb, 2011). Accordingly, over the last

decade or so there has been a growth in research that has explored the

significance of age/generational groupings as a factor in the wine tourism

experience and wine consumption.

Within this strand of research, generational analysis has become a

serious element in the research space. This approach draws on considerations

of generational segmentation, suggesting that each generation has their own set

of values and subsequent consumer behaviour and preferences, which set them

apart from preceding generations and those that are to come (Noble and

Schewe, 2003). Generational analysis is fundamentally based on the inference

that only by understanding how consuming motivations are tied to the

underlying values of the generation to which they belong, will businesses be

able to cater for the desires of their different customer segments (Velikova et

al., 2013). This understanding, therefore, represents a key competitive

advantage in the marketplace, in the sense that businesses will be in a better

position to anticipate the desires of a specific generation of consumers, rather

than merely be reactive to their dissatisfaction. This approach is not intended

to replace all other segmentation approaches, but it does add a useful

perspective (Howe and Strauss 1991).

This research approach has developed as a useful tool in research on the

winery visitation experience, focusing on comparisons between the

characteristics of younger and older generational cohorts. An early study was

that of Dodd and Bigotte (1997), who found evidence that younger visitors

rated overall service and the price of the wine to be more important in

determining satisfaction with the visit than older customers. They also

suggested that the younger group were generally more critical of winery

service and staff than their older counterparts. This conclusion seems to be

corroborated by Charters and Fountain (2006) who found that older wine

tourists (Baby Boomers) were generally less critical of their winery experience

than younger ones (Gens X and Y). The issue of cost as an inhibiting factor in

buying wine and/or visiting wineries for younger consumers has also been

Page 5 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

6

brought up in other studies (e.g. Charters et al., 2009; Treloar et al., 2004).

However, Alonso et al. (2007) observed that segments of older visitors with

higher income levels might not necessarily result in higher expenditures.

Bruwer (2002) published work on aspects relating to the visitation of

Gen X consumers to wineries. The results suggested that Gen X consumers

used the cellar door visit not only to taste and buy wines but also to learn more

about wine. This seems to support the findings of previous studies (e.g.

Fountain and Charters, 2010; Mitchell and Hall, 2001), that Gens X and Y are

more interested in furthering their wine knowledge than Baby Boomers,

possibly because of the latter cohort having more experience of wine and

wineries. Likewise, Carlsen et al. (2006) concluded that both Gens X and Y

placed emphasis on the quality of wine and information received about wines

and the winery area, as opposed to focusing on the social elements of the wine

tourism experience. These findings, however, contradict those of Treloar et al.

(2004) that the social and leisure aspects of the winery visit are more important

to Gen Y than learning about wine/cellaring from winery staff and winemakers

themselves.

More recently, Fountain and colleagues have specifically studied

generation Y at the cellar door (Fountain and Charters, 2010; Fountain and

Lamb 2011). These studies provide more balanced findings, suggesting that

Generation Y visitors wish to extend their knowledge of wine and wineries but

also place emphasis on enjoying the entire winery experience with friends.

Further, they seek interaction with winery staff and want their unique needs

understood and catered for. Lack of funds was again raised as a barrier to

visiting wineries and buying wines.

Despite any differences between studies, two common factors are worth

addressing. First, all studies highlight the interest of young generations in wine

and/or their potential for growth both in terms of wine consumption and wine

tourism. Second, stemming from this, they share the conviction that the

development of wine tourism depends on understanding the characteristics of

young generations.

Page 6 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

7

These studies are limited to English-speaking markets of the New

World comprising Australia, New Zealand and the United States (US). While

not directly relevant to the winery experience, it is interesting to note that a

number of studies on the wine behaviour of different generations to non-

English-speaking countries in Europe do not echo this optimism. These studies

suggest that unlike their counterparts in New World markets, young Europeans

are not particularly fond of wine, and wine consumption among them is falling

(Kevany, 2008; Mueller et al., 2011; Velikova et al., 2013). Based on these

indications of cross-cultural differences among young consumers in

geographically distinct markets, they concur that ongoing research into the

wine-related experiences of young generations is essential to assess whether

any observed differences are due to generational effects or based on lifecycle

or contextual factors.

Against this background, it seems useful to examine the next generation

of wine consumers (Gen Z) to understand their relationship to the winery

experience. This study seeks to explore this in the context of Greece, a country

growing as a wine producing country and as a wine tourism destination. In

fact, today Greece is the seventh largest wine producer in Europe (USDA

Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS], 2015), with more than 700 wineries

operating in the country (Ritchie and Rotsios, 2016). The bulk of winery

visitation in Greece is made up of domestic travellers, who account for

approximately 70% of the total number οf winery visitors (Alebaki and

Iakovidou, 2011). This is a clear manifestation of the natural relationship

Greeks have with wine, with 30% of Greeks drinking wine on a daily basis

(USDA FAS, 2015). Yet, it is also suggestive of the insufficient promotional

efforts by the Greek wine sector to reach international tourists (Critical

Publics, 2008).

While the quality and international recognition of Greek wines has

improved over the last few decades (Ritchie and Rotsios, 2016), wine

producers are today faced with considerable pressure due to the economic

crisis. Greek per capita wine consumption fell by more than 45% between

2010-2014, and consumers are opting for the lowest-priced wines (World

Page 7 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

8

Health Organisation, 2014; USDA FAS, 2015). There is also the issue of the

younger demographic being especially hard hit by the fiscal realities in the

country. With nearly 50% unemployed (Trading Economics, 2016), younger

Greeks are not spending as much as they might have spent under better

economic circumstances. On top of this, recent data show that 78% of Greek

consumers aged 18-24 prefer other alcoholic beverages to wine (USDA FAS,

2015). With such a large segment currently lying dormant, concern is now

present within the Greek wine industry about the prospects of this market to

take up wine consumption and wine-related travel. The examination of the Gen

Z winery experience in the Greek context is therefore a timely study given its

relevance to the current circumstances of the country’s wine industry.

Research Methodology

The results for this research were gathered over a five-month period (February-

June 2016) through the distribution of a questionnaire survey to a winery in the

Achaia region of the Peloponnese, Western Greece. This winery was selected

as the location for distribution because it regularly hosts field trips for student

groups. Its manager also expressed interest in participating in this research and

learning more about its methodology after hearing about its managerial

implications. This provided the researcher with the opportunity to target 18 to

21 year olds en masse – i.e. those Gen Z-ers over the legal age to buy and

consume alcohol publicly in Greece. This convenience sampling process

resulted in 306 valid responses. It should be noted that the winery visit for all

students was part of wider field trips – i.e. wine was not the exclusive reason

for their trip. However, for the purposes of this research, participants are

referred to as wine tourists.

According to O’Neill et al. (2002), consumer satisfaction in wine

tourism, as in all aspects of tourism, may be usefully conceptualised as a

function of the importance level related to certain winery attributes and the

performance level of these attributes. Studies and practice in tourism

management have shown that determining both importance and performance

levels is critical, because if evaluative factors important to the tourist customer

Page 8 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

9

are overlooked, the usefulness of measuring only the performance level will be

severely limited (Wade and Eagles, 2003). Given these considerations, this

study adopted the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) proposed by

Martilla and James (1977) as a useful technique to examine the relationship

between the importance and performance of winescape attributes. While

SERVQUAL has been more commonly used than IPA for measuring visitor

satisfaction in winery settings (e.g. Charters and O’Neill, 2000; O’Neill et al.,

2002), a comparison of these methods in a tourism context did not produce

statistically different results (Hudson et al., 2004). Moreover, the application

of SERVQUAL often requires the administration of lengthy survey

instruments and expertise in the interpretation of data. These requirements

were deemed as too complex for a study involving a sample of potentially

inexperienced wine tourists and a winery with limited research experience.

The application of IPA is well-documented and the technique has

shown its capability to provide decision-makers with valuable information for

both satisfaction measurement and the efficient allocation of resources, all in

an easily applicable format. In brief, importance and performance scores

attained from survey instrument Likert scales are plotted onto a two-

dimensional grid and, by a simple visual analysis of this matrix, policy makers

can identify areas where the resources and programs need to be concentrated

(see Figure 1). In the context of this study, the fact that IPA is easily

interpreted by managers meant that it proved attractive to the owner of the

participating winery.

[Figure 1 here]

The study adopted for testing a list of winescape attributes, drawing on

the work of Thomas et al. (2016) who conceptualised the winescape as

specifically encapsulating seven dimensions: setting; atmospherics; wine

quality; wine value; signage; service staff; and complementary products. Their

resultant 20-item scale of winescape attributes was found to be both reliable

and valid across six studies in Australia and the US. For this reason it was used

in the context of this study with minor adaptations, so that the attributes could

Page 9 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

10

be examined in a micro-perspective, i.e. providing focus to a wine tourist

experience in a specific winery. This process involved rephrasing items,

merging items that were similar in meaning and deleting items that could not

be adapted. An additional five items were added by the researchers to tap

attributes not addressed in the original scale, resulting in 24 attributes in total.

Asking respondents to rate importance and performance in different

sequences has been found to reduce the stereotypical effects associated with

studies rating both dimensions on a single occasion (Lai and Hitchcock, 2015).

Accordingly, a two-part questionnaire was developed and administered on two

separate occasions each time with the same sample. In particular, before

entering the winery premises respondents were asked to complete a first

questionnaire. This asked them to rate the importance of each winescape

attribute, using a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, not at all important

to 7, extremely important). Questions asking demographic information, level

of wine knowledge, and prior visit experience were also present. In a second

questionnaire following the end of their visit to the site, respondents were

asked to rate in a seven-point Likert scale (ranging from 1, completely

dissatisfied to 7, completely satisfied) the performance of the same winescape

attributes. All questionnaires were distributed on tour buses and collected by

researchers accompanying the student groups, then handed to the researchers.

Research Results

Respondent characteristics

As far as demographic and other information is concerned, most respondents

were female (73.6%) and the sample mean age was 20.3. Using Mitchell and

Hall’s (2001) self-ascribed measure of wine knowledge, respondents were

asked to rate their wine knowledge using one of four categories: advanced

knowledge, intermediate knowledge, basic knowledge, or no prior knowledge.

The vast majority of respondents (82.3%) rated their knowledge as basic, with

the remaining respondents (17.7%) indicating they had no prior knowledge. No

respondents had visited a winery before. With winery visits being booked on a

tight schedule, there was only a limited window of time for respondents to

Page 10 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

11

complete the questionnaire. To keep the questionnaire completion time short,

no further background information was collected.

Factor analysis

The initial results of the perceived importance of the 24 winery attributes

formed the basis for a factor analysis. The procedure of factor analysis was

used here in order to explore the underlying structure of the data and simplify

the subsequent IPA analyses (Chu and Choi, 2000). The analysis was

conducted on the responses of 306 participants, which provide a comforting

number of cases for factor analytic work (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). In

ensuring the factorability of the data, the inter-item correlations among the

variables were inspected for values in excess of 0.30. The reason for this is that

lower correlations indicate items that are producing error and unreliability

(Churchill, 1979). The inter-item correlation matrix revealed numerous

correlations in excess of 0.30 and some considerably higher, suggesting that

the matrix was factorable. Subsequently, the factorability of the data was

evaluated using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling

adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett’s (1954) test of sphericity. The current

study obtained a value of .87 for the KMO measure, which falls in the

“meritorious” category of the 0.80s (Kaiser, 1974, p. 33). With respect to

Bartlett’s test of sphericity, the study obtained a value of 3892.123 and an

associated significance level of 0.000. The high KMO value obtained and the

highly significant level of the test of sphericity are both comfortable

indications that the given set of data was adequate for factor analysis.

Based on the Kaiser (eigenvalue-greater-than-1) and scree-plot criteria,

five factors were extracted through principal component analysis with

orthogonal (VARIMAX) rotation. As another test of the adequacy of the

number of factors, communality values were also inspected. If communalities

equal or exceed 1, the number of factors extracted is wrong (Tabachnick and

Fidell, 1996). Communalities ranged from 0.36 to 0.68, further confirming that

a reasonable number of factors is five. With respect to the variables used in

defining each factor, Comrey and Lee (1992) suggest that loadings in excess of

Page 11 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

12

0.71 are considered excellent, 0.63 very good, 0.55 good, 0.45 fair, and 0.32

poor. Comrey (1978) also states that if no loadings greater than 0.40 are

identified, then the value of the analysis is limited. In the context of this study,

an examination of the pattern of high and low loadings across variables

revealed a gap. This gap was the cut-off value of 0.50 which was adopted for

inclusion of a variable in interpretation of a factor. This was in line with

Comrey’s rule for meaningful analysis and greater than the minimum cut-off

of 0.32 used in common social science practice. The resultant five-factor

model explained 53.86 percent of the variance and included 16 winescape

attributes, with factor loadings greater than 0.50. The alpha coefficients for the

five factors through the Cronbach’s alpha (α) test ranged from 0.723 to 0.867,

all meeting the minimum acceptable value of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally

(1978). This suggested that, despite small variations in their alpha values, all

factors were internally consistent, thus indicating that the measures used in

each factor were reliable and should therefore be retained for interpretation

(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996).

The factor analysis yielded two major factors with eigenvalues higher

than 3.00, which accounted for 39.28% of the total variance, plus three smaller

factors (Table 1). With respect to the two major factors, Factor 1 seems to

reflect a preoccupation with spending power and the price of wines available

for purchase and was therefore named Cost Considerations. Factor 2, named

Wine & Entertainment, was composed of items indicating that wine tasting is

part of a wider experience, offering opportunities for more holistic leisure

activities and entertainment that extend beyond the wine consumption aspect.

As regards the three smaller factors, Factor 3 seems to represent a Destination

Attributes dimension, with emphasis placed on information about and

destination characteristics of the winery region. Items that loaded on Factor 4

appeared to deal with important components of service quality that customer

service staff can provide and was therefore named Service Staff. The final

factor (Factor 5) included items related to the educational aspect of the winery

visit and was named Learning about Wine. Following standard practice in IPA

studies using factor-analytic work (e.g. Chu and Choi, 2000; Pan, 2015;

Page 12 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

13

Somkeatkun and Wongsurawat, 2017), the ensuing analysis is based on the

presentation of the factors distribution in IPA mapping.

[Table 1 here]

Importance Performance Analysis (IPA)

Table 1 presents the mean and performance scores of the five winescape

factors and the attributes grouped under each factor. A paired-sample t-test was

conducted to assess significant differences between respondents’ perceptions

of importance and performance on the five winescape factors. As Lai and

Hitchcock (2015) explain, only factors which show a significant difference (p

< 0.05) should be transferred to IPA grid presentation for further exploration.

The results revealed that the mean scores for performance were significantly

lower than importance on all factors (F1: t = −15.52, F2: t = −12.20, F3: t =

−7.11, F4: t = −4.28, F5: t = −4.71; all p < 0.05). Accordingly, the importance

and performance means for all factors were plotted in IPA mapping for

interpretation.

Figure 2 illustrates the results of the IPA grid for the winescape factors,

where Importance values form the vertical axis, while Performance values

form the horizontal axis. The IPA grid was divided into four quadrants by

crosshairs based on the overall mean scores of the Importance and

Performance parts. This cross-point selection method was adopted as it carries

the advantage of comparing attributes relative to each other, which is

suggested to be of high management utility in guiding decisions on the

allocation of limited resources between attributes (Junio et al., 2016).

Accordingly, the two axes formed crosshairs at the value of 5.73 (overall mean

score of importance attributes) and 5.03 (overall mean score of performance

attributes).

[Figure 2 here]

According to the grid, two factors fell into each of the “Concentrate

Here” and “Keep up the Good Work” quadrants, one factor was identified in

Page 13 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

14

the “Low Priority” quadrant and none in the “Possible Overkill” quadrant. The

following provides insights about the quadrant presentation.

Quadrant I – Concentrate Here (high importance/low performance): Cost

Considerations (F1) and Wine & Entertainment (F2) were identified in this

quadrant as illustrated in Figure 2. Cost Considerations, with a mean rating of

6.22, appears to be the most important factor for the winery tourism experience

of participants. Interestingly, this is the only factor where all attributes were

rated above the average score for Importance and below average for

Performance. This is indicative of both strong feelings about the cost of wines

and of the failure of the winery to provide wines at prices that young wine

tourists would consider to be reasonable. Even though the price sensitivity of

young wine tourists is not new to the literature, the financial hardship

experienced by young Greeks may explain the particularly strong importance

attached by respondents to cost considerations while at the winery. As a side-

note in this context, the participating winery prides itself on producing a range

of different wines, including budget-friendly labels with excellent value for

money. This sends a meaningful message to wineries, in that they should

analyse pricing from the perspective of different customer groups – i.e. the

idea of what is considered affordable may be perceived differently by different

types of tourists (Moutinho et al., 2011).

Wine & Entertainment was the next important factor as perceived by

respondents. What is of particular interest here is that “The wines we tasted”

had an Importance mean score marginally lower than the average (M = 5.72),

with all the other winescape attributes in the factor rated above the mean

Importance score. These results suggest that respondents in this study visited

the winery looking for an enjoyable social experience, having no apparent

interest in wine. In this connection, the absence of, or poor, food and

“entertainment opportunities” were found to upset the winery experience of

young wine tourists, who rated them two of the most important but least well

performed winescape attributes.

Page 14 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

15

Quadrant II – Keep Up the Good Work (high importance/high performance):

Two winescape factors were identified in this quadrant: Destination Attributes

(F3) and Service Staff (F4). The emergence of Destination Attributes as a

winescape factor suggests that respondents perceived the winery region as a

tourist destination. In this context, the winery experience of young consumers

is clearly conceived as more than a typical visit to wineries to taste and

purchase wines, to include destination benefits of the surrounding community,

i.e. appealing environment, scenic beauty, and availability of local products.

This interest on tourism aspects of the winery region is also illustrated by the

importance respondents placed on “information... about the wider area”. It is

interesting to note that respondents were more satisfied with the destination

appeal (i.e. outlook and attractiveness of the scenery) rather than with the

elements that can be directly controlled by the provider (i.e. information

provided about the region and local products sold on the site), suggesting there

is room for further improvement. This draws out the extent to which wine

tourism needs to be seen in the context of broader rural tourism, indicating a

desire to partner the winery visit with natural attractions and, as suggested by

the location of Wine & Entertainment in the Concentrate Here quadrant, a

programme of activities, food and entertainment.

Service Staff is, of course, at the core of the winery visit in terms of

what can be controlled by the supplier (O’Neill and Charters, 2000). The

inclusion of this factor in quadrant II indicates the importance of and

satisfaction with the wine tourism experience delivered by winery employees.

What appear to be crucial attributes in this respect are the individual attention

provided by and, particularly, the friendliness of staff. In fact, friendliness was

rated as the best performed attribute in this study (M = 5.93) and the only one

that generated a higher performance score than its importance score. This

perhaps indicates a conscious evaluation on the part of respondents of what

they are really looking for in their interactions with winery staff. On the other

hand, “the courtesy of the staff” scored below average on importance. Taken

together these findings may suggest that young wine tourists are looking to be

recognised in a casual and friendly atmosphere, as opposed to the crowded,

Page 15 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

16

often intimidating, impersonal experiences that sometimes characterise winery

visits (Bruwer et al., 2013).

Quadrant III – Low Priority (low importance/low performance): There was

one factor, namely Learning about Wine (F5), allocated to the “Low Priority”

quadrant. The location of this factor in this quadrant is perhaps the most

interesting finding to emerge from the exploration of the three weak factors.

This is because it implies a lack of interest or indifference in the educational

element of wine tourism – i.e. information provided about wine and meeting

the winemaker. This represents a clear departure from the findings of previous

studies on the winery experience of young visitors, which indicated that new

generations have a particular interest in expanding their wine knowledge (e.g.

Bruwer, 2002; Fountain and Charters, 2010). The IPA literature suggests that

attributes in this cell do not require urgent attention and that limited resources

should be expended on them. However, although perceived as less important

than items in the “Concentrate Here” or “Keep up the Good Work” quadrants,

the low performance levels shown in this category may alert managers to

needed improvements (Kuo, 2009). Clearly, this is all the more so in the case

of wine education, which may be a key determinant of added-value by giving

customers a better understanding of wine which will add to their enjoyment of

the core wine product (Byrd et al., 2016). This is very relevant for entry-level

customers like the respondents of this study, who may be intimidated by their

lack of wine knowledge and overwhelmed by the technical elements of wine

education offered (Ali-Knight and Charters, 2001). As such, poor performance

in this area may also generate further dissatisfaction with the winery

experience.

Quadrant IV – Possible Overkill (low importance/high performance): The IPA

analysis did not identify any attributes allocated to the “Possible Overkill”

quadrant. This meant that there was no identified “wasted effort” in resource

input into attributes which are low in terms of importance.

Page 16 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

17

Conclusions, Implications, Limitations and Future Research

To the authors’ best knowledge this is the first academic research to

have focused specifically on the winery experience from the perspective of

Gen Z. As such, and in line with its aims, the study contributes to existing

literature by offering empirical insights concerning the desirable experience of

this under-researched generational cohort and practical implications for winery

managers.

The empirical findings of the study suggest that wine tourism is of

limited appeal to Greek Gen Z winery visitors. At the same time, they are

particularly price-sensitive and do not seem to appreciate the intermediation of

wine experts and information about wine, favouring a more casual approach.

One might argue that the importance attached to cost considerations is

suggestive of their interest in buying wines and, by extension, in wine.

However, given the ongoing economic crisis, it seems more logical to assume

that their display of strong price sensitivity represents a reaction to high wine

prices in relation to their financial situation. As a matter of fact, winery

visitation from the perspective of Gen Z seems to be less about wine and more

about opportunities to enjoy the scenery, entertain themselves, socialise, and

discover local food and products.

The review of the literature identified a number of studies that have

explored the winery experience of younger generations (e.g. Bruwer, 2002;

Treloar et al., 2004; Charters and Fountain, 2006; Fountain and Lamb, 2011)

and these provide a starting point for comparison. However, given that this is

the first study to examine the experience of Gen Z direct comparisons have to

be treated with a degree of caution. Nevertheless, in general, it is fair to say

that the departure of the findings reported here to those from prior studies

concerns the limited appeal of wine to Gen Z and their disinterest in extending

their wine knowledge. Other findings are not particularly surprising in the

sense that they have been repeated in previous research. It is not unexpected,

for example, that young wine tourists seek a broader experience or that they

are sensitive to wine prices. This study is valuable, then, in that it brings these

Page 17 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

18

findings together to paint a picture of the nature of the desired wine tourism

experience of, the previously unexplored, Gen Z in Greece.

Herein also lies the practical value of IPA in revealing what is most

important to winery visitors, by examining their evaluation of a “real” winery

visit. Following the IPA classification in this study, what appears to be critical

for Greek wineries wishing to approach Gen Z consumers is to focus their

attention on making their wine prices more attractive for young visitors and on

offering opportunities for activities that fall under the realm of entertainment

as it relates to tourism (food-tasting, socialising). In this connection, it might

be necessary to develop alliances with the regional community tourism

industry (local producers, restaurants, tourist information centres, etc.) and

with rural tourism more generally to offer a bundle of activities, services and

benefits with various attractions, instead of relying solely on the winery tour.

In doing so, they need to continue and improve on efforts to highlight the

scenic features of wine tours to give them greater appeal, and provide

opportunities for visitors to enjoy the scenery. They should also ensure that

their Gen Z visitors are treated in a personal and friendly manner by winery

staff, to ensure their desire for a casual atmosphere.

Following the earlier discussion on the importance of wine information

for young segments, they may also attempt to give young consumers the

confidence to engage with wine, by introducing them to wine tasting and

developing their wine knowledge in an informative but fun way. Providing

human interest stories about the winery instead of technical wine information,

and connecting local foods with wine via on-site educational seminars may be

fruitful in this direction. In such a context, both tangible (wines, food) and

intangible aspects of the winery visitation experience (knowledge, friendliness

of staff) may be used to promote an integrated educational experience and this

can provide a guide to marketing to this group.

In closing, it is important to be mindful of the limitations of this study.

First, the fact that it is based solely on the experience of a convenience sample

of young winery visitors in Greece means that the findings are specific to this

sample and, therefore, cannot be generalised to larger populations or other

cultures. Second, the empirical analysis covers only student responses. Recent

Page 18 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

19

studies have found student samples to differ significantly from the general

public and even from non-student samples within the same age group in terms

of their wine and alcohol behaviour (Carter et al., 2010; Mueller et al., 2008).

Third, the study has adopted a micro-approach to the winescape, which was

winery-specific and restricted to the specific context of the participating

winery and, therefore, of limited scope.

It is important to consider these results in the light of these limitations.

They present the micro-perspective of one winery in Greece visited by

students. But in doing so, they point, for the first time, to some potentially

important characteristics of the next generation of wine tourists and wine

drinkers. This investigation could now usefully be extended to international

comparative studies to examine whether generational similarities across

countries exist or whether cultural and contextual differences are more

significant than age-related similarities. It is hoped that the issues raised here

will stimulate interest to further understand the wine tourism experience of

Gen Z consumers.

References

Alebaki, M. and Iakovidou, O. (2011), “Market segmentation in wine tourism:

a comparison of approaches, Tourismos: An International

Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 123-140.

Ali-Knight, J. and Charters, S. (2001), “The winery as educator: do wineries

provide what the wine tourist needs?”, Australian and New Zealand

Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 79-86.

Alonso, A., Fraser, R. and Cohen, D. (2007), “Investigating differences

between domestic and international winery visitors in New Zealand”,

International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 No 2, pp.

114-126.

Barbieri, C. and Mshenga, P.M. (2008), “The role of the firm and owner

characteristics on the performance of agritourism farms”, Sociologia

Ruralis, Vol. 48 No 2, pp. 166-183.

Page 19 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

20

Bartlett, M.S. (1954), “A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square

approximations”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 16

(Series B), pp. 296-298.

Bassiouni, D.H. and Hackley, C. (2014), “Generation Z’ children’s adaptation

to digital consumer culture: a critical literature review”, Journal of

Customer Behaviour, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 113-133.

Beverland, M. (2001), “Generation X and Wine Consumption”, Wine Industry

Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 91-95.

Bruwer, J. (2002), “Marketing wine to Generation X consumers through the

cellar door”, The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and

Winemaker, No. 467, pp. 67-70.

Bruwer, J. (2003), “South African wine routes: some perspectives on the wine

tourism industry’s structural dimensions and wine tourism product”,

Tourism Management, Vol. 24, pp. 423-435.

Bruwer, J. and Lesschaeve, I. (2012), “Wine tourists’ destination region brand

image perception and antecedents: conceptualization of a winescape

framework”, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 29, pp.

611-628.

Bruwer, J., Lesschaeve, I., Gray, D. and Sottini, V.A. (2013), “Regional brand

perception by wine tourists within a winescape framework”, paper

presented at the 7th

International Conference of the Academy of Wine

Business Research (AWBR), 12-15 June, St. Catharines, Ontario,

available at: http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/04/Bruwer-Lesschaeve-Sottini-Gray.pdf

(accessed 31 March 2017).

Byrd, E.T., Canziani, B., Hsieh, Y.C., Debbage, K. and Sonmez, S. (2016),

“Wine tourism: motivating visitors through core and supplementary

services”, Tourism Management, Vol. 52, pp. 19-29.

Carlsen, J., Getz, D. and Willcock, C. (2006), “What do generations X and Y

want in a wine tourism experience: an application of Importance-

Performance evaluation to a youth-targeted wine tour”, paper presented

at the 3rd International Wine Business Research Conference, 6-8 July,

Montpellier, Languedoc-Roussillon, available at:

Page 20 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

21

http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-

content/uploads/2010/05/Carlsen.pdf (accessed 22 February 2-17).

Carter, A.C., Brandon, K.O. and Goldman, M.S. (2010), “The college and

noncollege experience: a review of the factors that influence drinking

behavior in young adulthood”, Journal of Studies on Alcohol and

Drugs, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 742-750.

Charters S. and Carlsen, J. (2006), “Conclusion: the future of wine tourism

research, management and marketing”, in Carlsen, J. and Charters, S.

(Eds), Global Wine Tourism: Research Management and Marketing,

CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 263-275.

Charters, S. and Fountain, J. (2006), “Younger wine tourists: a study of

generational differences in the cellar door experience”, in Carlsen, J.,

and Charters, S. (Eds) Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management

and Marketing, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 153-122.

Charters S., Fountain, J. and Fish, N. (2009), “You felt like lingering...

Experiencing ‘real’ service at the winery tasting room”, Journal of

Travel Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 122-134.

Charters, S. and O’Neill, M. (2000), “Delighting the customer: how good is the

cellar door?”, Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol.

15 No. 4, pp. 11-16.

Chu, R.K.S. and Choi, T. (2000), “An importance-performance analysis of

hotel selection factors in the Hong Kong hotel industry: a comparison

of business and leisure travellers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 21, pp.

363-377.

Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of

marketing constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-

73.

Comrey, A.L. (1978), “Common methodological problems in factor analytic

studies”, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 46, pp.

648-659.

Comrey, A.L., and Lee, H.B. (1992). A First Course in Factor Analysis (2nd

ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, NJ.

Page 21 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

22

Critical Publics (2008), “Greek wine industry”, available at:

http://www.keosoe.gr/pdf/marketing/dierefnisi/paradoteo1.3parartima/g

lobal%20public%20rhetoric%20analysis/grwineindustry.pdf (accessed

10 February 2017).

Croce, E. and Perry, G. (2017), Food and Wine Tourism (2nd ed.), CABI,

Wallingford, UK.

Dodd, T. (1995), “Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine

industry”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp.

5-16.

Dodd, T. and Bigotte, V. (1997), “Perceptual differences among visitor groups

to wineries”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 46-51.

Fountain, J. and Charters, S. (2010), “Generation Y as wine tourists: their

expectations and experiences at the winery cellar door”, in

Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G. and Pendergast, D. (Eds), Tourism and

Generation Y, CABI Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 47-57.

Fountain, J. and Lamb, C. (2011), “Generation Y as young wine consumers in

New Zealand: how do they differ from generation X?”, International

Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 107-124.

Getz, D. and Brown, G. (2006), “Benchmarking wine tourism development:

the case of Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada”, Journal of

Wine Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 78-97.

Hall, C.M., Johnson, G., Cambourne, B., Macionis, N., Mitchell, N., &

Sharples, L. (Eds.) (2000), Wine Tourism around the World:

Development, Management and Markets, Butterworth-Heinemann,

Oxford, UK.

Howe, N., and Strauss, W. (1991), Generations, William Morrow and

Company, New York, NY.

Hudson, S., Hudson, P. and Miller, G.A. (2004), “The measurement of service

quality in the UK tour operating sector: a methodological comparison”,

Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 305-312.

Johnson, M. and Johnson, L. (2010), Generations, Inc.: From Boomers to

Linksters - Managing the Friction between Generations at Work,

American Management Association, New York, NY.

Page 22 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

23

Junio, M.M., Kim, J.H. and Lee, T.J. (2016), “Competitiveness attributes of a

medical tourism destination: the case of South Korea with importance-

performance analysis”, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Vol.

34 No. 4, pp. 444-460.

Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 39

No. 1, pp. 31-36.

Kevany, S. (2008), “French Millenials drinking less, Americans more”, Wine

Business International, Vol. 3, pp. 13-17.

Kuo, C.M. (2009), “The managerial implications of an analysis of tourist

profiles and international hotel employee service attitude”,

International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp.

302-309.

Lai, I.K.W. and Hitchcock, M. (2015), “Importance-performance analysis in

tourism: a framework for researchers”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48,

pp. 242-267.

Martilla, J. and James, J. (1977), “Importance-performance analysis”, Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 77-79.

Mitchell, R. and Hall, C.M. (2001), “Self-ascribed wine knowledge and the

wine behaviour of New Zealand winery visitors”, Australian and New

Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 115-122.

Mueller, S., Francis, L. and Lockshin, L. (2008), “The relationship between

wine liking, subjective and objective wine knowledge: does it matter

who is in your ‘consumer’ sample?”, paper presented at the 4th

International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research

(AWBR), 17-19 July, Siena, Italy, available at:

http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/The-

relationship-between-wine-liking_paper.pdf (accessed 03 January

2017).

Mueller, S., Remaud, H. and Chabin, Y. (2011), “How strong and

generalisable is the Generation Y effect? A cross-cultural study for

wine”, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol 23 No. 2,

pp. 125-144.

Page 23 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

24

Moutinho, L., Ballantyne, R. and Rate, S. (2011), “Consumer behaviour in

tourism”, in Moutinho, L. (Ed.), Strategic Management in Tourism (2nd

ed.), CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 83-126.

Noble, S.M. and Schewe, C.D. (2003), “Cohort segmentation: an exploration

of its validity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 12, pp. 979-

987.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.), McGraw Hill, New

York, NY.

Olsen, J.E., Thach, L. and Nowak, L.I. (2007), “Wine for my generation:

exploring how US wine consumers are socialised to wine”, Journal of

Wine Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

O’Neill, M. and Charters, S. (2000), “Service quality at the cellar door:

implications for Western Australia’s developing wine tourism

industry”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 112-122.

O’Neill, M., Palmer, A. and Charters, S. (2002), “Wine production as a service

experience: the effects of service quality on wine sales”, Journal of

Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 342-362.

Pan, F.C. (2015), “Practical application of importance-performance analysis in

determining critical job satisfaction factors of a tourist hotel”, Tourism

Management, Vol. 46, pp. 84-91.

Peters, G.L. (1997), American Winescapes: The Cultural Landscapes of

America's Wine Country, Westview Press, New York, NY.

Pettigrew, S. (2003), “Wine consumption contexts”, International Journal of

Wine Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 37-45.

Quadri-Felliti, D. and Fiore, A.M. (2016), “Wine tourism suppliers’ and

visitors’ experiential priorities”, International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 397-417.

Ritchie, C. and Rotsios, K. (2016), “Greece: reclaiming a lost heritage at

Gerovassiliou Winery (Ktima), Greece”, in Thach, L. and Charters, S.

(Eds), Best Practices in Global Wine Tourism: 15 Case Studies From

Around the World, Miranda Press, New York, NY, pp 225-238.

Skinner A.M. (2000), “Napa Valley, California: a model of wine region

development”, in Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and

Page 24 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

25

Macionis, N. (Eds), Wine Tourism around the World: Development,

Management and Markets, Routledge, Oxford, UK, pp. 283-297.

Santeramo, F.G., Seccia, A. and Nardone, G. (2017), “The synergies of the

Italian wine and tourism sectors”, Wine Economics and Policy, Vol. 6

No. 1, pp. 71-74.

Somkeatkun W. and Wongsurawat, W. (2017), “Perceptions of the spa

industry: an Importance Performance Analysis”, Journal of Quality

Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, ahead-of-print, doi:

10.1080/1528008X.2016.1250241.

Tabachnik, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics (3rd

edition), Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Tew, C. and Barbieri, C. (2012), “The perceived benefits of agritourism: The

provider’s perspective”, Tourism Management, Vol. 33, pp. 215-224.

Thomas, B., Quintal, V.A. and Phau, I. (2016). “Wine tourist engagement with

the winescape: scale development and validation”, Journal of

Hospitality and Tourism Research, ahead-of-print, doi:

10.1177/1096348016640583.

Trading Economics (2016), “Greece youth unemployment rate 1998-2016”,

available at: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/youth-

unemployment-rate (accessed 11 January 2017).

Treloar, P., Hall, C.M. and Mitchell, R.D. (2004), “Wine tourism and the

generation Y market: any possibilities?”, paper presented at the

CAUTHE 2004 Conference, 10-13 February, Brisbane, Queensland,

Australia, available at:

https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/687/Treloar%20

et%20al.%20CAUTHE%20full.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

(accessed 15 January 2017).

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (2015), “Wine annual report and statistics

2015”, available at:

https://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Wine%20

Annual_Rome_EU-28_3-16-2015.pdf (accessed 26 January 2017).

Velikova, N., Fountain, J., de Magistris, T., Seccia, A. and Wilson, D. (2013),

“My first glass of wine: A comparison of Gen Y early wine experiences

Page 25 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


usiness Research

26

and socialisation in New and Old world markets”, paper presented at

the 7th

AWBR International Conference, 12-15 June, St. Catharines,

Canada, available at: http://academyofwinebusiness.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/04/Velikova-Fountain-de-Magistris-Seccia-

Wilson.pdf (accessed 19 July 2017).

Wade, D.J. and Eagles, P.F.J. (2003), “Analysis and market segmentation for

tourism management in parks and protected areas: an application to

Tanzania’s national parks, Journal of Ecotourism, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp.

196-212.

Williams, P. (2001), “Positioning wine tourism destinations: an image

analysis”, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.

42-58.

World Health Organisation (2014), “Global status report on alcohol and health

2014”, available at:

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/112736/1/9789240692763_eng

.pdf (accessed 6 January 2017).

Wu, D., Song, H. and Shen, S. (2016), “New developments in tourism and

hotel demand modelling and forecasting”, International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 507-529.

Xu, S., Barbieri, C., Anderson, D., Leung, Y.F. and Rozier-Rich, S. (2016),

“Residents’ perceptions of wine tourism development”, Tourism

Management, Vol. 55, pp. 276-286.

Page 26 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Figure 1 IPA Grid

Source: Martilla and James (1977)

Page 27 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Table 1 Factor Analysis Results and Mean Scores of Winescape Factors and

Attributes in Importance and Performance Dimensions

a53.86% of cumulative variance explained. bMean scale: 1 – Not at all important to 7 – Extremely important.

cMean scale: 1 – Completely dissatisfied to 7 – Completely satisfied.

*: Grand mean scores of factor.

Factors Factor

Loadings

(Sorted)

Eigenvalue Pct. of

variancea

Importance

Meanb

Performance

Meanc

F1 – Cost Considerations (a = .867) 7.317 26.94 6.22* 4.66*

The cost of the wines sold .676 6.11 4.64

Wines available at prices within my

spending budget

.627 6.36 4.56

Reasonable pricing of wine at the cellar

door

.606 6.20 4.77

F2 – Wine & Entertainment (a = .834) 3.432 12.34 6.07* 4.92*

The wines we tasted .664 5.72 5.57

Entertainment opportunities .613 6.12 4.54

The food we ate .588 6.26 4.31

The people on the tour with me .564 6.19 5.25

F3 – Destination Attributes (a = .769) 1.789 6.12 5.97* 5.53*

The scenic outlook .637 5.93 5.76

The attractive scenery .618 6.14 5.58

The information we received about the

wider area

.596 5.83 5.45

Local products from the region on offer .512 5.91 5.34

F4 – Service Staff (a = .748) 1.331 5.34 5.77* 5.50*

The friendliness of the staff .642 5.89 5.93

The courtesy of the staff .575 5.61 5.31

The individual attention provided by staff .548 5.81 5.27

F5 – Learning about Wine (a = .723) 1.076 3.12 4.63* 4.55*

Meeting the winemaker .527 4.56 4.52

The information we received about wine .512 4.69 4.57

Overall mean score 5.73 5.03

Page 28 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


Figure 2 IPA Grid for Winescape Factors

Quadrant I Quadrant II

Quadrant III Quadrant IV

Page 29 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


We would like, once again, to thank the Editor for his constructive suggestions and for giving us the

opportunity to revise our manuscript, as well as the two referees for their kind comments, thorough

reviews and constructive suggestions.

Editor

Comments Revisions

1. Please change the heading of

the last section to read:

Conclusions, implications,

limitations and future research

We have changed the heading of the last section (p. 17). Clearly

the heading now reflects more accurately the content of the section.

Thank you for this suggestion.

2. Please attend to the points

raised by Reviewer 1.

We have addressed the comments made by the Reviewer 1 and we

provide relevant details below.

3. Give the paper another

thorough proofreading to

eliminate grammatical and

typographical errors.

Please accept our apologies for the overlooked errors. We have

carefully edited our text to eliminate these.

Referee 1

Comments Revisions

1. The paper still does not

demonstrate an adequate

understanding of the relevant

literature in the field and fails to

cite an appropriate range of

literature sources. In particular,

the link between rural tourism

and wine industry should be

further stressed. Let me suggest

relevant papers on rural tourism

and on wine industry [list of

papers follows]

Thank you for this constructive comment and for taking the time to

suggest a range of useful studies, providing us with all the relevant

details. We have now stressed the link between rural tourism and

wine (p. 4, lines 20-28). In doing so, we have followed your

recommendation and have included four of your proposed studies

here. To further stress this link, we also added a sentence on p. 15

(lines 15-19) and p. 18 (lines 11-12).

2. It is never a good idea to state

that “a direct comparison

between these findings and

those of other studies on the

winery experience of young

generations is difficult” and fail

to cite papers that have

addressed similar issues. You

are communicating the idea that

either your research question is

of no relevance, or that you

have no sufficient knowledge of

the literature to compare your

results with existing studies.

More efforts should be devoted

to this issue.

Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We have deleted

this sentence and re-written part of this paragraph to address your

comment (p. 17, lines 20-25). In doing so, we have followed your

suggestion to cite papers that have addressed similar issues,

drawing links between our findings and literature review.

3. It is a bit frustrating to read

that “given study limitations the

results have no claims to

generalisability” and that

therefore you “argue that

findings should be taken as

preliminary and suggestive”. If

so, why should we pay attention

to your study? More effort must

be devoted in communicating

when and where your results

may be valid and when and

where they are not.

Thank you for noting this issue. Following your comment we have

deleted this sentence and re-written part of the closing paragraph of

the paper to provide a clear link between study limitations, the

scope of our results, and directions for future research (p. 19, lines

7-11).

4. Apart from a careful reading Thank you for your comment. We have carefully edited our text.

Page 30 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960


to eliminate awkward

expressions, I have no further

comments.

Page 31 of 31



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Documents

The Winery Experience from the Perspective of Generation Zepubs.surrey.ac.uk/845458/1/The Winery Experience from... · 2017. 12. 19. · International Journal of Wine Business Research