Two obstacles complicated the choice of the wines. First, it was important that the back labels actually said something specific about the individual wines under consideration. In some cases, for example, back labels only include simple generic comments about the company and the winemaking ethos. For this research, it was essential that the back labels actually made an attempt to describe the wines. A second consideration was that the wines should be readily available in local retail outlets. While it was relatively easy to find the same three white wines in both Perth and Adelaide, this proved to be much more difficult for the reds. As a result the actual wines used for the tasting part of the research varied on the three different occasions that the exercise was undertaken (Table 2). In order to provide an appropriate basis for comparison, the frequency of mention of specific words in the analytical section of the research was weighted by the number of occasions the wine was used. It was also important that there was some variation in the ordering of the wines on the different occasions in case information had inadvertently been passed from one group of participants to another. This variation in wine choices, though, does not appear to have had any discernible impact on the results obtained.
Results
The results are considered under three broad headings: general attitudes to back labels, the accuracy of tasting, and the utility of the wine descriptions.
Attitudes to Back Labels
Table 3 provides a summary of the overall findings concerning the participants' attitudes towards the content and use of back labels. This would suggest that among the sample questioned there was general support for the view that back labels do indeed provide useful information for those buying wine. However, there was by no means unanimity of opinion concerning this. While 78% of the sample found reading back labels generally interesting (scores of 1-3), somewhat fewer (57%) normally used them regularly (scores of 1-3) when making purchasing decisions.
This reflects both the importance attributed to back labels, but also the diversity of other information available to people when they buy wine (for a review, see Chaney, 1999). Interestingly, back labels seem to be far more popular than shelf signage as a guide to making appropriate purchasing decisions. Indeed, the lack of support for shelf signage, with only 26% of those sampled agreeing (scores 1-3) that it is more useful than back labels, is a particularly interesting finding of this research, given the large amount of effort that is currently devoted by retail outlets to this form of information dissemination.
Likewise, 40% of the sample apparently preferred (scores 1-3) to talk with a salesperson rather than read the back label in order to choose the right wine. Moreover, it is salutary to note that this sample marginally favoured back label information to that contained on front labels (42% opting for scores 5-7, as against 32% for scores 1-3).
When this information is disaggregated by the sample characteristics (Table 1) no clear explanatory variables emerge for the differences in attitudes held by the sample. In particular, it is somewhat surprising to discover that neither gender nor wine knowledge appear to have influenced the respondents' attitudes towards back labelling. Thus, both men and women had almost identical response profiles to the questions, as did those who had, and had not, received prior wine tasting training.
For example, 42% of the women and 48% of the men preferred (scores 1-3) to talk to a salesperson than read the back label, and 34% of those who had received some type of formal wine training and 30% of those who had not, considered that front label information is more useful (scores 1-3) than back label information. The only slight apparent preference was that a marginally higher percentage of the women (61%) than men (51%) responded positively (scores 1-3) in response to the statement that they normally read back labels to help them choose a wine when shopping.
Indeed, the similarities of response (Table 3) between the different categories of respondent (Table 1) suggest that factors other than age, gender, income and wine purchasing habits were determining the responses of these respondents. It may well be that the dominant influence was that all of the people selected were particularly interested in wine, and that the results therefore reflect this interest above all else.
The Accuracy of Matching Taste with Label Descriptions
The overwhelming finding of this research was that respondents had great difficulty in matching the tastes of the wines with the back label descriptions. Thus, 73% of the sample accurately matched only three or fewer wines with their descriptions, and only one person managed accurately to match all six of them. It would therefore appear that the descriptions written on the back labels were not particularly helpful even for a knowledgeable and wine-experienced panel in assisting them in identifying the wines. An interesting observation to note is that the white wines were generally identified more accurately (38-50% accuracy) than were the red wines (9-38%), with the Wynns Coonawarra Estate Chardonnay being the wine most frequently identified correctly. It is, though, difficult to explain why this distinction was evident, and it may in part reflect the respondents' previous knowledge of some of the wines.
This raises an interesting ethical question, which is quite simply whether or not it matters that consumers are unable reliably to match back label descriptions with the tastes of the actual wines. The observation that retailers do not report large numbers of customers returning wines because they do not taste similar to their descriptions suggests that in practice this is not a significant issue. However, it does seem that if generally knowledgeable wine tasters are unable successfully to match the taste of wines with their back label descriptions, then there is an issue of authenticity that requires some consideration. It is well known that different tasters often describe the same wine in different ways, and that wine tasting is a very individual sensory experience (Melcher and Schooler, 1996; Gawel, 1997).
Consequently, what one person chooses to put on a back label may well reflect that person's individual opinion about a wine. Nevertheless, it may well be that what is actually written on back labels is often designed more as a piece of marketing to encourage people to purchase a wine, than it is as a realistic appraisal of a wine's character. If this is indeed the case, then consumers need to be wary of paying heed to such inducements. Moreover, the extent to which consumers actually worry about this issue is a matter which would seem to warrant considerable further research.
When the general lack of agreement between the tastes and descriptions is broken down by the sample characteristics, there is again little clear evidence of significant differences between the accuracy of matching and the sample characteristics. Thus, while 28% of those who claimed to have had some wine tasting training successfully matched four or more of the wines to their description, 30% of those without training were similarly able to do so. Likewise 72% of the men matched three or less wines correctly with their tastes, whereas 73% of the women did so.
In this context, it is particularly interesting to examine the respondents' general attitudes towards the ease of use of the back label descriptions and whether or not they found them helpful in matching the wines. Overall attitudes towards both were only slightly positive (Table 3). Thus, the mean score in response to the statement 'When I did the matching exercise the wine descriptions were . . .' was 3.32, whereas that for the statement 'I found it easy to use the label descriptions to understand the way the wines would taste' was 3.66. However, there is little indication that those who thought that they found the exercise easy, or that the wine descriptions were helpful, were more able to identify the wines than those who said they found it difficult or that the descriptions were unhelpful. Thus, while 67% of those who successfully matched two or less wines thought the descriptions were helpful (scores 1-3), only 56% of those who matched three or more wines thought them helpful. Likewise, 30% of those matching three of more wines successfully with their descriptions thought that the descriptions were not particularly easy to use (scores 5-7), with 33% of those matching two or fewer wines successfully thinking likewise. More worryingly, as many as 45% of those matching two or less wines thought that the exercise was easy (scores 1-3)!
Utility of Wine Descriptions
Participants' responses to the words or phrases that they found most and least helpful in identifying the wines revealed a wide diversity of opinions, and supported the generalisation that it is difficult to draw universal conclusions about consumer reactions to wine labelling.
However, three broad observations are apparent.
First, only 19 (12%) of the 225 words included in the back label analysis, were not highlighted in any way as being either beneficial or unhelpful in assisting participants to identify the wines. Of these, seven were conjunctions ('and', 'with'), and seven words were accounted for by the following two phrases: 'This wine has' and 'length of flavour and a'. The 'neutral' words 'characteristics' and 'features' were also not highlighted, and the only word included in this category which could be seen as describing an actual attribute of the wine was the word 'sweet'. The corollary of these figures is that the vast majority of the words included in the analysis were therefore highlighted in some way by participants.
Second, the average weighted number of total mentions of a word was 24.09, with a range from 0 to 72.72. When this is disaggregated to consider the net weighting per word, the overall balance is just positive at 0.53 suggesting that respondents felt that the words were generally somewhat more helpful than they were unhelpful. The range, from - 41.4 to + 72.72, also reinforces this view that positive views outweighed the negative ones.
Third, individual participants highlighted a wide range of different numbers of words as being of significance to them. The mean number of words per bottle seen as being either helpful or unhelpful was thus 5.22, but the range varied from 0 per bottle to 14.83 per bottle.
Overall, the mean number of positive words (2.67) slightly outweighed that of negative words (mean 2.55), suggesting once again that participants were marginally more positive about the descriptors than they were negative. When these figures are disaggregated by gender, it would appear that women tended to mention slightly more words than men (mean number of words for women = 5.42, for men = 5.06), and likewise the range for women was higher, ranging from 0 to 14.83, as compared with the men's range of 0-9.83.
Any attempt to explore the significance of individual words is fraught with difficulty, in large part because such types of content analysis fragment the contexts within which words may be situated. Nevertheless, detailed examination of the emphasis placed on each word, as well as on clusters of words, provides some illuminating findings. In order to identify the words over which there was widespread agreement, it was decided to use a total weighted value of more than 31.84 (mean + 0.5 standard deviation) as an indication of high frequency of mention, and a net weighted value of > + 18.08 or < -17.45 (+ / - 1 standard deviation around the mean of 0.53) was then used as being indicative of strong positive or negative support. Only 39 of the 225 words fell in this category (Table 4). Once again, this reinforces the conclusion that the data reflect a wide variety of different opinions and attitudes.
The first feature to note from Table 4, though, is that the number of words that fell into this category varied appreciably between the different wine labels. Thus, for two wines (Leconfield Shiraz and Hardys
Insignia) there were no words that fell into this category, for one wine (Orlando St. Hilary) there was a single word ('citrus'), and for four wines (Lindemans Bin 65, Wynns Coonawarra, St Hallett Faith and McWilliams Barwang Shiraz) there were three or four words in this category. In contrast, two wines had a relatively large number of words that satisfied the criteria of being frequently cited and evoking either strong positive or strong negative utility. With Tim Adams Clare Shiraz, all of the words not in parentheses in the phrase 'Fermentation on
(skins) for seven days (preceded) basket pressing' had a total weighted value of greater than 41.40 and a net weighted value of less than -20.7, indicating a strongly negative response to them. For the same wine, the words 'blackberry' and 'violet' were in contrast seen as strongly positive (Table 4). Similarly, for McWilliams Barwang 1995, there was strong positive support for the words 'cherry and violet aromas' (total weighted value of each greater than or equal to 36.36; net weighted value of each Greater than or equal to 36.36), and strong negative support for the words 'well-integrated oak', 'full-flavoured', 'great'
and 'balance' (total weighted value of each greater than or equal to 36.36; net weighted value of each less than or equal to -27.27).
In terms of the actual words that are seen as being overwhelmingly positive or negative, Table 4 provides some support for the view that words describing aromas and tastes are generally viewed as helpful, whereas those describing processes of wine production or maturation are viewed as being unhelpful. Thus words such as 'acidity', 'blackberry', 'butterscotch', 'cherry', 'chocolate', 'melons' and 'violet' were all seen as being helpful, whereas words such as 'balance', 'basket', 'fermentation', 'pressing' or 'tannin' were considered to be unhelpful.
Likewise, descriptions of generalised attributes of wines, such as 'concentration', 'full-flavoured', 'great', 'lingering', or 'well-integrated', were also all seen as being unhelpful. In analysing these observations, it must be recalled that respondents were asked to identify the words or phrases that they found most and least helpful in understanding how the wine tasted. It would thus seem that in reaching their conclusions, these well qualified wine tasters were resorting mainly to immediate descriptions of actual tastes or smells, rather than to information about wine making processes.
In contrast to those words that were seen as being largely either helpful or unhelpful, there were some words that elicited very mixed views (Table 5). Typical of these were the words 'French' and 'oak' used to describe Orlando St. Hilary, which although receiving 17 (weighted
30.26) and 21 (weighted 37.38) mentions, respectively, had a balance of views in favour and against each word. Nine people thus thought that the word 'French' was unhelpful, whereas eight thought it was helpful, given a net weighted value of -1.78. Likewise, 12 thought that the word 'oak'
was helpful, with nine considering it unhelpful (net weighting + 5.34).
This did, though, vary somewhat according to the different wines being considered, and it is difficult to draw further generalisations about the characteristics of the various words indicated in Table 5 that fall into this category.
In seeking to break down these data to see whether those who were more accurate in identifying the wines were focusing on different types of words to those used by their less accurate colleagues, no simple conclusions could be drawn. Likewise, it does not appear that factors such as gender, age or education influenced the kinds of words that people felt were helpful or not. This may well be because, although many respondents felt the exercise was easy, the majority of them actually failed satisfactorily to identify the wines based on their back label descriptions.
Conclusions
Previous research on the back labels of wine bottles has concentrated primarily on classifications of the types of information contained thereon, and the effects that such statements may have on the prices consumers are willing to pay for such wines (Shaw et al. 1999). This preliminary investigation has revealed that the ways in which consumers may use such information are complex, and that on the basis of the data gathered here it is difficult to draw any generalisations concerning the effects of such variables as age, gender, occupation or wine purchasing habits on such behaviour.
One of the most significant issues that this research raises is the ethical question of whether or not the descriptions of wines on back labels should readily be recognised by consumers when they taste the wines. In many instances, these descriptions may indeed be based on the tasting notes of the winemakers, and if consumers do not recognise the attributes mentioned therein, then any differences could be explained by variability in human sensory perception. Tasting notes vary appreciably between people, and the fact that what is written on the back label may not coincide with any one person's opinions would, in this context, not be a matter of major concern. However, it is also possible to conceive of circumstances when what is written on back labels might be used as a ploy to entice unsuspecting consumers to purchase a wine bearing little resemblance to its back label description. The label designer could, for example, choose fashionable words to describe a wine, in the hope that consumers would pick up on these, even if the wine had little similarity to the actual characteristics described. Any such action would seem to be deliberately fraudulent, although extremely difficult to prove, given the variability in taste perception noted above. On balance, and given the observation that few bottles are ever returned to retailers on the grounds that their content differs from their back label descriptions, it would seem that to date consumers have generally been content with the messages that they receive from back labels. Nevertheless, given the low rate of recognition reported in this study, it would also seem that producers should be careful in their use of back label descriptions, and should have clear evidence ready to hand to support any statements that they make in case they become subject to legal action over the authenticity of such claims.
These same admonitions take even greater importance with wines being sold outside the country of origin. We have shown the difficulties Australian tasters have with descriptions of Australian wines. Wines that are sold into foreign markets must take into consideration the use of descriptors for those non-native speakers of the language. Wine label writers must even note that some of the flavours, such as butterscotch or blackberry, may have no local equivalents, especially in Asian countries. Wider perusal of wine labels in different countries indicates that some producers do indeed provide back label information in more than one language, but the translations are frequently of poor quality, and make no attempt to use flavour descriptors familiar to the potential consumers in such countries. A valuable extension of this research would thus be to examine cross-cultural differences in consumers' perceptions of wine label information.
Three other findings are particularly pertinent. First, this study would add support to the view that consumers do indeed utilise back labels as an important part of their purchasing choice strategy. More than half of the respondents thus mentioned that they used them when making purchasing decisions. However, it must be emphasised that these provide only one element of decision making with respect to wine purchasing. As Chaney (1999) has shown for the UK market, there is no one over-riding source of information which all consumers use when buying wine, and most adopt a multistranded information seeking strategy in reaching their decisions. Second, it is evident that the words the respondents generally felt to be most useful in assisting them to match descriptions with tastes were those describing aromas and flavours. This is similar to the findings of Shaw et al., (1999). This would suggest that label designers might concentrate on these features, rather than other descriptors, if they want consumers to identify with the tastes of the wines they are purchasing. Third, this research has indicated that there is very great variability in people's responses to stimuli such as wine labels. Descriptions that some people find helpful, are exactly the opposite for others. This would reinforce the view that those responsible for marketing wines need to adopt a variety of strategies to enhance the visibility of their products.
Above all, though, this research has emphasised the complexity of the decision making process in wine purchasing, and the need for considerable further research to enhance our understanding of these processes. Different segments of wine buyers probably use different purchasing strategies. More knowedgeable wine buyers (as the participants in this research) use more cues and a wider range of resources when making a wine purchase than less knowledgeable consumers (Rasmussen and Lockshin 1999). Back labels are not read as much by low involvement wine buyers. Bottle design and labelling are a crucial element in influencing people's choices of the wines that they purchase, particularly when buying a wine for the first time. Once this initial purchase has been made, then the content of the bottle and its price-quality ratio become much more dominant factors in the decision to purchase again. The important thing, though, is to get people to make that first purchase, and what this preliminary study has emphasised is that in influencing this decision back labels can play an important role.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to all those people who participated in this research, as well as to the referees for their helpful suggestions for revising the manuscript.
Notes
[sup1]. Note throughout that $ indicates Australian $.
[sup2]. Rather than providing the full text of each back label, only the information actually describing the wine was given to the respondents.
Text about the winery or company producing the wine was thus excluded.
[sup3]. In one case, the Hardys Insignia, a Shiraz and Cabernet blend was used.
Table 1. Sample attributes
Legend for chart:
A1=Frequency
A2=less than or equal to 10
A3=$35,000-50,000
A4=$50,001-70,000
A5=$70,001-90,000
A6=$90,001-110,000
A7=< $110,000
A8=Unspecified
A9=Average cost of bottle of wine bought by household for drinking at home B1=less than or equal to $10.00 B2=$10.01-15.00 B3=$15.01-20.00 B4=Average cost of bottle of wine bought by household for a special occasion
Gender
Male Female Unspecified
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
29 51.8 26 46.4 1 1.8
Age (years)
18-24 25-35 36-50 51-65 Unspecified
A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 %
11 19.6 26 46.4 11 19.6 7 12.5 1 1.8
Average number of bottles of wine purchased by household per month
A2 11-20 21-30 > 30 Unspecified
A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 %
20 35.7 20 35.7 11 19.6 2 3.6 3 5.4
Household income
< $35,000 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8
A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 %
6 10.7 12 21.4 10 17.9 4 7.1 9 16.1 12 21.4 3 5.4
A9
B1 B2 B3 > $20.00 Unspecified
A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 %
4 7.1 25 44.6 15 26.8 11 19.6 1 1.8
B4
B1 B2 B3 > $20.00 Unspecified
A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 % A1 %
2 3.6 3 5.4 15 26.8 36 64.3 - -
Source: Sample survey, January-February 1999.
Table 2. Wines used in the sample
Legend for chart:
A1=Wine 1
A2=Adelaide
A3=Lindemans
A4=Bin 65 1998
A5=Description 3
A6=Perth 1
A7=Perth 2
A2=Wynns
A3=Coonawarra
B1=Estate
B2=Chardonnay
B3=1997
B4=Wine 4
B5=Tim Adams
B6=Clare Shiraz
B7=Description 5
B8=St Hailer Old
B9=Block Shiraz
C1=1994
C2=Description 4
C3=Leconfield
C4=Shiraz 1996
C5=Wine 6
C6=McWilliams
C7=Barwang
C8=Shiraz
C9=St Hallett
D1=Faith Shiraz
D2=1996
White (Chardonnay) Red (Shiraz)
A1 Wine 2 Wine 3 B4 Wine 5 C5
A2 A3 Orlando St. Wynns B5 St Hallett C6
A4 Hilary Coonawarra B6 Faith Shiraz C7
A5 Padthaway Estate B7 Description 6 C8
1997 Chardonnay C2
Description 1 1997
Description 2
A6 A3 Orlando St. Wynns B8 McWilliams C9
A4 Hilary Coonawarra B9 Barwang D1
A5 Padthaway Estate C1 Shiraz 1995 D2
1997 Chardonnay C2 Description 6 B7
Description 1 1997
Description 2
A7 A8 Lindemans Orlando St. C3 Hardys C9
A9 Bin 65 1998 Hilary C4 Insignia D1
B1 Description 1 Padthaway C2 Cabernet D2
B2 1997 Shiraz 1996 B7
B3 Description 2 Description 6
A5
Table 3. Attitudes towards the use of back labels
Legend for chart:
A1='When I shop for wine I normally read the back labels to help me choose the right wine . . .'
A2='It's easier to choose the right wine by reading the little signs or comments put on the shelves near the wine than read the label . . .'
A3='I prefer to talk to the salesperson in the shop rather than read the back label in order to choose the right wine . . .'
A4='The information on the front label is much more useful than the information on the back label for choosing the right wine . . .'
A5='I found it easy to use the label descriptions to understand the way the wines would taste . . .'
A1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
All the time Never
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
13 23 13 23 6 11 10 18 4 7 6 11 4 7
'For me, reading wine back labels is . . .'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interesting Boring
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
17 30 18 32 9 16 3 5 1 2 5 9 3 5
A2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
3 5 3 5 9 16 7 13 6 11 15 27 13 23
A3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
9 16 10 18 6 11 7 13 4 7 17 30 3 5
A4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
6 11 4 7 8 14 14 25 7 13 l0 18 6 11
'When I did the matching exercise, the wine descriptions were. . .'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Not at all
helpful helpful
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
6 11 13 23 16 29 4 7 12 21 5 9 0 0
A5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very easy Not very
to use easy to use
F % F % F % F % F % F % F %
3 5 12 21 14 25 9 16 11 20 4 7 3 5
Source:. Sample survey, January-February 1999 F, frequency; %, percentage of sample; 1-7 indicates strength of agreement.
Table 4. Words with a high frequency of mention and a widely agreed sense of positive or negative utility (with a total weighted value of >
31.84 and a net weighted value of > + 18.61 or < - 17.45)
Legend for chart:
A1=Well-integrated
Total Net Total Net
weighted weighted weighted weighted
Words value value Words value value
Acidity 44.50 33.82 Great 36.36 - 36.36
And 45.45 27.27 Lingering 34.50 - 27.60
And 54.54 54.54 Melons 35.60 21.36
Aromas 36.36 36.36 Nutty 33.82 19.58
Balance 36.36 - 36.36 Oak 45.45 - 27.27
Basket 41.40 - 41.40 Oak 34.50 20.7
Blackberry 37.95 31.05 On 48.30 - 20.70
Butterscotch 51.62 48.06 Peach 40.94 19.58
Cherry 40.94 30.26 Pressing 41.40 - 41.40
Cherry 72.72 72.72 Rich 45.45 27.27
Chocolate 72.72 54.54 Seven 51.75 - 31.05
Chocolate 42.72 21.36 Soft 45.45 27.27
Citrus 44.50 37.38 Soft 34.50 - 27.60
Concentration 45.45 - 27.27 Tannins 34.50 - 27.60
Crisp 46.28 35.60 Varietal 32.04 - 17.8
Days 51.75 - 31.05 Velvety 63.63 27.27
Fermentation 51.75 - 24.15 Violet 72.72 54.54
For 44.85 - 24.15 Violet 37.95 24.15
Fruit 32.04 21.36 A1 45.45 - 27.27
Full-flavoured 36.36 - 36.36
Figures in bold indicate where all responses were the same, in other words where total weighted value equalled modulus net weighted value.
Table 5. Words with a high frequency of mention (total weighted value of
> 31.84) but a low level of agreement (net weighted value of < + 9.64 or
> - 8.48)
Total Net
weighted weighted
Words value value
French 30.26 - 1.78
Oak 37.38 5.34
Light 42.72 7.12
Figs 32.04 7.12
Fine 43.75 6.25
Tannin 43.75 6.25
Finish 35.6 - 7.12
Mint 43.75 6.25
Hayours 37.5 0
References
Chaney, I. (1999) The Grapevine for New Zealand Wine: A Multidimensional
Analysis of Information Dissemination, Unpublished PhD thesis, Royal
Holloway, University of London.
Combris, P., Lecocq S. & Visser, M. (1997) Estimation of a hedonic price
equation for Bordeaux wine: does quality matter?, The Economic Journal,
107, 390-402.
Crawford, C.M. (1985) A new positioning typology, Journal of Product
Innovation and Management, 4, 243-253.
Gawel, R. (1997) The use of language by trained and untrained
experienced wine tasters, Journal of Sensory Studies, 12(4), 267-284.
Kidd, I. (1999) The power of packaging, The Australian and New Zealand
Wine Industry Journal of Oenologv, Viticulture, Finance and Marketing,
14(1), 81-83.
Melcher, J.M. & Schooler, J.W. (1996) The misremembrance of wines past:
verbal and perceptual expertise differentially mediate verbal
overshadowing of taste memory, Memory and Language, 35(2), 231-245.
Rasmussen, M. & Lockshin, L. (1999) Wine choice behaviour: preliminary
research on the effects of regional branding, The Australian and New
Zealand Wine Industry Journal of Oenology, Viticulture, Finance and
Marketing (in press).
Shaw, M., Keeghan, P. and Hall, J. (1999) Consumers judge wine by its
label, study shows, The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal
of Oenology, Viticulture, Finance and Marketing, 14(1), 84-89.
Tucker, B. (1998) It's what's on the bottle that counts, The Australian
and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 13(3), 281-283.
Unwin, T. (1999) Hedonic price indexes and the qualities of wines,
Journal of Wine Research, 10(2), 95-104.
~~~~~~~~
By Steve Charters; Larry Lockshin and Tim Unwin
Steve Charters, School of Marketing, Tourism and Leisure, Edith Cowan
University, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia; Larry
Lockshin, School of Marketing, University of South Australia, GPO Box
2471, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia; Tim Unwin, Department of Geography,
Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK.
_____
Copyright of Journal of Wine Research is the property of Carfax
Publishing Company and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder`s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
e-mail articles for individual use.
Source: Journal of Wine Research, Dec99, Vol. 10 Issue 3, p183, 13p
Item: 2791811
_____
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
to be clean.
The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
Systems and Services, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.