International Journal of Wine Business Research

An international comparison of retail consumer wine choice

Steve Goodman
Article information:
To cite this document:
Steve Goodman, (2009),"An international comparison of retail consumer wine choice", International Journal
of Wine Business Research, Vol. 21 Iss 1 pp. 41 - 49
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511060910948026
Downloaded on: 21 February 2016, At: 22:41 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 11 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2119 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Ray Johnson, Johan Bruwer, (2007),"Regional brand image and perceived wine quality: the consumer
perspective", International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. 276-297 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511060710837427
Nelson Barber, Barbara A. Almanza, Janis R. Donovan, (2006),"Motivational factors of gender, income and
age on selecting a bottle of wine", International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 18 Iss 3 pp. 218-232 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/09547540610704774
Fang Liu, Jamie Murphy, (2007),"A qualitative study of Chinese wine consumption and purchasing:
Implications for Australian wines", International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 Iss 2 pp. 98-113
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17511060710758669

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:121184 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

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

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

An international comparison of Comparison of

retail consumer
retail consumer wine choice wine choice
Steve Goodman
The University of Adelaide Business School, Adelaide, Australia
Abstract
41
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the results from a 12 country study mapping the
influencers on the choice of wine for purchase in the retail store environment. It demonstrates the
usefulness of the best-worst choice method in multi-country research to map similarities and
differences across market borders.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a choice set of 13 attributes (influencers) that was
developed from the literature and pilot studies, the B-W choice method was used to conduct choice
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

experiments related to what influenced consumer choice for the last bottle of wine they purchased in
a retail store (in the context of ‘‘to have for dinner with friends’’).
Findings – The key influencers of previous trial and recommendation were highly important across
most markets, with the exceptions in some markets of influencers such as ‘‘brand’’ (China and Brazil),
‘‘food matching’’ (France and Italy), ‘‘origin’’ (France) and ‘‘grape variety’’ (Austria).
Research limitations/implications – The research analysis needs to be extended to conduct
market segmentation comparisons of markets with whole of sample similar results to ascertain to
what extent the market sub-segments are similar or different in order to examine if there are any
truly ‘‘global’’ market segments or how individual segments differ across borders, cultures, New
World:Old World divide and other regional influence factors.
Originality/value – This paper presents choice influencer results for a twelve country study. It
demonstrates the ability of the method to be used in multi-country research and its usefulness in
identifying similarities and differences in consumer choice across different cultures and markets.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Wines
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Cross-national research is becoming imperative in this age of globalisation. Firms have
to understand the similarities and differences between countries in order to devise
efficient brand marketing strategies. However, one of the major issues is trying to
accurately measure similarities and differences between countries. Typical market
research uses rating scales, which have problems with bias both within and across
different cultures. Often when investigating what influences product choice, these
biases result in so much variability, that many attributes are deemed important. This
project utilises the best-worst method to elicit the attributes wine consumers find
important and unimportant when buying wine in a retail store. The same survey was
used in 12 wine consuming countries as both a test of the method and to help wine
marketers understand the similarities and differences between these countries’ wine
consumers. This project was introduced using two country data (Goodman et al., 2008;
2006). In order to present the data from 12 countries, within the limitations of this
paper, only a brief discussion of the method follows. For literature reviews and more

This research was conducted with the financial support of the Grape and Wine Research and
Development Corporation (Australia) along with the assistance in various markets of: Larry International Journal of Wine
Business Research
Lockshin (Australia), Eli Cohen (Israel), Jamie Fensterseifer (Brazil), Huiqin Mae (China), Vol. 21 No. 1, 2009
Francoise d’Hauteville (France), Lucie Sirieix (France), Ulrich Orth (Germany), Leonardo Casini pp. 41-49
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
(Italy), Armando Corsi (Italy), Sara Jaeger (New Zealand), Peter Danaher (New Zealand), Rod 1751-1062
Brodie (New Zealand), Janeen Olsen (USA), Liz Thach (USA) and Jean-Phillipe Perrouty (UK). DOI 10.1108/17511060910948026
 IJWBR discussion of method see Cohen (2009) and Goodman et al. (2005; 2006; 2008). The
orientation of this paper is to present the findings, for the first time, of all 12 markets
21,1 involved in what is a truly multi-country study, in which the contribution and
assistance of a number of academics is acknowledged (see note of acknowledgement).
Much of the literature on attribute importance in wine marketing is based on
surveys, where consumers respond to questions on the importance of various intrinsic
and extrinsic attributes. However, unless one alternative or attribute clearly dominates,
42 it is difficult to identify the most important attribute or most preferred product.
Treating the category ratings as equal interval scales may generate different
conclusions than if they are treated as ordinal scales (e.g. relying upon median or ‘‘top
box’’ scores). Another issue is that each attribute is frequently measured with a single
item rating scale newly developed just for the survey, so the reliability and validity of
the scale is unknown. Attributes are usually not measured relative to other attributes
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

or even products which must compete for the same (necessarily limited) consumer
resources. Even if they are, respondents often are not allowed to indicate that they like
many (if not all!) of them. Although some individuals truly might like nearly every
attribute or combination, such responses don’t provide adequate discrimination to help
managers identify real priorities (Finn and Louviere, 1990). For more discussion see
Cohen (2009).
Wine provides a complex set of products for the marketer to analyse. Hall and
Lockshin (2000) found research on the following attributes used in wine buying
behavior, each with multiple articles: taste, type, alcohol content, age (of wine), color,
price, brand, label/package, practical (usability for purpose) and region. Lockshin and
Hall (2003) recently reviewed over 75 articles concerning consumer behavior for wine.
They noted that many of the studies used simple surveys with rating scales to measure
consumer preference for various wine attributes. Although there was much conflicting
order in the rankings of the attributes for importance, previously having tasted the
wine, the price, the origin, the grape variety, and the brand name of the wine were all
mentioned frequently. The authors concluded that the best means to advance
understanding of which attributes and combinations led consumers to purchase a
particular wine was to use either choice-based experiments or analysis of actual
consumer purchases. They also discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both
approaches.

Method
This research uses the best-worst scaling (also known as max-diffs), details of the
method are available in Cohen and Markowitz (2002), Finn and Louviere (1992) and
Marley and Louviere (2005). In addition to the normal demographic data, involvement
levels and consumption frequency, a section of the survey uses a series of 13 tables.
Each table consists of 4 ‘‘influence attributes’’,each attribute appears an equal number
of times across the survey and equally against each other attribute in the total set. This
method allows better comparisons among countries and segments than other rating or
ranking approaches.
Respondents are then asked the question related to the situation: ‘‘Remember the
last time you bought a bottle of wine in a shop to have for dinner with friends’’ and
instructed to, in each table, indicate the one that most (best) and the one that least
(worst) influenced their decision. The specific situation for retail purchase was selected
as a ‘‘standard’’ to avoid situations where people’s criteria might vary due to purchases
for gifts, cellaring, or special occasions. This paper reports only the results for retail
 stores. Data were collected using different techniques depending on our collaborators Comparison of
in each country; some data were collected online, others as mall intercepts, in-store
surveys or various combinations.
retail consumer
The total best-worst (b–w) for each attribute is the total number of times each wine choice
attribute is mentioned as ‘‘best’’ minus the number of times it is mentioned as ‘‘worst’’.
The data then transformed to standard B–W score by dividing the total B–W by the
number of subjects in the survey and the frequency of times the attribute appears in the
design (i.e. 4) and multiply the result by 100 (for the convenience of presentation). There
43
is much more statistical rigour to the process, compared to the standard Likert-type
scale. For a detailed discussion of the method and its application in the wine sector, see
Cohen (2009) and Goodman et al. (2005; 2006; 2008), which demonstrates a range of
results that can be used to discriminate amongst various segments and used to assist
in focusing the marketing effort. The results are referred to as a ‘‘level of importance’’.
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

Each attribute has a coefficient (number), which is a ratio-level representation of its

value to the consumer. The nature of the method and resulting analysis means the
numerical score is not just a rank order, but shows the degree of preference and can be
compared between countries and segments to indicate similarities and differences.
It is important to note, the negative scores are not negative influences, but just the
way the scale is produced; the larger the negative, the less important the feature, the
higher the score the more of an influence it is in the decision. Because the scores
presented in Table I are standardized, they can be directly compared. In some countries,
one item stands above the rest in importance and in others several items have similar
scores, but are lower than the highest other countries. This indicates shared
importance of a few items in some countries, but very clearly a single important item in
others.
This paper is focused on comparative results; there is much more detail in earlier
published pieces on this method in the wine marketing area (see for example Goodman
et al., 2005; 2006; 2008). As a twelve country study with much data to present and
discuss, the emphasis here is on the presentation of this data at country level, future
papers will present segmentation comparisons within similar markets.

Retail store choice results – market by market

Table I shows the choice influence attributes of standardized B–W results for the 12
countries. The attributes are ranked in order of the Australian results to enable, to
some extent, a simpler quick comparison across markets. The table shows, to some
extent, what practitioners and researchers have long suspected – that tasting the wine
previously and someone recommending are key – followed by grape variety and origin
of the wine (country or region). Due to the nature of the B–W scale, the differences in
magnitude of each column are interval scale. Those which feature as negative are in
fact viewed as ‘‘least’’ to the extent they are not important influence attributes. Whilst
there is no startling revelation in the sample as a whole, it does appear that ‘‘in the
store, point of purchase, nice labels’’ information might in fact be too late to influence
decisions – these decisions are likely to be influenced by prior exposure, staff/friend
suggestions or production decisions such as region, varietal and quality (medals/
awards) although general branding and publicity (read about it) do contribute to
influencing choice.
The two top influencers on choice in an Austrian retail setting show the importance
of getting the variety right and making sure people have tasted it. This infers that the
Austrian market may be served through using and labelling the right variety (which
 Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

44
21,1

Table I.
IJWBR

country (order by
Australian results)
of wine choice factors
for retail stores in each
Standardized BW rating
Attribute Australia Austria Brazil China France Germany Israel Italy NZ Taiwan UK USA

Tasted the wine previously 65 34 40 34 36 50 76 47 65 56 56 54

Someone recommended it 31 1 20 22 13 38 18 9 23 36 22 33
Grape variety 23 36 14 7 18 14 17 10 38 1 3 18
Origin of the wine 15 25 19 31 40 24 21 19 19 19 12 9
Brand name 15 7 60 37 6 21 18 0 25 4 2 9
Medal/award 12 7 37 4 12 14 4 5 27 13 11 3
I read about it 0 17 11 11 0 4 17 16 9 19 3 1
Matching food 7 24 26 25 44 33 23 42 19 18 5 7
Information on back label 7 5 20 1 23 7 17 11 24 16 11 18
Information on the shelf 22 18 19 16 43 2 32 30 27 22 7 11
An attractive front label 26 6 44 22 40 10 30 37 25 24 19 7
Promotional display in-store 35 50 24 11 19 45 18 43 22 19 10 25
Alcohol level below 13% 66 31 23 36 44 68 46 39 71 49 44 74
n¼ 305 182 293 197 154 160 184 314 364 317 303 196
 may change over time), and therefore the importance of research into consumer Comparison of
preferences for variety. Varietal is more important as an influencer than in Australia, as
is the matching with food – a possible avenue for wine marketers to communicate the
retail consumer
food matching of Australian wines to local food choices and styles. The fact that the wine choice
first two items in Austria are quite close means they have about the same importance.
When looking at emerging markets like Brazil, there are similarities to Australian
influencers, but also some distinct differences, notably in the area of brand influence.
This is similar to the China results (discussed below) and shows the opportunity for
45
classical brand development strategies for Australian wines. Matching food is much
more of an influence than in Australia and Brazilian cuisine throws some opportunities
for wines, particularly shorter-term return whites. Grape variety was less important
than Australia, and much less than other markets – again a signal for an opportunity
to develop blended wines, to match food and build a brand around. Although ‘‘tasted
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

the wine previously’’ is second most important, it is less so than Australia and might
signal a willingness to discover something new with a known brand. Like the Brazilian
market, China shows the importance of the old fashioned need to build the brand
(Table I). Unlike some country data (Australia and UK for example), there is much less
differentiation amongst the influencers, with the first three not having much distance
between them. Overall, these have a much smaller value of B–W than the top one in
Australia or the UK, showing there is less overall effect of these than the top one in the
other countries. Two of the top three are shared with UK and Australia, while
information on the back label was only a marginal influence, as was the presence of a
medal/award. Again, grape variety was less important as was attractive front label.
The Chinese do not typically drink wine with food, except in Western restaurants, so
matching food has little importance. However, brand and origin are quite important
there. The lower overall scores in China may indicate an undeveloped wine market,
where buyers do not have much experience.
France, arguably the most ‘‘traditional’’ of markets, shows just how traditional with
‘‘matching food’’ the most important influencer, significantly different from Australian
(and most other country) retail influencers. Remember, this is important in a retail
setting. This is also true of the origin of the wine, which is almost as important.
Interestingly, whilst this would suggest a conservative, unexperiential approach, in
fact these two influencers are possibly guiding ‘‘rules’’ for choice, whilst ‘‘having had
the wine before’’ is much less of an influence than in Australia. It is still important, but
much less so. When you think of the French appellation system (for those who get to
know it) its rigidity is used by consumers to enable their choices. French consumers are
possibly more confident than Australians as they are less likely to be influenced by
others.
The German data show more differentiation amongst the attributes than the
Chinese. Whilst previous taste is the most important, there is little difference between
the influence of someone recommending it and the need to match food. The Germans
score more highly than other countries on the influence of other people. There is a gap
of difference down to origin and then again to grape variety, with back label
information a slight influence. ‘‘Marketing’’ efforts such as brand, attractive front
labels, promotional displays in-store, shelf information all rate as less important
influences.
In a quite different wine market such as Israel, one would intuitively expect quite
different results. The results show this, to some extent, to be true. In a market that is
developing more wine consumers, we see the importance of relying on previous
 IJWBR experience, with previous tasting being the most important influencer. It is more
important than the second influencer of matching food and much more than that of
21,1 someone’s recommendation, which is roughly equal to brand name, grape variety and
reading about the wine. The Israelis feel strongly about previous experience, since it
has such a high overall score. It will be interesting to compare at a later date to see how
these influencers develop in their differentiation over time as the wine market develops.
Over time, will the influence of previous tasting become less pronounced? Which ones
46 will become more pronounced, which ones less important? Following this development
and identifying patterns may assist in adapting, meeting and shaping the marketplace
in such developing marketplaces as Brazil, China, and Israel. Again, most ‘‘marketing
effort’’ is seen to have little influence with the exception of ‘‘reading about it’’ and
‘‘brand name’’.
Another ‘‘classic’’ wine market, Italy highlights how much more important
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

matching food is in markets such as this than in newer markets like Australia and the
USA. Although in contrast to France, the most important influencer is previous trial.
Are the Italians more set in their ways than the French? Is there more reliance on self-
knowledge than appellation systems? Grape variety is of less importance than in
Australia, whilst reading about the wine more so. France and Italy demonstrate the
need to understand local markets and position wine’s individual offerings with local
cuisine.
In the two markets closer to Australia (geographically), Taiwan and New Zealand
we see more similarities. The New Zealand data shows us the common links between
consumers of both markets. But, for each similarity there are differences, emphasising
the importance of getting to know the consumers in each market. Grape variety, for
example, in New Zealand is much stronger an influence than in Australia, as are the
evidence of medals/awards and to a lesser extent brand names. Consumers are less
influenced than in Australia by someone’s recommendation – a trait common with old
Europe. Taiwan has ‘‘tasted the wine previously’’ and ‘‘someone’s recommendation’’ as
the biggest influencers. Quite distinct from other markets though, is the third biggest
influence of ‘‘having read about the wine’’, an equal influence with the ‘‘origin of the
wine’’. This suggests that newer origins, like Australia, might grow through having
press coverage of a brand or of medal and awards given. The least influencers for the
Taiwan data are somewhat similar to the Australian results.
In the UK, having tasted the wine previously is the most influential, more than twice
that of any other attribute, whilst someone’s recommendation is nearly twice as
important as the origin of the wine or the information on the back label, giving some
credit to those Australian brands that ‘‘sell the sunshine and Aussie lifestyle’’ on the
back labels. Alternatively of course is that if this is not the information the consumer is
looking for on the back of the bottle then Australia risks becoming ‘‘tacky, cliched’’
wines. This in itself is a vital call for research as to what information UK consumers
are looking for on the back label. Brand name has a small influence and is not much
different from reading about the wine, the grape variety, or matching food. Interesting
is the number of attributes that scored ‘‘least’’ including attractive labels, promotional
displays in-store and grape variety. The alcohol content is by far the least important.
Another Anglo-market, the USA, shows the similarities to Australia might be one of
the success factors behind the marketing of Australian wines there – Australian wine
marketers understand them because they are quite like themselves (distribution
systems aside). The top five influencers are in the same rank order as Australia, with
quite similar standardised scores, even to the point of origin and brand being ranked
 with identical standardised scores. There are still some opportunities that this Comparison of
approach can identify even in such similar markets. For example in the USA, matching retail consumer
food is more of an influence, along with attractive front label than in Australia, whilst
medals/awards are less so. wine choice

Retail market comparisons

Figure 1 compares the results of each country, ranked in order of the Australian data. 47
Presenting the data from B–W results like this assists in rapid identification of
‘‘signals’’ for closer investigation. Whilst this is only at a sample level and
segmentation using variables such as gender, income, and involvement needs to be
carried out, it begins to show us similarities and differences in markets. The chart can
show us areas that standardised marketing approaches might be most useful and areas
where adaptation is needed. In most markets, having tried the wine previously is the
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

most important. China and Brazil differ here, suggesting that these may be markets,
with possibly others like it, where various generic and private sub-brands can form a
beachhead to make way for later successful growth, although there is still an ‘‘origin’’
effect that needs to be reinforced. France is more influenced by food matching – and
possibly this reflects the reliance, or use, of the appellation system as a quality and
style guide. The influence of someone recommending a wine is much more pronounced
in Germany, Taiwan and the USA than the UK, Italy, China and Israel. The grape
variety shows as a strong influencer in Austria and New Zealand, is a least influence in
China and the UK, but is more of ‘‘moderate’’ influencer in other markets. The origin of
the wine was less important in Israel, but much important in Germany and China than
the UK and Australia.
Brand name is a ‘‘least’’ influence in Germany and Austria, whereas in China and
Brazil it is the number one influencer of choice. Medals and awards are ‘‘best’’
influencers in Australia and China but are ‘‘least’’ influencers in Germany, UK and
Israel – going into these markets with ‘‘bling’’ might not work, in fact it might be assist
in achieving the opposite effect. Food matching is important in France, Italy, Brazil,
Austria, Israel and Germany but not so in the other markets. This offers the market

Figure 1.
Choice influencers market
comparisons – retail store
 IJWBR scope to position product or brands as ‘‘food pairs’’ – but it might have little effect in
other markets where choosing wine is not a food matching issue, something that goes
21,1 against the long worn out ‘‘white with fish, red with meat’’ line. Perhaps in some
markets consumers are enjoying the wine they want regardless of the old school rules?
Research is needed in markets like Germany and the UK as to what sort of information
consumers are looking for on back labels to better assist marketing meet demand as in
both these markets this is a positive influence.
48
Conclusions and further research
This research offers much to this point in terms of understanding key differences
between countries. Further analysis, using approaches such as regression and factor
analysis, may offer a rigorous approach to determine similarities and differences,
whilst comparing countries might enable the identification of similar ‘‘cultural
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

markets’’ (Old World: New World; Developed: Developing; Anglo: Old Europe, etc.). In
addition, and in conjunction to this further analysis, the data set offers the opportunity
to delve much further and conduct segmentation analysis to identify if and where
different segments of the market exist in terms of decision influencers for wine. This
offers much to the academic as well as to the practitioner. Segmentation, using just the
standardised B–W scores, or factor analysis or regression will enable the ‘‘mapping’’ of
the influencers of the segments of the market place – testing whether nationality or
other grouping variables are more important in understanding consumer choice for
wines (Lockshin et al., 2001)
Further research is needed to examine the deeper needs identified in this study, for
example, in the UK where back labels are an influencer, what sort of information is
actually sought, what weighting of importance is attached to various origins of the
wine, what cues are there in various brand names, in fact what is a brand name in the
consumer’s mind – high quality tag or high level of awareness? In fact, one of the major
contributions of this research may well prove to be the ‘‘signals’’ it provides for further
research – the results highlight differences that further research, possibly using a
variety of methods, qualitative and/or quantitative research based on signals given
through rigorous choice experimental research.

References
Cohen, E. (in press), ‘‘Applying best-worst scaling to wine marketing’’, International Journal of
Wine Business Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 8-23
Cohen, S.H. and Markowitz, P. (2002), ‘‘Renewing market segmentation: some new tools to correct
old problems’’, ESOMAR, September.
Finn, A. and Louviere, J.J. (1992), ‘‘Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public
concerns: the case of food safety’’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 12-25.
Goodman, S., Lockshin, L. and Cohen, E. (2005), ‘‘Best-worst scaling: a simple method to
determine drinks and wine style preference’’, paper presented at the 2nd International
Wine Marketing Symposium Proceedings (CD-ROM), Sonoma, CA, July.
Goodman, S., Lockshin, L. and Cohen, E. (2006), ‘‘Using the best-worst method to examine market
segments and identify different influences of consumer choice’’, paper presented at the 3rd
International Wine Marketing Symposium Proceedings (CD-ROM), Montpellier, July.
Goodman, S., Lockshin, L and Cohen, E (2008), ‘‘Examining market segments and influencers of
choice for wine using the Best-Worst choice method’’, Revue Internationale des Sciences
Sociales (Marketing and Communication, Market Management), Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 94-112.
 Hall, J. and Lockshin, L. (2000), ‘‘Using means-end chains for analysing occasions – not buyers’’, Comparison of
Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
Lockshin, L., Quester, P. and Spawton, T. (2001), ‘‘Segmentation by involvement or nationality for
retail consumer
global retailing: a cross national comparative study of wine shopping behaviors’’, Journal wine choice
of Wine Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 223-36.
Marley, A.A.J. and Louviere, J.J. (2005), ‘‘Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst
choices’’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 464-80.
49
Further reading
Jamieson, L.F. and Bass, F.M. (1989), ‘‘Adjusting stated intention measures to predict trial
purchase of new products: a comparison of models and methods’’, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 26, pp. 336-45.
Morrison, D.G. (1979), ‘‘Purchase intentions and purchase behavior’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

Spring, pp. 65-74.

About the author

Steve Goodman is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Adelaide Business School.
His research examines decisions and choices amongst wine businesses and consumers. He is
currently using the Best-Worse method to map decision influencers at exchange points along the
wine industry supply chain. He has extensive experience prior to academia, in advertising sales
and marketing and also operating his own wine marketing consultancy for six years. Steve
Goodman can be contacted at: steve.goodman@adelaide.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Larry Lockshin, Armando Maria Corsi, Justin Cohen, Richard Lee, Patricia Williamson. 2016. West
versus East: Measuring the development of Chinese wine preferences. Food Quality and Preference .
[CrossRef]
2. Ye Yang, Angela Paladino. 2015. The case of wine: understanding Chinese gift-giving behavior. Marketing
Letters 26, 335-361. [CrossRef]
3. Roberta Capitello, Lara Agnoli, Diego Begalli. 2015. Chinese import demand for wine: evidence from
econometric estimations. Journal of Wine Research 1-21. [CrossRef]
4. Steve Goodman, Hervé Remaud. 2015. Store choice: How understanding consumer choice of ‘where’ to
shop may assist the small retailer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23, 118-124. [CrossRef]
5. Martin Hirche, Johan Bruwer. 2014. Buying a product for an anticipated consumption situation.
International Journal of Wine Business Research 26:4, 295-318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

6. Luca Cacchiarelli, Anna Carbone, Tiziana Laureti, Alessandro Sorrentino. 2014. The value of quality
clues in the wine market: evidences from Lazio, Italy. Journal of Wine Research 1-17. [CrossRef]
7. Bibliography 211-233. [CrossRef]
8. Tiziana De-Magistris, Azucena Gracia, Luis-Miguel Albisu. 2014. Wine consumers’ preferences in Spain:
an analysis using the best-worst scaling approach. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 12, 529.
[CrossRef]
9. Hong Bo Liu, Breda McCarthy, Tingzhen Chen, Shu Guo, Xuguang Song. 2014. The Chinese wine
market: a market segmentation study. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 26:3, 450-471.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Polymeros Chrysochou. 2014. Drink to get drunk or stay healthy? Exploring consumers’ perceptions,
motives and preferences for light beer. Food Quality and Preference 31, 156-163. [CrossRef]
11. Guy E. Hawkins, A.A.J. Marley, Andrew Heathcote, Terry N. Flynn, Jordan J. Louviere, Scott D. Brown.
2013. Integrating Cognitive Process and Descriptive Models of Attitudes and Preferences. Cognitive Science
n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
12. Marcella Corduas, Luciano Cinquanta, Corrado Ievoli. 2013. The importance of wine attributes for
purchase decisions: A study of Italian consumers’ perception. Food Quality and Preference 28, 407-418.
[CrossRef]
13. Jasmine B. MacDonald, Anthony J. Saliba, Johan Bruwer. 2013. Wine choice and drivers of consumption
explored in relation to generational cohorts and methodology. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
20, 349-357. [CrossRef]
14. Simone Mueller Loose, Larry Lockshin. 2013. Testing the robustness of best worst scaling for cross-
national segmentation with different numbers of choice sets. Food Quality and Preference 27, 230-242.
[CrossRef]
15. Larry Lockshin, Armando Maria Corsi. 2012. Consumer behaviour for wine 2.0: A review since 2003 and
future directions. Wine Economics and Policy 1, 2-23. [CrossRef]
16. Simone Mueller Loose, Gergely Szolnoki. 2012. Market price differentials for food packaging
characteristics. Food Quality and Preference 25, 171-182. [CrossRef]
17. Luca Panzone, Richard Tiffin. 2012. The Impact of Price Promotions on Producer Strategies in Markets
With Large Product Heterogeneity. Agribusiness 28:10.1002/agr.2012.28.issue-4, 421-439. [CrossRef]
 18. Polymeros Chrysochou, Armando Maria Corsi, Athanasios Krystallis. 2012. What drives Greek consumer
preferences for cask wine?. British Food Journal 114:8, 1072-1084. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. Polymeros Chrysochou, Athanasios Krystallis, Ana Mocanu, Rachel Leigh Lewis. 2012. Generation Y
preferences for wine. British Food Journal 114:4, 516-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Ellena S. King, Trent E. Johnson, Susan E.P. Bastian, Patricia Osidacz, I. Leigh Francis. 2012. Consumer
liking of white wines: segmentation using self‐reported wine liking and wine knowledge. International
Journal of Wine Business Research 24:1, 33-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Angelo A. Camillo. 2012. A strategic investigation of the determinants of wine consumption in China.
International Journal of Wine Business Research 24:1, 68-92. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. A.A.J. Marley, D. Pihlens. 2012. Models of best–worst choice and ranking among multiattribute options
(profiles). Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56, 24-34. [CrossRef]
23. Rami Paasovaara, Harri T. Luomala, Terhi Pohjanheimo, Mari Sandell. 2012. Understanding consumers'
brand-induced food taste perception: A comparison of ‘brand familiarity’ - and ‘consumer value - brand
Downloaded by University of Pittsburgh At 22:41 21 February 2016 (PT)

symbolism (in)congruity’ - accounts. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11, 11-20. [CrossRef]

24. David Ackerman, Christina Chung. 2012. ‘We’ or ‘Me’ consumer goods: a cross-national look at self-
construal and gender in product choice. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 22, 70-82.
[CrossRef]
25. Tiziana de Magistris, Etiénne Groot, Azucena Gracia, Luis Miguel Albisu. 2011. Do Millennial
generation's wine preferences of the “New World” differ from the “Old World”?. International Journal of
Wine Business Research 23:2, 145-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Simone Mueller, Larry Lockshin, Jordan J. Louviere. 2010. What you see may not be what you get: Asking
consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Letters 21, 335-350. [CrossRef]
27. Anthony J. Saliba, Carmen C. Moran. 2010. The influence of perceived healthiness on wine consumption
patterns. Food Quality and Preference 21, 692-696. [CrossRef]
28. Terry N Flynn. 2010. Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types
of best–worst scaling. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 10, 259-267. [CrossRef]
29. A.V. Cardello, S.R. JaegerHedonic measurement for product development: new methods for direct and
indirect scaling 135-174. [CrossRef]
30. Ying Yu, Huihui Sun, Steve Goodman, Shangwu Chen, Huiqin Ma. 2009. Chinese choices: a survey of
wine consumers in Beijing. International Journal of Wine Business Research 21:2, 155-168. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
31. Eli Cohen. 2009. Applying best‐worst scaling to wine marketing. International Journal of Wine Business
Research 21:1, 8-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Simone Mueller, Cam Rungie. 2009. Is there more information in best‐worst choice data?. International
Journal of Wine Business Research 21:1, 24-40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]