Journal of Wine Research, 2007, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 73 –85

Label Fluency and Consumer Self-Confidence

NELSON BARBER, JOSEPH ISMAIL and D. CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR Original manuscript received, March 2007 Revised manuscript received, July 2007

ABSTRACT The decision to purchase a bottle of wine is often difficult for consumers. Influenced by levels of self-confidence, the decision conflict between competing characteristics of the wine products offered can affect the consumers’ decision behaviour. Research has suggested that the front label conveys key information to consumers relating the benefits of purchasing a wine product. Using a self-administered questionnaire, this study examined information, label fluency, consumer selfconfidence and the impact on consumers purchase decisions. The results indicated that overall, respondents preferred the label information provided and those with low self-confidence preferred the modern label color and classic label information.

Introduction According to the Wine Institute (2004), the United States has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of wineries, wine brands, labels, bottle shapes, style, and, type of closures. Saad (2005) reported that for the first time since drinking preferences have been measured, Americans prefer to drink wine (39%) over beer (36%) and liquor (21%), with wine consumption by age group changing since 1995. Wine consumption has increased in the 30 – 49-year-old age group and the 50 and over age group, while consumption by the under 30 age group has remained flat, primarily due to increased marketing efforts of spirits manufacturers (Saad, 2005; Wine Institute, 2004). This growth in demand in wine and the reduction in consumption in many of the major wine producing countries has added pressure on wine marketers to capture the attention of the United States wine consumer (Wine Institute, 2004). Wine and other consumable products have a unique constraint that sets them apart from other traditional non-consumable products, primarily because the quality of the product can not be assessed until after it has been consumed. Therefore the purchasing of a bottle of wine can be a complex experience, resulting in the consumers’ use of a variety of information sources as well as their prior knowledge and usage experience with wine (Lockshin, 2003).

Nelson Barber, Department of Nutrition, Hospitality and Retailing, Box 41162, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA (E-mail: [email protected]) ISSN 0957-1264 print/ISSN 1469-9672 online/07/020073-13 # 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09571260701660847

74

NELSON BARBER ET AL.

Prior to purchase, the use of information is critical to the consumers’ decision-making process. Often choices are made without a wealth of information. Chaney (2000) reported that consumers reduce the risk of different decisions by selecting fewer information options rather than more and consequently little information is actually employed in the pre-purchase stages. Understanding the factors that determine which options consumers choose and whether they make rather than defer purchase decisions is critical for the development of wine marketing strategies (Novemsky et al., in press). Research has focused on decision conflict and preference fluency as well as the effect on a consumer’s product choice by manipulating the content of the choice or by manipulating which content is the focus of attention (Novemsky et al., in press). Preference fluency is defined as the subjective feeling of ease or difficulty experienced by the wine consumer while making a purchase decision and examines how this fluency impacts two well-known choice phenomena: deferral and acceptance (or compromise) (Dhar and Simonson, 2003). A major theoretical implication is that in situations where decision conflict arises from the difficulty in deciding between competing characteristics of the products offered, the decision conflicts influence on consumers’ decision behavior is potentially resolved by consumers’ subjective experience and level of self-confidence. Gluckman (1990) and Olsen et al. (2003) noted that self-confidence plays a key role in decision-making because consumers are extremely intimidated when it comes to making wine purchases. This study examined which attributes of the front label consumers rely on when making a wine purchase and whether consumers with low self-confidence are influenced by front label attributes differently than those with high self-confidence. The continued attempts to understand the wine consumer and their preferences can benefit wine producers, marketers, food service establishments and retailers.

Review of Literature Information and Preference Fluency Understanding the factors that determine which options wine consumers choose and whether they choose to buy the product or defer the purchase decision is critical to the development of marketing strategies. A major contribution of behavioral decision research has been to establish the notion of uncertain preferences, the idea that consumer preferences are not well defined but rather constructed during the process of making a selection. This constructive viewpoint suggests that different tasks and contexts highlight different aspects of the purchase options, focusing consumers on different considerations that lead to seemingly inconsistent decisions (Bettman et al., 1998). Research has focused on the effect of this decision conflict and preference fluency on consumer choice by manipulating the content of the choice or by manipulating which content is the focus of attention. Novemsky et al. (in press) found that purchase deferral or acceptance of the product are both consequences of the difficulty associated with making tradeoffs among specific competing attributes of the products offered. In that same study, Novemsky et al. (in press) found that situations where there is preference uncertainty, the decision behavior is reconciled with the consumers’ subjective experiences. They also noted that consumers often do not have well-defined preferences that can be retrieved, but rather construct their preferences when faced with the need to make decisions.

LABEL FLUENCY AND CONSUMER SELF-CONFIDENCE

75

The fluency of processing can also have an impact on evaluative judgments: a given target is evaluated more positively, the more easily it can be evaluated. Thus, any variable that facilitates fluent perception is likely to increase the preference for the wine product, from label image (animal figures); color, type face or previous exposure with that label. Therefore, information and other product attributes can influence consumers’ purchasing behavior by the manner in which it is presented and by the way it is perceived or processed by the consumer. For consumers, information is used to increase knowledge and reduce risk or minimize uncertainty. This buying decision is guided by the extent to which various information elements are available and used by the consumer (Thomas and Pickering, 2003). Information consumers look for on labels easily represents their assessment of the wine; that is, information by which any product is judged or measured for possible purchase. While Shaw et al. (1999) place this information under particular categories (e.g. parentage, production, endorsements, attributes, end user and end use), most consumers think more basically, that is they assess wine products by attributes such as origin, region, vintage, quality, taste and price (Sanchez and Gil, 1998). According to a study by Barber et al. (2006), they found American consumers assessed wine products by such attributes as country of origin, grape variety, vintage, brand name, and price with vintage and brand name being the most important informational items consumers use to assess wine products before purchase. Previous experience with a product creates the foundation that aids in the development of the consumers’ knowledge, and thereby their self-confidence. Ultimately, relying on sources of information such as their own values and preferences, friends and family, journalists and wine writers, as well as descriptions from labels aids in the purchase decision (Dodd et al., 2005; Hall and Lockshin, 2000; Unwin, 1999). Self-Confidence Comprehensive research has been conducted recently on wine consumer involvement (Aurifeille et al., 2002; Getz, 2000; Lockshin et al., 1997, 2001; Spawton, 1989, 1990, 1991; Yuan et al., 2005). Research has also demonstrated that the number of information sources used by wine tourists varies based on the level of product involvement, the number of previous winery visits, and attitude (Dodd, 1998). However, no previous studies were located which examined the affects of consumer self-confidence on the purchase decision. General self-confidence has been frequently cited as an important construct for understanding consumer behavior. For example, self-confidence has been suggested as an influence on external information search, and although previous research has shown that knowledge and involvement can reduce the stress associated with a purchase, many consumers still find the selection of a product to be a difficult and uncomfortable activity (Engel et al., 2000; Wells and Prensky, 1996). Regardless of their degree of wine knowledge or involvement, consumers appear to lack confidence in their decision-making abilities (Barber et al., 2006). On the other hand, some consumers may not necessarily know a lot about wine, but are not particularly worried about the negative consequences of making a poor selection. They appear to have high self-confidence that their selection will be satisfactory and, thus, wine purchases involve very little anxiety (Lockshin et al., 1997). These studies suggest that the construct of self-confidence may be distinct from wine expertise and involvement and is very important in the understanding of consumer

76

NELSON BARBER ET AL.

behavior and wine consumption. Beyond the attributes of the wine or the situation involved in the purchase, different consumers will choose wine differently, with each having a level of risk that is acceptable to them. Therefore, wine purchasers can be highly risk-sensitive with their decisions governed by the relationship of expectation and risk, modified by risk-reduction strategies. Several researchers have defined risks to include functional, social, economic, and the psychological aspects of a product purchase (Dowling and Staelin, 1994; Lee et al., 2005; Palmer, 2001; Spawton, 1991). An example of a functional risk is the taste of the wine; an economic risk is associated with the value, or price, of the wine and whether the perceived risk was higher when they bought an unfamiliar bottle, grape varietal or brand of wine, and a psychological risk relates to self-confidence in choosing the correct wine (Olsen et al., 2003; Thomas and Pickering, 2003). Therefore it is important to understand what extent consumers’ self-confidence impacts the wine-buying decision. If a consumer’s low self-confidence is specific to a product and not a general personality trait, the consumer will tend to engage in more information-seeking behavior to reduce the associated risks. By the same token, consumers who are already self-confident will tend to rely on their own experiences and observations, possibly experimenting with new products or package designs (Bearden et al., 2001). Increasing a consumer’s self-confidence may be the factor that reduces anxiety and encourages both the acceptance of wines and the exploration of new and different wines that are available (Olsen et al., 2003). Importance of Label Design The marketing of a wine product consists of a number of interrelated components, some of which are historical and traditional, such as grape varietal, the winemaker’s skills and the presentation of front label cues (color; image, picture and logo; information and brand name). Many consumers will form their own impression of a wine by going to a retail shop and reading the labels instead of seeking guidance through journals and specialized shops, while others increasingly make brand choices based specifically upon aesthetic value and distinctiveness of the label design (Bloch, 1995; Bloch et al., 2003; Reidick, 2003). Many New World wine producers acknowledge that to a new generation of consumers, the package is as important as the product, while the older more mature markets, prefer more traditional styles of packaging (Bloch et al., 2003; Chaney, 2000; Charters et al., 1999, 2000; Fowler, 2000; Gluckman, 1990; Jennings and Wood, 1994; Olsen et al., 2003; Thomas, 2000; Thomas and Pickering, 2003). Front Labels Front labels are the first line of communication to attract the consumer; therefore it is extremely important that characteristics appearing on the label are visually attractive and easy to read in order to stand out from the large number of competing bottles available on the retail shelf. Front labels can provide key recognition factors through their shape, color and position as well as the information offered. Compared to labels presently on the market, front wine labels were historically highly standardized, uninteresting, and unimaginative. Old World wines traditionally restricted their front label design changes, keeping the classic wine label structure to sustain the image of quality through tradition and history ( Jennings and Wood, 1994). Today, however, the market is flooded with colors, shapes, designs and sizes for all price ranges.

LABEL FLUENCY AND CONSUMER SELF-CONFIDENCE

77

New World wine producers have become increasingly more creative, with a particular focus on competing shelf space, through the use of labels with modern and contemporary colors that combine exotic shapes and sizes creating a distinctive look ( Jennings and Wood, 1994). For example, an Argentine wine producer of a Malbec/Tempranillo blended wine uses a contemporary art deco label with a ‘Thelma & Louise’ catchy label called Marge ‘n’ Tina, with the intent of capturing the female market. Both Chaney (2000) and Thomas (2000) have suggested the front label and the wine bottles’ overall packaging make a statement about the individual consumer and their ability to select good wine well beyond the point of purchase. This can place added social importance on the front label; whereby, depending on the situation for which a wine is purchased, it may have an impact on the consumer’s reputation with their peers. An ‘Oh this looks good’ comment at a dinner party can be a tremendous confidence booster and enhance the stature of the host in the eyes of their guests. Front label information in many cases can draw upon a consumer’s knowledge and past experiences to assist in the assessment of competing wine buying alternatives. Name and product recognition can play a key roll while other consumers may buy wine solely based upon the front label design, logo or picture (Barber et al., 2006; Thomas and Pickering, 2003; Unwin, 1999). In general, the goal of label design is to create a striking visual image that can serve as a narrative or storybook about the producer and the contents of a bottle. Consider the concept as a genie trapped inside a bottle: The more attention the look of a container attracts, the more curious consumers are to find out what’s inside. For example, the role of a label designer is much like that of the winemaker, but instead of crafting a fine wine featuring beautiful aromas, ample flavor and a gracious finish, a label designer selects the appropriate information, colors, shapes, texture and fonts to enhance the overall beauty of the bottle the wine is packaged in. Consumer Demographics The role of demographics in understanding consumer behavior is well documented, with gender and age important components. In the United States there were 77 million Baby Boomers (ages 41 to 59), 44 million Generation X (ages 29 to 40) and 70 million Millennial generation, the eldest of which just turned 28 in 2005. The Millennial group has added, on average, 5% more new adults to the US population per year than did Generation X, and their taste and lifestyle choices will drive the beverage alcohol market for many years to come (Wine Market Council, 2006). According to a study by Barber et al. (2006) of American wine consumers, a gender comparison revealed certain front label cues were significant to females, and they believed the back label was more confusing, hard to read and had too much information, which might explain their concern about making the wrong wine-buying decision. However, of particular interest were the findings by Hall et al. (2000) and Mitchell and Greatorex (1989) that wine had a feminine image amongst men and this image prevented them from drinking wine. It also acted as a psychological or social barrier to consumption by emphasizing their feelings of low self-confidence. Their studies established that the male desire to impress others is a stronger motivating trait than with females. The purpose of this study was to examine which attributes of the front label consumers rely on when making a wine purchase and whether consumers with low self-confidence are influenced by the front label attributes differently than those with

78

NELSON BARBER ET AL.

high self-confidence. Also, the study investigated the demographics (such as gender and age) of respondents and their levels of self-confidence. Methodology Various methods have been used to determine consumers’ behavior and buying habits towards wine. Thomas (2000) used a questionnaire consisting of a mock label, ten questions and respondent background information. In a study by Chaney (2000), the researcher sent out questionnaires with closed-end questions to a sample selected randomly from the United Kingdom telephone directories. Another study by Lee et al. (2005) used closed-ended questions and five-point Likert scale responses to examine the wine preferences of the Korean market. This study used a self-administered questionnaire to assess socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender and education level), consumer behavior activities (e.g. frequency of use, information sources used) and psychographic information (opinions, motivations and self-confidence). Following the format of Lee et al. (2005), the questionnaire was designed with closed-ended and five-point Likert scale responses. Questions in the first section developed a profile of the respondents’ wine knowledge, sources and uses of information and level of self-confidence. In addition to determining label preference, three sets of color labels with associated questions requiring the respondents to rank each of the labels (one as most preferred, two as second most preferred and three as least preferred) were used to assess labeling preferences. Labels used in this study are shown in Table 1. The labels were defined as either ‘Classic’, ‘Modern’ or ‘Contemporary Art Deco’. Each of the labels were reviewed by a panel of wine marketing experts at Purdue University’s Hospitality and Tourism department and a panel of wine producers from three Indiana wineries. Each label was also reviewed to insure compliance with United States labeling laws and industry norms. Definitions were provided to the reviewers in order to have a common basis for discussion and consensus. These definitions came from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Classic represents a label that is formal and traditional in style and characteristics, such as a label from a French Premier Cru winery. Modern reflects the recent times or characteristics of present lifestyles. Finally, contemporary art deco is based upon the decorative and architectural style of the 1925– 1940 time periods, which used geometric designs and bold colors and graphics, brought forward to the late 20th century. To minimize the possibility of an order effect, labels were placed in a different sequence for the classic, modern and contemporary questions. Data collection was conducted in the state of Connecticut. There are approximately 20 wineries in the state of Connecticut and over 500 retail wine/spirit shops. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, a non-probability, judgment sample of two retail Table 1. Questionnaire label selection and set up Label description Three white wine labels Three red wine labels Three champagne/ sparkling wine labels

Classic

Modern

Contemporary art deco

Label one Label three Label one

Label three Label one Label two

Label two Label two Label three

LABEL FLUENCY AND CONSUMER SELF-CONFIDENCE

79

shops and five wineries was made with a total of 1000 questionnaires, each with a selfaddressed and stamped return envelope attached, handed out to customers at these establishments. These customers were expected to be from all socio-economic groups and represent a good cross-section of the Connecticut and surrounding population. Before data collection procedures began, the questionnaire was pilot-tested at a local retail wine store in Connecticut to determine whether the instrument could be clearly understood by the respondents and ensure reliability of the instrument. There were seven specific questions in the survey that required respondents to rate the importance of certain cues of wine bottle front labels. A new variable for these seven front label cues, ‘Overall importance of Front Label’, was created and based upon the average of the respondents’ ratings of importance. In addition, there were three specific questions in the survey that required respondents to determine which of three different red, white and sparkling wine labels presented (see Table 1) they preferred the most, preferred second most and preferred least. Each set of three labels had five label cues that the respondents had to rate on the three-point preference scale. Three new variables were created, ‘Classic’, ‘Modern’ and ‘Contemporary Art Deco’, based upon the average of the respondents label cue preferences. Respondents were classified into high self-confidence (‘not concerned’), neutral and low self-confidence (‘concerned’) using the mean score and standard deviation from the survey questions asking their level of concern when making a wine purchase. The survey questions were five-point Likert scale response with neutral equal to 3.0. Of the 339 respondents, 98 (29%) reported high self-confidence, 132 (39%) were neutral, and 109 (32%) reported low self-confidence.

Results and Discussion Data Analysis The data were analyzed using statistical procedures such as descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of variance (SAS release 9.1 TS level 02M0). The descriptive statistics provide an overview of the respondents to the survey. The multivariate analysis of variance (‘MANOVA’) analyzed respondents’ demographic characteristics, and other factors influencing their preference for front label cues in relation to their levels of self-confidence. Post hoc testing was performed if the results were determined to be significant. The survey had a 34% response rate (n ¼ 339). The responses were grouped by ‘winery’ (n ¼ 238) and ‘retail’ (n ¼ 101) to determine if there was a significant difference in the responded characteristics, such as gender, age, income, education and employment, that would have impacted the results of this study. Based upon this review, it was determined that there were no significant differences between the winery and retail respondents’ characteristics. As presented in Table 2, the number of male respondents (37%) was lower than that of female respondents (63%) and similar to data collected from surveys conducted by Saad (2005) and Yuan et al. (2005). The female and male respondents were grouped by their characteristics, such as self-confidence, age, income, education and employment, to determine if there was a significant difference that may impact the results of the study. Based upon this review, it was determined that there were no significant differences between the female and male respondents’ characteristics. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents’ preferred red wine, 36% preferred white wine and 2% preferred sparkling wine. Over 43% of the respondents were over 55 years of age and (64%) had a college education; 38% had undergraduate degrees and 26% had

80

NELSON BARBER ET AL.

Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of respondents Percentage of total for each characteristic Self-confidence High (not concerned)

(Neutral)

Low (Concerned)

(n ¼ 98) 44.7% 30.8% 22.7% 29.5% 30.1% 28.9%

(n ¼ 132) 39.5% 61.5% 43.8% 39.8% 25.0% 38.9%

(n ¼ 109) 15.8% 7.7% 33.6% 30.7% 44.9% 32.2%

11.2% 3.8% 37.8% 26.0% 21.2% 100.0%

38 13 128 88 72 339

Occupation (n 5 339) Self-employed Government worker White-collar worker Service sector Not in workforce Education Retired Medical Other Percentage of total

15.9% 33.3% 40.6% 24.3% 6.3% 52.2% 41.7% 9.1% 10.5% 28.9%

47.6% 44.4% 24.2% 81.1% 43.8% 30.4% 25.0% 27.3% 26.3% 38.9%

34.9% 22.2% 35.9% 21.6% 50.0% 17.4% 33.3% 63.6% 10.5% 32.2%

18.6% 5.3% 37.8% 10.9% 4.7% 6.8% 7.1% 3.2% 5.6% 100.0%

62 18 129 47 16 23 24 11 9 339

Income (n 5 339) Below $15,000 $15,001 – $24,999 $25,000 – $34,999 $35,000 – $49,999 $50,000 – 74,999 $75,999 – $99,000 $100,000 and over Percentage of total

16.7% 66.7% 12.5% 33.3% 35.1% 22.9% 29.1% 28.9%

50.0% 33.3% 62.5% 39.4% 40.4% 41.4% 34.4% 38.9%

33.3% 0.0% 25.0% 27.3% 24.6% 35.7% 36.4% 32.2%

1.8% 1.8% 4.7% 9.7% 16.8% 20.6% 44.5% 100.0%

6 6 16 33 57 70 151 339

Age (years) (n 5 339) 21 – 35 36 – 45 46 – 55 56 – 65 Over 65 Percentage of total

26.3% 22.9% 29.7% 32.9% 35.7% 28.9%

47.4% 44.3% 35.6% 35.6% 25.0% 38.9%

26.3% 32.8% 34.7% 31.5% 39.3% 32.2%

14.2% 16.8% 25.6% 26.6% 16.8% 100.0%

76 61 101 73 28 339

Gender (n 5 339) Male Female Percentage of total

30.7% 27.8% 28.9%

33.9% 41.9% 38.9%

35.4% 30.2% 32.2%

37.2% 62.8% 100.0%

126 213 339

Characteristics Educational level (n 5 339) High school or GED Trade or technical school Undergraduate college degree Graduate college degree Postgraduate/professional Percentage of total

Total

graduate degrees. A total of 38% of the respondents worked in the white collar sector, 19% were self-employed workers, 11% of respondents were in the service sector, and 7% were retired. Table 3 presents the specific characteristics of how important respondents viewed certain attributes of front label cues. Respondents reported they considered the overall front label to be important in their decision to purchase a bottle of wine. A significant difference was determined based upon gender with females (mean 3.1) considering the overall front label as more

LABEL FLUENCY AND CONSUMER SELF-CONFIDENCE

81

Table 3. Specific characteristics of front labels by gender and self-confidence (n 5 339) Mean score Gendera

Characteristic

Self-confidencea

Front label is important to respondent

Overall mean

Male

Female

Not concerned

Concerned

To determine the country of origin To determine the vintage of the wine To know the grape varietal Because of the brand name Because of the image, picture or logo To know the percentage of alcohol in the wine Because of the color of the label

4.0 3.7 3.5 3.7 3.2 2.9

4.1 4.0a 3.8 3.6 3.0b 2.9

4.0 3.6b 3.4 3.7 3.4a 3.0

3.9b 3.5b 3.4b 3.5 2.9b 2.7b

4.1a 3.9a 3.7a 3.6 3.3a 3.0a

2.9

2.6b

3.0a

2.6

2.8

Overall front label preference

3.1

2.8b

3.1a

3.3b

3.5a

Respondent concern about choosing wine

3.2

3.1b

3.3a

2.0b

3.8a



On a scale of one to five with one equal to strongly disagree and five equal to strongly agree. Means with different letters are significant at p , .05



important than males (mean 2.8) in selecting a bottle of wine. Respondents ranked the front label cue—country of origin—as the most important attribute when purchasing wine (4.0 on a five-point Likert-type scale), with males (mean of 4.1) reporting the highest average attribute. Given the number of brands, label designs, information and bottle packaging available, respondents were significantly likely, t(337) ¼ 5.16, p , .0001, to find the choice of wine to be intimidating and were concerned about making the wrong selection. However, females were significantly more concerned (mean of 3.3) than males (mean of 3.1), t(336) ¼ 1.80, p ¼ .0365. As expected, respondents with high levels of self-confidence (mean ¼ 3.3) found front label attributes significantly less important than those with low levels of self-confidence (mean ¼ 3.5), t(336) ¼ 2.43, p ¼ .0403; with vintage, grape varietal, label image, picture and logo specifically less important in their wine purchase decision. As presented in Table 4, for the red wine labels presented, respondents preferred the modern wine label significantly more than the other two red wine labels, with ‘label color’ the most important cue (mean 1.5) followed by ‘image, picture and logo’ (mean 1.6). For the label cue ‘information provided’, the classic label was considered the most important cue (mean 1.6). For the white wine labels, respondents preferred the classic label significantly more than the other white wine labels, with ‘information provided’ the most important cue (mean 1.3) followed by ‘image, picture and logo’ (mean 1.8). For the label cue of color, the modern label was the most preferred by respondents (mean 1.76). For the sparkling wine labels, respondents preferred the classic label, with brand name as the most important cues (mean 1.5), followed by image, picture and logo (mean 1.6). However, for the label cue of information provided, the modern sparkling label was most preferred (mean 1.6). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine which of the labels from Table 4 were significantly different between gender, education and levels of confidence.

82

NELSON BARBER ET AL.

Table 4. Means of label cues Label mean Contemporary Label cues

Classic

Color Image picture and logo Information provided Brand name Overall performance

2.5 2.2 1.6 1.9 2.1

Color Image picture and logo Information provided Brand name Overall performance

2.0 1.8 1.3 1.9 1.8

Color Image picture and logo Information provided Brand name Overall performance

1.8 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.5



Art deco Red wine 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.4 2.1 White wine 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.2 Champange/sparking wine 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7

Modern

1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.9 1.8

Rank each label cue using 1, 2, or 3 (where 1 ¼ best, 2 ¼ 2nd best and 3 ¼ least preferred)

If significant, additional post hoc tests were performed to determine which attributes contributed to the differences. For the red wine labels, females preferred the contemporary art deco labels significantly more than the classic or modern labels, with the attributes of ‘color’ (1.9), ‘image, picture and logo’ (1.8), and ‘brand name’ (1.9) preferred most. Males and college graduates preferred the modern label significantly more than the other two labels, with the ‘information provided’ the only significantly preferred attribute of that label. Interestingly, those with high self-confidence preferred the modern label ‘image, picture and logo’ (1.7), while those with low self-confidence preferred the classic label for its ‘color’ (1.8) and ‘information provided’ (1.6). For the white wine labels, the males preferred the classic label significantly more than the contemporary art deco and modern labels, with the attributes of ‘color’ (1.5) and ‘image, picture and logo’ preferred (1.8) most. Those respondents with low self-confidence preferred the classic label for its ‘information provided’ (1.4) and ‘color’ (1.7). Although the classic label was preferred significantly more than the other two labels, there were no significant preferences for the sparkling wine labels among gender, education or levels of self-confidence.

Conclusion Identifying consumer wine packaging preferences is critical to the expanding US market. Wine producers are facing a market where wine consumers are in need of a useful and pertinent wine label message. Before creating costly, innovative productdevelopment schemes wine producers need to know what consumer preferences are and consumers need to understand the product attributes.

LABEL FLUENCY AND CONSUMER SELF-CONFIDENCE

83

The results of this study confirms that consumers do look at the front label as an important information source and an integral part of the wine buying decision, regardless of the label design. This fluency of processing has obvious implications to wine producers. If one wine label has attributes or cues that facilitates the consumer perceptions and understanding of the wine, it is likely that will increase the preference for that particular wine product. For example, respondents considered the overall label design as of ‘neutral’ importance (3.0 on a 5.0 scale), compared to the country of origin (4.0) and brand name. This confirms the results of studies by other researchers: Novemsky et al. (in press) on consumer preference fluency; and Bloch et al. (2003), Chaney, (2000) and Jennings and Wood (1994) where they determined that the overall front label plays an important role in wine’s promotion and consumption. Given these results, wine producers should continue to understand exactly what front label cues and characteristics are important and should focus their marketing towards simple label designs. Labels should have basic information on style of wine (sweet, semi-sweet or dry), type of grape, location of winery and description of the winery, particularly at the $10 to $14 per price point where the customer still thinks of wine as fermented grape juice and may be uncertain about their wine choices. Although not significant, F ¼ 2 1.41, p ¼ .1024, at this price range, the modern label was by far the most preferred label of the respondents to this survey. However, interestingly the results showed that overall, when presented with actual labels to view, neither of the label designs; classic, modern or contemporary art deco, were preferred. Rather the respondents preferred the modern red wine label significantly more than the other red wine labels with males and college graduates preferring the ‘information provided’. The contemporary art deco white wine label was preferred significantly more than the other white wine labels, with females preferring the ‘color’, ‘image, picture and logo’ more than the other label attributes. This is important for wine producers as it confirms that consumers are aware of the label shape, color, size and particularly the type of information provided. Most respondents thought wine labels were intimidating and females were significantly more concerned than males about making the wrong wine selection (3.3 versus 3.1 on a five-point Likert-type scale, t(336) ¼ 21.80, p ¼ .0365). This is ironic in light of Jennings and Wood’s (1994) research which found that nearly 70% of wine buying decisions made in retail establishments, such as supermarkets, are made by women while doing daily or weekly shopping. This is not surprising given the results of this study showed women were significantly more likely to be influenced by the front label than men and supports previous research by Gluckman (1990) and Olsen et al. (2003), which concluded that consumers are still dominated by fear and insecurity when purchasing a bottle of wine. With the potential for continued growth and competition in the expanding US market, wine producers may wish to increase their market share and establish a loyal following from consumers by a marketing strategy aimed towards females reinforcing the perception that regardless of the social occasion calling for a wine selection, there is ‘no wrong wine choice’. No longer are traditional or classic label colors, shapes and images the standard. The worldwide wine industry has been turned upside down and there is a real opportunity in the US wine market, if producers understand the characteristics and preferences of the wine consumer, to customize products, service offerings through better marketing segmentation strategies but mostly they need to keep the information simple. Although not a significant difference, both men and women preferred the classic front label design compared to the modern and contemporary art deco and modern labels used in this study.

84

NELSON BARBER ET AL.

Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research The researcher chose the state of Connecticut as the target population. From this, five wineries and two retail wine shops were chosen based upon the researchers’ knowledge of the state’s demographics. The selection of the state of Connecticut and the nonrandom selection of testing sites may not represent the general US wine consumer, nor those outside the United States, and therefore the results of this study may not be generalizable. Given the importance of consumer behavior and their wine buying preferences, future research projects could include: comparing various label configurations and label and bottle packaging choices with the situational use (wedding gift, birthday gift, dinner party gift); or the affect of wine closure style on consumer purchase decision.

References AURIFEILLE , J.M., QUESTER , P.G., LOCKSHIN , L. and SPAWTON , T. (2002) Global versus international involvement-based segmentation: A cross-national exploratory study. International Marketing Review, 19(4), 369– 386. BARBER , N., ALMANZA , B. and DONOVAN , J. (2006) Motivational factors of gender, income and age on selecting a bottle of wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(3), 218– 232. BEARDEN , W., HARDESTY , D. and ROSE , R. (2001) Consumer self confidence: refinements in conceptualization and measurement, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 121– 134. BETTMAN , J., LUCE , M.F. and PAYNE , J. (1998) Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187– 217. BLOCH , P.H. (1995) Seeking the ideal form: product design and consumer response. Journal of Marketing, 59, 16 – 29. BLOCH , P., BRUNEL , F. and ARNOLD , T. (2003) Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 551–565. CHANEY , I.M. (2000) External search effort for wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 12(2), 5 – 21. CHARTERS , S., LOCKSHIN , L. and UNWIN , T. (1999) Consumer responses to wine bottle back labels. Journal of Wine Research, 10(3), 183– 196. CHARTERS , S., LOCKSHIN , L. and UNWIN , T. (2000) Consumer responses to wine bottle back labels. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal of Oenology, Viticulture, Finance and Marketing, 15(3), 94 – 101. DHAR , R. and SIMONSON , I. (2003) The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 146– 160. DODD , T. (1998) Influence of search behavior on industrial tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 5(2/3), 77 – 94. DODD , T.H., LAVERIE , D.A., WILCOX , J.F. and DUHAN , D.F. (2005) Differential effects of experience, subjective knowledge, and objective knowledge on sources of information used in consumer wine purchasing. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(1), 3 – 19. DOWLING , G. and STAELIN , R. (1994) A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 119. ENGEL , J., BLACKWELL , R. and MINIARD , P. (2000) Consumer Behavior. New York: The Dryden Press. FOWLER , T. (2000) Getting the most with your wine dollar. Wines and Vines, 36 – 40. Available online at: [www.gobelle.com/particles/mi_m3488/is_8_81/], accessed 4 April 2005. GETZ , D. (2000) Explore Wine Tourism: Management, Development and Destinations. New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation. GLUCKMAN , R.L. (1990) Consumer approach to branded wines. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 2(1), 27 – 46.

LABEL FLUENCY AND CONSUMER SELF-CONFIDENCE

85

HALL , J. and LOCKSHIN , L. (2000) Using means-end chains for analyzing occasions—not buyers. Australian Marketing Journal, 8(1), 45 – 54. HALL , J., SHAW , M., LASCHEIT , J. and ROBERTSON , N. (2000) Gender differences in a modified perceived value construct for intangible products. ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge. ANZMAC2000/CDsite/papers/h/Hall2.PDF. JENNINGS , D. and WOOD , C. (1994) Wine: achieving competitive advantage through design. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 6(1), 49 – 62. LEE , K., ZHAO , J. and KO , J.-Y. (2005) Exploring the Korean wine market. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 29(1), 20 – 41. LOCKSHIN , L. (2003) Consumer purchasing behavior for wine: what we know and where we. Marches et Marketing du Vin, 1, 1 –30. LOCKSHIN , L., MACINTOSH , G. and SPAWTON , A. (1997) Using product, brand, and purchasing involvement for retail segmentation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4(3), 171– 183. LOCKSHIN , L., QUESTER , P. and SPAWTON , T. (2001) Segmentation by involvement or nationality for global retailing: a cross-national comparative study of wine shopping behaviour. Journal of Wine Research, 12(3), 223– 236. MITCHELL , V.-W. and GREATOREX , A. (1989) Consumer risk perception in the UK wine market. European Journal of Marketing, 22(9), 5 – 15. NOVEMSKY , N., DHAR , R., SCHWARZ , N. and SIMONSON , I. (in press) Preference fluency on consumer choice. Journal of Marketing. Available online at: www.gsb.uchicago.edu/ kilts/research/workshop/WorkshopPapers/W06/novemsky.pdf, accessed December 2006. OLSEN , J., THOMPSON , K. and CLARKE , T. (2003) Consumers self-confidence in wine purchases. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 15(3), 40 – 52. PALMER , J. (2001) Bacchus’ revenge. Barron’s Online, 27 August. REIDICK , O. (2003) People buy the wine label, not the wine. Graphics, 1, 1 – 27. SAAD , L. (2005) Wine gains momentum as Americans’ favorite adult beverage. The Gallup Poll Survey, 18 July 2005, pp. 1 – 8. SANCHEZ , M. and GIL , J.M. (1998) Consumer preferences for wine attributes in different retail stores: a conjoint approach. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 10(l), 25 – 38. SHAW , M., KEEGAN , P. and HALL , E. J. (1999) Consumers judge wine by its label, study shows. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 14(1), 84 – 87. SPAWTON , A.L (1989) Grapes and wine seminar-prospering in the 1990s: changing your view of the consumer. European Journal of Marketing, 23(9), 6 –48. SPAWTON , T. (1990) Marketing Planning for Wine. Bradford, UK: MCB University Press. SPAWTON , T. (1991) Of wine and live asses: an introduction to the wine economy and state of wine marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 25(3), 19 – 31. THOMAS , A. (2000) Elements influencing wine purchasing: a New Zealand view. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 12(2), 1 – 16. THOMAS , A. and PICKERING , G. (2003) The importance of wine label information. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 15(2), 58 – 75. UNWIN , T. (1999) Hedonic price index and the qualities of wine. Journal of Wine Research, 10(2), 95 – 104. WELLS , W.D. and PRENSKY , D. (1996) Consumer Behavior. New York: Wiley. WINE INSTITUTE (2004) World Wine Consumption in Listed Countries (Hectolitres 000) 1997 to 2001. San Francisco, CA: Wine Institute [http://www.wineinstitute.org/who.htm]. WINE MARKET COUNCIL (2006) Wine Market Council Consumer Tracking Study 2006. Available online at: wwww.winemarket.com, accessed 15 March 2007. YUAN , J., SO , S.I. and CHAKRAVARTY , S. (2005) To wine or not to wine: profiling a wine enthusiast for a successful list. Journal of Nutrition in Recipe & Menu Development, 3(3/4), 63 – 79.