See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272212905

Wine Tourism Experience Effects of the Tasting Room on

Consumer Brand Loyalty

Article  in  Tourism Analysis · October 2013

DOI: 10.3727/108354213X13736372325957

CITATIONS READS

49 1,519

4 authors, including:

Johan Bruwer Anthony Saliba

University of South Australia Charles Sturt University
143 PUBLICATIONS   5,433 CITATIONS    105 PUBLICATIONS   1,593 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Frikkie Herbst
Milpark Business School
45 PUBLICATIONS   349 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Book chapter View project

Word of Mouth marketing to South African emerging middle class women View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan Bruwer on 17 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tourism Analysis, Vol. 18, pp. 399–414 1083-5423/13 $60.00 + .00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/108354213X13736372325957
Copyright © 2013 Cognizant Comm. Corp. E-ISSN 1943-3999
www.cognizantcommunication.com

WINE TOURISM EXPERIENCE EFFECTS OF THE TASTING

ROOM ON CONSUMER BRAND LOYALTY

JOHAN BRUWER,* MICHAEL COODE,† ANTHONY SALIBA,‡ AND FRIKKIE HERBST§

*School of Marketing, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia

†School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
‡School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, Australia
§Graduate School of Business, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

This study’s overall purpose was to contribute to the wine tourism knowledge base regarding the
impact of the winery tasting room experience on consumer wine brand loyalty. A total of 108 sur-
veys were conducted at wineries in the Barossa Wine Region in South Australia in an exploratory
study. The study’s main contribution is the development of three scales to operationalize the research,
namely, Wine Brand Loyalty, Winery Tasting Room Initial Perception, and Winery Tasting Room
Actual Experience Scales, and to determine what influence initial perceptions combined with the
actual tasting room experiences have on brand attitudes and eventually on brand loyalty. The brand
loyalty scale returned a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.802. It was confirmed that wine quality has a sig-
nificant impact on brand attitudes. A higher level of perceived wine value increased brand attitudes,
whereas positive brand attitudes increase the likelihood of future purchase intentions. The overall
tasting room experience is significantly correlated to brand attitudes. There is a strong correlation
between the winery tasting room experience and brand loyalty, proving that consumers who have an
enjoyable and memorable experience are more likely to buy the wine again and/or promote the wine
brand to others.

Key words: Brand loyalty; Tasting room; Wine tourist; Consumer behavior; Tourism experience;
Wine

Introduction buying decision is regarded as a complex one with

The structural nature of the wine market means
that it is saturated by a proliferation of literally
hundreds of thousands of wine brands and hence
presents a difficult environment in which to build
strong brand loyalties. On top of that, the wine-
a high degree of associated perceived risk (Bruwer,
Lang, Chaumont, & Li, 2012; Bruwer & Rawbone-
Viljoen, 2013; Johnson & Bruwer, 2004; Lacey,
Bruwer, & Li, 2009). The wine industry also has
to deal with ongoing challenges such as structural
oversupply, retail consolidation, and the vagaries

Address correspondence to Professor Johan Bruwer, School of Marketing, University of South Australia, City West Campus, P.O. Box
364, Highgate, SA 5063, Australia. Tel: +61 8 8339 7903; Fax: +61 8 8339 7903; E-mail: johan.bruwer@unisa.edu.au

399
400 bruwer ET AL.
of exchange rate fluctuations, yet surprisingly little
research has been conducted on consumer wine
brand loyalty, the implications brand loyalty has for
the winery, and to determine if a positive winery
tasting room visitor experience can improve loyalty
among consumers. Because of the excessively large
number of wine brands competing in retail stores
for consumers’ dollars, the nexus of this study is
that there is no better opportunity to create a loyal
customer than when wine consumers visit a win-
ery’s tasting room, in other words, its brand home.
It is generally accepted that the most important
destination for the wine tourist when visiting a wine
region is the tasting room, and by offering a visitor
experience that impacts on memories, when the
time comes for subsequent visits, this should result
in recall of the previous good experiences (Alant &
Bruwer, 2010; Bruwer & Lesschaeve, 2012a). Stud-
ies by Bruwer and Lesschaeve (2012a) and Bruwer
and Alant (2009) identified that the winescape,
consisting of aesthetically pleasing environments,
of both a physical and a natural nature, provides the
wine tourist with a largely hedonic experience. The
tasting room is where the brand’s appeal should
logically be at its peak owing to the fact that it is
the only product being showcased there as well as
having all the best service elements present associ-
ated with that brand (Bruwer, 2004; Gill, Byslma,
& Ouschan, 2007). Few wineries nevertheless
capitalize on the potential positive impact a tasting
room can have on brand associations and aware-
ness (Bruwer, 2002, 2003, 2004). A tasting room
also provides a winery and its brand with an oppor-
tunity to develop a long-term relationship that leads
to customers actively seeking out a winery’s prod-
uct and/or lead to positive word-of-mouth (WOM)
referral (Bruwer & Lesschaeve, 2012b; Charters &
O’Neill, 2001).
The first visit to the winery’s tasting room is
therefore just the beginning of what can become an
ongoing relationship with the brand. Goodwin and
Ball (1999) concluded that by building a deeper
commitment to the execution of better relationship
marketing through events or things that may inter-
est particular groups of customers, a loyal customer
base can be created. Although wineries have identi-
fied that there needs to be an emotional connection
with the consumer, many fail to optimize it because
they focus on traditional marketing methods owing
to the lack of consumer understanding and negate
the importance of a memorable and positive win-
ery experience (Bruwer, 2013; Nowak & Newton,
2006).
Previous research has demonstrated how the
offering of a tasting room experience can poten-
tially generate a loyal consumer (Fountain, Fish, &
Charters, 2008; Nowak & Newton, 2006; O’Neil
& Charters, 2000). However, there appears to be a
gap in the research base on how the perceptions and
overall winery experience impacts on consumer
brand loyalty. The majority of research conducted
on brand loyalty has analyzed consumer behav-
ior from the sole perspective of the tasting room
experience. What has not been established to date
is what influence initial perceptions combined with
the actual tasting room experiences have on brand
attitudes and eventually on brand loyalty. Our study
examines the visitor’s winery tasting room expe-
rience and value perception combined with brand
attitudes to determine if there is a relationship with
brand loyalty. It focuses on the overall brand expe-
rience, from the very first perceptions of visitors
upon arriving, through to their experience in the
tasting room and the impact on brand loyalty.
Literature Review
Wine tourism and wine marketing researchers
have explored a number of issues with regard to
successfully establishing ongoing relationships
and brand loyalties by examining the influence of
attending a winery tasting room and the service
they receive. Bruwer and Alant (2009) suggested
that engaging people who are actively involved in
wine tourism by visiting a tasting room would seem
a logical step in better acquainting consumers with
the brand and product. It has also been established
that wineries need to more actively encourage
brand loyalty to their products and brand (Bruwer
& Nam, 2010). A winery experience is consid-
ered to typically occur at the tasting room; how-
ever, in this article a model is designed to address
the issue that the experience starts from the initial
perception when visitors arrive at the winery and
finishes when they leave. One of the most impor-
tant aspects of the experience is the service process
and the offerings that a winery make available to
visitors (O’Neill, Palmer, & Charters, 2002). In
 effects of wine tasting room on brand loyalty 401
view of this, a winery should choose to establish
visitor facilities that assist in developing ongoing
consumer relationships by offering services and
products that allow them to establish an emotional
connection with the brand (Fountain et al., 2008).
It can be argued that the first impressions are the
ideal opportunity to create awareness and establish
a level of perceived quality and thereafter a positive
attitude to the brand.
Brand Loyalty Concept
There have been a number of significant articles
regarding brand loyalty, most of which have not
reached consensus on a definition of brand loy-
alty. Hence, a large number of these articles tend
to focus on highly specific antecedents of brand
loyalty such as involvement, trust or satisfaction,
cognitive, affect, and so on, rather than building
on a generic definition. It is however, accepted
that brand loyalty may have many antecedents,
most of which still need to be determined. Aaker
(1996) conceptualized and defined brand loyalty
as “a combination of purchase behavior, consumer
switching costs, customer satisfaction, and brand
liking” (p. 68) and emphasized that brand loyalty
is not only behavioral but also attitudinal in nature.
Keller (2009), on the other hand, described brand
loyalty as “the intensity, or depth of the psycho-
logical bond that customers have with the brand, as
well as the level of activity engendered by this loy-
alty (repeat purchase rates and the extent to which
customers seek out brand information, events, and
other loyal customers)” (p. 144).
Although the definition of brand loyalty has been
much debated in the research, it has been categori-
cally attributed to having both a behavioral and an
actual aspect. The behavioral aspect of brand loyalty
relates to emotional attachment to the brand, in con-
junction with its promotion by WOM or the inten-
tion to buy, if the situation presents itself, but is not
necessarily related to the actual purchase of the prod-
uct (Keller, 2008). The actual aspect of brand loyalty
is, however, the definite purchase of the brand, pay-
ing more for the product and going out of one’s way
to obtain the product. Torres-Moraga, Vásquez-Par-
raga, and Zamora-González (2008) identified that
satisfaction is the precursor to brand loyalty, and as a
result a person is less susceptible to brand switching
and by inference are prepared to travel further as
well as pay more for the brand to which they are
committed (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1987). Therefore,
we can, at least conceptually, define brand loyalty as
“the consumer’s conscious or unconscious decision
to purchase a particular brand, through intention or
actual purchase or repurchase behavior, continually
over a period of time.”
Developing an ongoing relationship with a cus-
tomer requires some form of emotional attachment
and is therefore paramount for the business organi-
zation, as it magnifies in terms of repeat purchase
and positive WOM recommendations (Alant &
Bruwer, 2004; Nowak & Newton, 2006; O’Neill
& Charters, 2000). The extent to which consumers
will make an effort to purchase their favorite or pre-
ferred brand is directly proportional to their strength
of loyalty to that brand. Exploring the purchasing
behavior of consumers in terms of effort exerted is
fundamental in measuring the level of behavioral
loyalty and is therefore a strong precursor to overall
brand loyalty. Wine brand loyalty is considered to
be of significant importance to a winery develop-
ing a competitive advantage, as it allows for more
direct and cost-effective marketing (Ha, 1998).
For this reason, our study will assist tasting room
managers in being able to identify desired product
attributes that can have in place corresponding mar-
keting strategies more effective in establishing the
ever important emotional attachment. Product qual-
ity, value, and customer satisfaction with regard to
a tasting room visit are of significant importance
in the building of a loyal customer base (Bruwer,
2013; Nowak & Newton, 2006).
Winery Tasting Room Initial Perception
and Actual Experience
It is by now well recognized that a winery’s most
profitable outlet is the tasting room owing to its high
margins associated with sales (Bruwer, Lesschaeve,
& Campbell, 2012; Bruwer, Saliba, & Miller, 2011;
Famularo, Bruwer, & Li, 2010; McCutcheon, Bru-
wer, & Li, 2009). People form perceptions and hence
attitudes about many things, including wine brands,
often as a result of an actual experience therewith
(i.e., winery tasting room visit) (Bruwer & Less-
chaeve, 2012b) and/or of a more “abstract” nature
(i.e., information obtained through other persons
402 bruwer ET AL.
about the winery, its wines, staff, etc.). Hence, they
often have an initial perception of the winery’s brand
before their visit takes place. The Winemakers Fed-
eration of Australia (2010) has identified that win-
ery visits are one of the most significant ways of
building brand awareness and future wine purchase
decisions owing to the possible connection with the
winery as a brand. Both Dodd (1995) and Morris and
King (1998) determined that the buildings, facilities,
information, and signage were all influential in the
overall winery experiences; however, the taste and
price of the wine were the most important in the
final purchase decision. To build further on the tast-
ing room experience, the winery needs to identify
how to maximize the number of visitors that become
loyal customers. In most cases, wine tourists would
visit several tasting rooms on their visit to a particu-
lar wine region (Alant & Bruwer, 2010). The tasting
room services as well as the quality of the wine prod-
uct on offer present an ideal opportunity to develop
favorable brand associations in the visitor’s mind
as it has been identified as an area of competitive
advantage, which impacts on customer satisfaction
and their brand loyalty (Patterson & Spreng, 1997).
This led to the development of the first hypothesis.
H1: Perceived wine quality has a significant impact
on brand attitudes.
By carefully controlling a tasting room experi-
ence, Nowak and Newton (2006) ascertained that
the positive experience is a critical component to
future purchase intentions. The rationale is that a
positive experience will resonate well with a visitor
in terms of buying the brand or product postvisit.
Hence, a customer satisfaction model, based on the
scale developed by Oliver and Swan (1989), using
a 7-point semantic differential scale, was adapted
in our study to analyze visitors’ attitudes toward the
wine brands. It is accepted that when it comes to
purchasing a wine again consumers generally chose
from a set of brands that they are familiar with and
have enjoyed in the past (Ehrenberg, Uncles, &
Goodhardt, 2004).
Perceived Quality and Value
As a result of wine being a very personal per-
ception of quality, consumers rely on a winery’s
reputation, what they have produced in the past, and
what wine critics and magazines have said about
a particular winery (Bruwer & Johnson, 2010;
Remaud & Lockshin, 2009). Academically, there
has been growing interest in the area of perceived
value in comparison with the constructs of satisfac-
tion and of service quality. However, there has not
been much research combining perceived quality,
perceived value, satisfaction, tasting room experi-
ence, and brand loyalty. Petrick (1999) indicates
that in the findings of leisure and tourism studies
purchase intentions are solely predicted by satisfac-
tion. However, as Gill et al. (2007) explain, a visi-
tor can be satisfied with the product or service but
may not believe it to be good value and as a result
might not purchase the product or remain loyal to
the brand. Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) deter-
mined that perceptions of value are not limited to
the functional aspects but may include social, emo-
tional, and even epistemic value components. The
aforementioned resulted in the formulation of the
second hypothesis.
H2: A higher level of perceived value increases the
level of positive brand attitudes.
Service Satisfaction
It is important to make a distinction between
service quality and service satisfaction. Quality
perception is the cognitive response to a service
experience, whereas satisfaction is the affective
response to it (Petrick, 2004). Although there is
broad consensus that service quality and satisfac-
tion are different constructs, there appears to be
little agreement on the nature of their relationship
(Bruwer, 2013). Satisfaction following an experi-
ence, for example, visiting a tasting room, is known
to be central in establishing long-term customer
relationships and repeat business (Bruwer, 2013;
Lee, Lee, Lee, & Babin, 2008).
O’Neill and Charters (2000) concluded that level
of satisfaction at the tasting room impacts upon
postpurchase perceptions, future purchase deci-
sions, and long-term customer loyalty. It follows
that a memorable and enjoyable experience at the
tasting room could potentially resonate particu-
larly well with customers and result in future wine
 effects of wine tasting room on brand loyalty 403
purchases (Bruwer et al., 2011). Once a visitor
enjoyed a particular product combined with a satis-
fying experience, a customer is more likely to pur-
chase that product again in the future (Ha, 1998).
This was supported by Goodwin and Ball (1999)
who concluded that by building a deep commit-
ment to the execution of a customer intimacy strat-
egy a winery would be better able to build strong
customer loyalty through satisfying the customer.
Hence, satisfaction is a dimension in the wine brand
loyalty scale developed in our study.
Research Parameters and Methodology
The overall purpose of this study is to prove that
there is a link to a winery and tasting room meeting
the expectations of the wine consumer from appear-
ance right through to a total actual wine experience
that will impact on their brand loyalty. The research
thus aims to determine the perceived quality of the
experience encountered at winery and tasting room
previsit in combination with the overall experi-
ence and its ultimate impact upon brand loyalty.
This included identifying the perceived quality of
the wine and brand, the attitude toward the brand,
the experience, and the level of satisfaction, all of
which contribute to brand loyalty. These findings
were then cross-tabulated with demographic and
wine consumption variables to identify possible
patterns or relationships.
A 7-point Likert scale was used to measure the
initial perception upon arriving at the tasting room,
with strongly disagree on one end and strongly
agree on the other end of the scale. Scale pretest-
ing was conducted to ensure the scales were free of
double-barrel and leading questions and to ensure
the questions received accurate answers as well
as being easily understood by the participants.
The scales were pretested on 10 people who had
an interest in wine and assisted in determining that
there were no unclear or confusing statements. It
was assumed that (a) the respondents were a fair
representation of wine brand loyal (or nonloyal)
consumers who visit tasting rooms, and (b) the
final sample size (n = 108) is sufficient for a study
that is purely of an exploratory nature. The sample
population consisted of male and female consumers
who visited the winery tasting rooms in the Barossa
Valley wine region of Australia during the 3-week
survey period. All respondents were of legal drink-
ing age (18 years and older) and needed to be wine
consumers due to the study’s focus on their choice
of winery and their perception of the winery before
and after their purchase. All respondents were ran-
domly selected upon arrival, and only one randomly
selected person in the case of multiperson house-
holds filled in the questionnaire. Visitors to the tast-
ing rooms were asked to complete a survey of 5–8
min in duration. Part one (Initial Perception Scale,
Table 3) was completed upon their arrival and the
remainder of the survey (Actual Experience Scale,
Table 4, and Wine Brand Loyalty Scale, Table 1),
and several sociodemographic and consumption
questions) once they had actually completed their
tasting room experience. The study used a highly
structured questionnaire (few open-ended ques-
tions) that was self-administered on respondents
by the tasting room staff. Upon introduction to the
potential respondents, the purpose of the study was
explained by the researchers. All respondents were
assured of the confidentiality and privacy of the
survey. The response rate in this study was 81%.
Once all the data had been collected, it was entered
into SPSS 20.0 software and data analysis was
conducted.
Measurement Scale Development
Three scales have been developed and analyzed
against the demographic and wine consumption
data, namely, the Initial Winery Tasting Room Per-
ceptions scale, the Brand Loyalty scale, and the
Winery Tasting Room Actual Experience scale. It
was felt that a generic brand loyalty scale could
prove more useful as it could be a foundation for
further research regarding the more specific ante-
cedents of wine brand loyalty.
Wine Brand Loyalty Scale
Following a comprehensive review of the litera-
ture, it was determined that a set of relevant ante-
cedents could be identified to be used to measure
wine brand loyalty. The antecedents were drawn
from research covering both generic brand loy-
alty as well as wine brand loyalty specifically. It
was concluded that brand awareness, brand atti-
tudes, intention to purchase, brand switching or
404 bruwer ET AL.
satisfaction, value, trust, and experience were the
most applicable to measure consumer wine brand
loyalty. Every scale question was chosen so that it
related directly to one of the brand loyalty dimen-
sions with the aim of fully capturing the wine brand
loyalty of the consumer. A number of questions
were newly generated as some of the dimensions
and subdimensions did not appear to have any rel-
evant questions relating to them used in the previ-
ous research studies (see Table 1).
Involvement. Quester and Lim (2003) concluded
that a consumer may have a low level of product
involvement but still have a high level of purchase
involvement and vice versa, with the possible
intention of impressing friends or to save money.
They identify possible antecedents of involve-
ment, namely, pleasure, interest, and risk, which
are thought to greatly contribute to brand loyalty or
purchase intentions. Because their research devel-
oped a generic scale to measure brand loyalty across
industries, only Question 3 (newly formulated) was
applicable to the involvement antecedent of our
brand loyalty scale. It also required some reword-
ing in order to satisfactorily address the research
topic of wine brand loyalty.
Bloemer and Kasper (1995) concluded that
involvement is an antecedent for consumer satis-
faction, which greatly impacts on brand loyalty.
Even though their study focused on cassettes, the
tried and tested questions are usable in the Wine
Brand Loyalty scale. After some rewording, both
Questions 2 and 4 were adapted from the 11-item
scale developed by Bloemer and Kasper.
Brand Attitudes. Brand attitudes are regarded as
another antecedent to brand loyalty, as there are a
number of contributing elements to brand attitudes.
These are trust, expectations, and emotional attach-
ment, and as a result brand attitudes have the high-
est number of questions in the Wine Brand Loyalty
scale. A number of past studies were therefore used
to contribute to this dimension. Taylor, Celuch, and
Goodwin (2004) also used an extensive number
of research papers to generate the scale they used
in their study. Because they carefully tested the
scale mathematically, it was thought that the ques-
tions would prove to be highly reliable and able to
maintain its high level of credibility even though it
had been reworded to suit the particular research
topic of wine brand loyalty. Questions 9 and 10
were adapted from the scale developed by Taylor
et al. (2004).
Another aspect of brand loyalty could be a consis-
tent purchase of a specific brand over time owing to
a favorable attitude toward the brand, as brand loy-
alty develops when there is gratifying and unique
benefits that the consumer is seeking (Quester &
Lim, 2003). True brand loyalty implies commitment
and goes past purchasing. Questions 6 and 7 were
adapted from Quester and Lim (2003) as these are
related to the antecedent of attitude. Bloemer and
Kasper (1995) suggested that a consumer’s emo-
tional attachment to the cassette brand is an aspect
of involvement. Owing to the development of a
wine brand loyalty scale, and brand loyalty being
broken down into different antecedents, it was felt
that Question 7 was better suited to brand attitudes
rather than involvement as emotional attachment is
a contributing factor of brand attitudes. Gurviez and
Korchia (2003) focused on brand trust and through
their model were able to deduce that brand trust
leads to brand commitment, which in turn results in
an emotional attachment to a brand, and therefore,
Question 11 was used directly from their work. The
aforementioned formed the basis for the develop-
ment of the third hypothesis.
H3: Positive brand attitudes will increase the pur-
chase intentions before and after the winery
tasting room experience
Intention to Purchase. Odin, Odin, and Valette-
Florence (2001) identified that a brand loyal cus-
tomer is highly likely to repurchase a brand owing
to a strong belief that there is a significant dif-
ference between their favorite brands and other
brands. They developed a four-question scale to
specifically measure repurchasing behavior. Ques-
tions 14 and 15 were adapted from their work. Ques-
tion 13 is categorized by Taylor et al. (2004) as a
behavioral loyalty question, and having been tested
as well as supported by a large number of research
documents, it is considered to be a suitable ques-
tion for the wine brand loyalty scale once adapted
to suit the purpose.
 effects of wine tasting room on brand loyalty 405

Switching/Satisfaction. Satisfaction appears (2006) developed a very similar question to that of

to be the most commonly used focus in defin-
ing brand loyalty. Petrick (1999) indicates that
purchase intentions are solely predicted by satis-
faction. Strauss and Neuhaus (1997) proved that
when a customer is completely satisfied they are
less likely to defect or switch. It can therefore
be concluded that intensity of satisfaction has
an impact on brand loyalty. Bloemer and Kasper
Odin et al. (2001) and Jensen and Hansen (2006);
however, they worded their question to establish
how determined a customer would be to purchase
their favorite brand by going to another shop. This
would be a true indication of brand loyalty and
hence a sign that the customer is not only satisfied
with the product but also highly unlikely to switch
brands.

Table 1
Wine Brand Loyalty Scale
Dimension Scale Item and Number Source Mean SD VAR

Involvement There aren’t many differences between most wine Jensen and Hansen 2.48 1.476 2.177
brands (1) (R) (2006)
In choosing a wine to drink with friends I think of Bloemer and Kasper 3.64 1.519 2.308
what brands they like (2) (1995)
I feel upset if I choose a wine that my guest did not New 3.18 1.559 2.430
like (3)
With some wine brands I feel a sense of belonging to Bloemer and Kasper 3.56 1.481 2.192
the brand community (4) (1995)
It is difficult to choose a wine that is just right for New 4.05 1.626 2.643
the occasion (5)
Brand When I think about buying a bottle of wine my Quester and Lim (2003) 2.96 1.427 2.036
attitudes thoughts always turn to my set of favorite brands (6)
Relative to other brands of wines, I feel emotionally Quester and Lim (2003) 2.98 1.290 1.663
attached to my favorite wines (7)
I like the wines in my favorite set of brands very Bloemer and Kasper 2.57 1.061 1.125
much (8) (1995)
The producers of my favorite wine brands are trust- Taylor et al. (2004) 2.66 1.107 1.225
worthy (9)
The producers of my favorite wine brands offer a Taylor et al. (2004) 2.43 0.997 0.994
consistent product (10)
I trust the quality of my preferred brands of wine Gurviez and Korchia 2.22 1.044 1.090
(11) (2003)
When choosing a wine, I consider brand to be very New 3.51 1.443 2.082
important (12)
Intention to I plan to purchase wine mainly from my favorite set Taylor et al. (2004) 3.25 1.422 2.021
purchase of brands (13)
My favorite set of brands often changes (14) (R) Odin et al. (2001) 3.98 1.467 2.152
I usually choose wine from a small set of favorite Odin et al. (2001) 3.40 1.453 2.111
brands (15)
Switching/ If one of my favorite brands of wines is not available Bloemer and Kasper 3.85 1.662 2.763
satisfaction in a shop I go to another shop (16) (1995)
If the wine store did not have any of my favorite Jensen and Hansen 4.47 1.780 3.167
brands, I would put off purchasing (17) (2006), Odin et al.
(2001)
I like to try a variety of wine brands (18) (R) Odin et al. (2001) 4.47 1.456 2.121
If the prices of my nonfavorite brands dropped I Odin et al. (2001) 5.66 1.104 1.218
would try them (19) (R)
Value The wines I purchase offer good value at the prices Taylor et al. (2004) 2.50 1.123 1.262
I pay (20)
I would continue to purchase my favorite brands of Srinivasan et al. (2002) 3.43 1.178 1.387
wine even if their prices rose relative to other brands
(21)
I think the wines that I have bought are about the Taylor et al. (2004) 3.33 1.330 1.769
best I could buy (22)

R = reverse-coded item; SD = standard deviation; VAR = variance.

406 bruwer ET AL.

Question 17 appears to be a stereotypical ques-
tion to ask with regards to brand switching; however,
owing to the need to adapt the question to suit the
topic of wine, both Odin et al. (2001) and Jensen and
Hansen (2006) were used to formulate a question
that is proven to obtain an accurate depiction of wine
brand loyalty. Odin et al. (2001) concluded that loy-
alty is the defining factor in repeat purchase as con-
sumers may have no motive to change brand owing
to their favorable attitude toward a brand. Questions
18 and 19 used by Odin et al. (2001) were thus only
adapted slightly to suit the topic of wine.
Value Perception. Value is one of the main
dimensions when defining brand loyalty, and this is
strongly supported by Gill et al. (2007) who stated
that “purchase intentions have often solely been
predicted by satisfaction or service quality; how-
ever, the use of these two variables alone may be
misleading as a customer might be satisfied with
a product or service but still not consider it good
value” (p. 259). Taylor et al. (2004) formulated
three questions to address the issue of value per-
ception, and as such, Questions 20 and 22 were
adapted to suit the wine brand loyalty scale from
the heavy equipment company brand that was orig-
inally being analyzed. Srinivasan, Anderson, and
Ponnavolu (2002) did not identify value as a major
influence on brand loyalty, but determined willing-
ness to pay more was an antecedent of brand loy-
alty. The complete scale with the results expressed
in terms of means, standard deviations and vari-
ances is displayed in Table 1.
Further examination of the results in Table 1
led to four questions being reverse coded, namely,
numbers 1, 14, 18, and 19. It is also recommended
that Questions 1 and 19 be removed due to the lack
of statistical significance. Although a “lowest” total
score of 22 and a “highest” total score of 154 was
possible for any one respondent, the actual range of
scores varied between 46 and 112, with the cutoff
point between low and high brand loyalty estab-
lished at 79 (accounting for reverse coding). This
means that 65% of the visitors are in the low brand
loyalty and 35% in the high brand loyalty segment.
Table 2 shows the brand loyalty segments by gen-
der and age group.
Table 2 indicates that there are minimal differ-
ences between males and females and between age
groups; in fact, the results cannot even be explained
by conventional theories such as risk reduction.

Table 2
Wine Brand Loyalty Segments by Gender and Age Group

Chi- Asymp. Sig.

Wine Brand Loyalty Segment Total (%) Male (%) Female (%) Square Two-Tailed

Low brand loyalty 64.8 64.0 65.5 0.027 0.869

High brand loyalty 35.2 36.0 34.5

Sample Low Brand High Brand

Age Groups (%) Loyalty (%) Loyalty (%)

18–24 years 13.0 57.1 42.9

25–28 years 16.7 55.6 44.4
29–34 years 20.4 77.3 22.7
35–40 years 5.6 50.0 50.0
41–45 years 7.4 75.0 25.0 7.357 0.393
46–54 years 16.7 61.1 38.9
55–65 years 14.8 56.3 43.8
65+ years 5.4 100.0 –
Total 100.0 64.8 35.2

Wine Brand Loyalty Segment Total (%) <35 years (%) ≥35 years (%)

Low brand loyalty 64.8 64.7 64.9 0.000 1.000

High brand loyalty 35.2 35.3 35.1
 effects of wine tasting room on brand loyalty 407

Table 3
Winery Tasting Room Initial Perception Scale
Initial Perception Scale Items Source Mean SD VAR

This winery is as visually appealing as I expected New 1.63 0.792 0.628

The winery looks like it has good facilities to cater for most visitor needs New 1.80 0.955 0.911
The quality of the winery’s premises is excellent New 1.70 0.930 0.865
This winery looks like it produces quality wines New 1.72 0.919 0.845
The winery overall is well represented New 1.69 0.870 0.756

SD = standard deviation; VAR = variance

Winery Tasting Room Initial Perception Scale

The Winery Tasting Room Initial Perception
Scale questions were all newly generated as there
were no suitable questions found in previous stud-
ies that addressed the areas of visual appearance,
quality, and expectations with regard to the expe-
rience and to assess the initial brand attitudes.
The baseline results expressed in terms of means,
standard deviations, and variances are displayed
in Table 3.
The level of respondents’ initial perceptions of
the winery they were visiting was measured by five
preliminary questions designed to measure the ini-
tial brand attitudes and initial level of satisfaction.
It was assumed that they are of equal weight, and
as such a Cronbach coefficient alpha of 0.935 was
achieved, indicating a significant level of scale reli-
ability, given the sample size. The overall level of
initial perception of the wineries shown in Table 3
as a whole achieved a strong level.

Table 4
Winery Tasting Room Actual Experience Scale
Winery Tasting Room Actual Experience Items Source Mean SD VAR

This winery offers quality wines (1) O’Neil et al. (2002) 1.92 0.855 0.731
The wines produced at this winery are better priced than other wines in Gill et al. (2007) 3.24 1.045 1.091
the region (2)
The wines produced from this winery offer value for money (3) Gill et al. (2007) 2.80 0.955 0.911
This winery was worth the effort to visit (4) Gill et al. (2007) 2.05 1.027 1.054
A visit to this tasting room has taught me more about wine (5) Gill et al. (2007) 3.19 1.341 1.797
A visit to this tasting room stands out as one of my best winery visits (6) Gill et al. (2007) 2.99 1.204 1.449
A visit to this tasting room has increased my curiosity about wine (7) Gill et al. (2007) 3.50 1.224 1.498
A visit to this tasting room was something different or novel (8) Gill et al. (2007) 3.53 1.226 1.504
The tasting room staff were always willing to help visitors (9) O’Neil et al. (2002) 2.04 0.889 0.791
This tasting room is among the best I have ever visited (10) Gill et al. (2007) 2.83 1.227 1.505
This winery has outstanding facilities (11) New 2.53 1.156 1.336
A visit to this tasting room was satisfying (12) New 2.26 0.911 0.829
This winery has status (13) Gill et al. (2007) 2.25 1.024 1.049
This winery is visually appealing (14) New 1.88 0.866 0.749
I will continue to buy this winery’s brand because I liked the tasting Quester and Lim 2.82 1.167 1.361
room visit very much (15) (2003)
The behavior of the staff gave me confidence in buying this brand (16) Gill et al. (2007) 2.59 1.103 1.216
A visit to this tasting room has taught me more about this winery’s Gill et al. (2007) 2.74 1.203 1.446
products (17)
The information provided by the staff was dependable (18) Gill et al. (2007) 2.56 1.017 1.034
A visit to this winery’s tasting room has exceeded my highest expecta- Gill et al. (2007) 3.07 1.163 1.353
tions (19)
Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good Gill et al. (2007) 2.81 1.106 1.224
impression on other people (20)
A wine from this winery is exactly what I like (21) New 2.66 1.015 1.031
Overall, the visit to this tasting room was excellent value (22) New 2.53 0.942 0.887
The wine from this winery has exceeded my highest expectations (23) New 3.06 1.092 1.193

SD = standard deviation; VAR = variance

408 bruwer ET AL.
Winery Tasting Room Actual Experience Scale
The Winery Tasting Room Actual Experience
Scale was developed largely from past research.
However, instead of being general questions about
experience, the questions were mainly obtained from
a study specific to winery tasting room visits. The
study by Gill et al. (2007) proved to be of great assis-
tance in developing the scale as they were able to
deduce that there is a positive relationship between
value and behavioral intentions. They were also able
to confirm that there is a link between positive asso-
ciations with service quality and satisfaction to value
and behavioral intentions. The Winery Tasting Room
Actual Experience Scale was further developed from
a couple of other research works mainly focused on
brand loyalty. The three contributing authors were
Quester and Lim (2003), Taylor et al. (2004), and
O’Neil et al. (2002), as indicated in Table 4. Gill et
al. (2007) conducted research with a major focus on
the importance of brand equity and its effect on cus-
tomer loyalty. These premises resulted in the formu-
lation of the final two hypotheses.
H4: Overall winery tasting room experience has a
positive correlation on positive brand attitudes.
H5: The overall winery tasting room experience
has a significant impact on the level of brand
loyalty among visitors.
Our research covered a number of subcategories
that were of relevance to brand loyalty such as the
impact of brand loyalty on attitudes, satisfaction,
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for factors contributing to brand loyalty.
trust, and/or value. Therefore, after adapting the
questions to the topic several of their questions were
adopted, as Gill et al. (2007) had very high coeffi-
cient alpha scores for their respective scales. Some
of the questions in Table 4 were newly generated, as
there appeared to be no suitable questions to address
particular areas of this study. Question 6 was even-
tually removed due to its similarity to Question 10.
The results expressed in terms of means, standard
deviations, and variances, are displayed in Table 4.
Reliability of the Scales
Logarithmically, the scale questions proved to be
highly reliable. The Cronbach alpha analysis demon-
strate that all the scales used in the study exceed the
commonly accepted standard of coefficients alpha
>0.70 and overall the analysis obtained a significantly
high level of statistical reliability. Criterion valid-
ity could not be properly tested due to the relatively
small sample size of the study. Following the high sta-
tistical reliability of the scales, it was concluded that
they were suitable for conducting the testing of the
five hypotheses. Figure 1 shows the postulated rela-
tionships being tested forthwith between the factors
attributing to brand loyalty and the hypotheses.
Research Findings
Demographics and Wine
Consumption Characteristics
The demographic characteristics in Table 5
show that the sample was slightly weighted toward
 effects of wine tasting room on brand loyalty 409

Table 5 females (54%) relatively young in age, with 50%

Demographics and Wine Consumption of Respondents belonging to the millennial age generation (18–34
years old), highly educated (72% have at least a
Variables Total (%)
3-year university bachelor’s degree), and in high
Male 46.3 income (65% have an annual household income
Female 53.7
Age (years) of higher than $75,000). The Australian Bureau of
 18–24 12.9 Statistics (2009a) determined that 23% of the Aus-
 25–28 16.6 tralian population are tertiary educated, whereas
 29–34 20.2
 35–40 5.6 the average income for a household is AU$58,748
 41–45 7.3 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009b). It fol-
 46–54 16.8 lows that the average person who visited the tast-
 55–65 15.0
 65+ 5.6 ing rooms tended to be well educated and generally
Education status more affluent than the average population and thus
 School leaver’s certificate (15 years+) 4.7 was at a high socioeconomic level.
 HSC 5.6
 TAFE certificate/diploma 17.7
To support the argument that gender has a notice-
 Bachelor’s university degree or above 72.0 able impact on consumption, an independent two-
Average annual household incomea tailed t test was conducted, which demonstrated
 ≤$25,000 5.6 that there was a statistical deference between gen-
 $25,001–$50,000 12.1
 $50,001–$75,000 17.7 der and consumption (t = 2.098, p = 0.049) with
 $75,001–$100,000 17.6 males consuming more wine than females.
 $100,001–$150,000 13.0
 $150,001–$200,000 15.6
 $200,000+ 11.1 Perceived Quality Affects Brand Attitudes (H1)
 Confidential 7.3
Household spend per month on wine Next we determined whether perceived quality has
 Male $175.71 a significant impact on brand attitudes and test H1 as
 Female $138.19
 Total average household spend $155.37 shown in Table 6. The questions were combined and
Personal wine consumption per month averaged for every survey response and then tested
 1–5 bottles 56.1% against all the brand attitude questions. Table 6 dem-
 6–10 bottles 29.8%
 10+ bottles 14.1% onstrates a positive Pearson correlation between
Mean (bottles p.m.) 6.13 bottles brand attitudes and quality with a 99% confidence
a
that there is an overall strong correlation between the
Australian dollars.
consumer’s perception of quality and their attitude

Table 6
Wine Quality Perception and Brand Attitudes Correlation Analysis
Pearson Significance
Wine Quality Perception Correlation (Two-Tailed)

This winery was worth the effort to visit 0.552* 0.000

The winery has outstanding facilities 0.487* 0.000
A visit to this tasting room was satisfying 0.264* 0.000
This winery is visually appealing 0.192* 0.000
The information provided by staff was dependable 0.447* 0.000
A wine from this winery is exactly what I like 0.466* 0.000
Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good 0.414* 0.000
impression on other people
The wine from this winery has exceeded my highest expectations 0.432* 0.000
All brand attitude questions 0.698* 0.000

*p = 0.01 (two-tailed).
410 bruwer ET AL.
toward a brand. The items “this winery is visually
appealing” and “a visit to this tasting room was satis-
fying” did not have a strong positive correlation but
did have a significant level of satisfaction.
It was concluded that a high perception of wine
quality leads to a positive impact on brand atti-
tudes, owing to the strong level of correlation and
significance, and H1 is accepted.
High Perceived Value Affects Brand Attitudes (H2)
Three questions (items 2, 3, and 22) in the Win-
ery Tasting Room Actual Experience Scale were
used to determine the level of the perception of
quality. Once again each respondent’s answer to
those questions were combined and averaged. The
wineries are considered to offer wines that are good
value for money when considering the region but
better value for money when compared to wine
prices in general. A Pearson correlation analysis
was conducted to test if the level of perceived value
affects brand attitudes. Table 7 identifies that there
is a correlation between perceived value of wine
and consumer attitudes towards the brand in various
ways. It can be seen that there is a moderate level of
correlation between wine value and a number of the
brand attitude questions, with the exception of two.
These related to whether the respondent thought the
winery was visually appealing, or if the wine brand
would make any impression on a friend showed a
very weak correlation to the impact on value per-
ception and brand attitudes. However, overall there
is a moderate level of correlation between wine
Table 7
Wine Value Perception and Brand Attitudes Correlation Analysis
Overall Wine Value Perception
This winery was worth the effort to visit
The winery has outstanding facilities
A visit to this tasting room was satisfying
This winery is visually appealing
The information provided by staff was dependable
A wine from this winery is exactly what I like
Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good
impression on other people
The wine from this winery has exceeded my highest expectations
All brand attitude questions
*p = 0.01 (two-tailed); **p = 0.10 (two-tailed).
value and brand attitudes with a 99% confidence
level. H2 is accepted, as a visitor who perceives a
wine to be of good value does indeed hold positive
attitudes towards the brand.
Brand Attitude Affects Intention to Purchase (H3)
Respondents were asked whether “I will continue
to buy the same brand because I liked the tasting
room visit very much” and “the behavior of staff
gave me confidence in buying this brand” (items 15
and 16 in the Winery Tasting Room Actual Experi-
ence Scale). The two questions were combined and
averaged for every respondent and compared using
the Pearson correlation (Table 8).
In Table 8, a weak correlation between “this win-
ery is visually appealing” and purchase intention is
shown; however, there was a still a significant dif-
ference. Generally there was a moderate to strong
correlation between purchase intention and brand
attitudes, with the information provided by staff hav-
ing the strongest correlation of 0.623. Overall there
was a strong correlation between intention to pur-
chase and brand attitudes; therefore H3 is accepted
in that the more positive respondents’ brand atti-
tudes, the more likely they are to purchase a wine
from the winery.
Overall Winery Tasting Room Experience
Affects Brand Attitudes (H4)
To determine whether there was a correlation
between overall winery experience and positive
Pearson Significance
Correlation (Two-Tailed)
0.355* 0.000
0.288* 0.002
0.300* 0.002
0.183** 0.060
0.375* 0.000
0.408* 0.000
0.142 0.142
0.465* 0.000
0.465* 0.000
 effects of wine tasting room on brand loyalty 411

Table 8
Intention to Purchase and Brand Attitudes Correlation Analysis
Pearson Significance
Intention to Purchase Correlation (Two-Tailed)

This winery was worth the effort to visit 0.471* 0.000

The winery has outstanding facilities 0.432* 0.000
A visit to this tasting room was satisfying 0.474* 0.000
This winery is visually appealing 0.249* 0.010
The information provided by staff was dependable 0.623* 0.000
A wine from this winery is exactly what I like 0.537* 0.000
Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good 0.498* 0.000
impression on other people
The wine from this winery has exceeded my highest expectations 0.586* 0.000
All brand attitude questions 0.712* 0.000

*p = 0.01 (two-tailed).

brand attitudes, respondents were asked a series
of questions relating to brand attitudes and their
perceptions of the overall experience (items 4, 11,
12, 14, 18, 21, and 23 in the Tasting Room Actual
Experience Scale). To determine if there was a cor-
relation between overall winery experience and
brand attitudes, a Pearson correlation analysis was
conducted and the results can be seen in Table 9.
Once again, the statement “this winery is visually
appealing” has a weak correlation as it did when
analyzed against wine quality and wine value. The
remaining questions have a moderate correlation
between the overall winery experience and brand
attitudes, with “the information provided by staff”
having the strongest correlation. Overall, there is a
strong correlation between brand attitudes and the
overall winery experience, as the correlation was
greater than 0.6. Therefore H4 was accepted, as
Table 9 confirms that the overall winery experience
does in fact affect a person’s brand attitudes.
Overall Tasting Room Actual Experience
Affects Brand Loyalty (H5)
To test the hypothesis, a Pearson correlation
analysis was conducted between the two scales and
the results can be seen in Table 10.
The only brand attitude question that had no cor-
relation or significance was the question “a visit
to this tasting room was different or novel” (item
8 in the scale). Surprisingly the question with the
lowest significant correlation was “the staff were
always willing to help guests,” although there was
a weak correlation and it had a significance level of
0.05, which indicates that there was in fact a rela-
tionship with brand loyalty. Overall there is a weak

Table 9
Overall Tasting Room Actual Experience and Brand Attitudes Correlation Analysis
Pearson Significance
Overall Tasting Room Actual Experience Correlation (Two-Tailed)

This winery was worth the effort to visit 0.524* 0.000

The winery has outstanding facilities 0.483* 0.000
A visit to this tasting room was satisfying 0.520* 0.000
This winery is visually appealing 0.292* 0.002
The information provided by staff was dependable 0.672* 0.000
A wine from this winery is exactly what I like 0.589* 0.000
Consuming a bottle of wine from this winery would make a good 0.454* 0.000
impression on other people
The wine from this winery has exceeded my highest expectations 0.695* 0.000
All brand attitude questions 0.778* 0.000

*p = 0.01 (two-tailed).
412 bruwer ET AL.

Table 10
Overall Tasting Room Actual Experience and Brand Loyalty Correlation Analysis
Pearson Significance
Brand Loyalty Scale Correlation (Two-Tailed)

A visit to this tasting room has taught me more about wine 0.298** 0.000
A visit to this tatsting room stands out as one of my best winery visits 0.308** 0.001
A visit to this tasting room has increased my curiosity about wine 0.271** 0.005
A visit to this tasting room was different or novel 0.138 0.154
The staff were always willing to help guests 0.238* 0.014
A visit to this tasting room has taught me more about this 0.369** 0.000
winery’s products
A visit to this winery tasting room has exceeded my 0.268** 0.005
highest expectations
The wine from this winery has exceeded my highest expectations 0.333** 0.000
Overall experience 0.391** 0.000

*p = 0.01 (two-tailed); **p = 0.05 (two-tailed).

to moderate correlation between brand loyalty and
the overall experience, with a significance of 0.01
or more. Therefore, it is concluded that the overall
winery experience does have an impact on brand
loyalty, and hence H5 was accepted.
Conclusions, Managerial Implications,
and Future Research
Conclusions
There has been very little previous research
conducted in the area of consumer wine brand loy-
alty. This study, in the first instance, contributed to
the knowledge base by developing three scales to
operationalize the research, namely, Wine Brand
Loyalty, Winery Tasting Room Actual Experience,
and Winery Tasting Room Initial Perception scales.
The research succeeded in proving that when there
is a link to a winery and tasting room meeting the
expectations of the wine consumer from appear-
ance right through to a total wine experience that
will impact on the brand loyalty of consumers. It
was found that tasting room visitors are more likely
to be brand loyal through positive winery tasting
room experiences and brand attitudes. Positive
brand attitudes of consumers are created through
the positive perception of wine quality as well as the
positive perception of wine value. It was also found
that positive brand attitudes result in a higher likeli-
hood of future wine purchase intentions, which is
an aspect of brand loyalty and further supports the
findings that the level of brand loyalty is affected
by brand attitudes.
From a winery tasting room perspective, the
findings demonstrate that brand loyalty can be
increased by offering a positive winery experience
and improving brand attitudes by increasing per-
ceptions of quality and value. The positive percep-
tions of wine quality can be attributed to winery
tasting room appearance and the experience within
the tasting room through the behavior of staff.
Managerial Implications
The winery tasting room experience can lead to
a greater level of brand loyalty owing to the num-
ber of salient factors present there that contribute to
brand loyalty. By improving the perceptions of the
winery coupled with a positive tasting room expe-
rience, the winery can expect a greater number of
brand loyal wine consumers. Based on the average
number of bottles consumed per household, a win-
ery could look at offering preselected mixed cases
of wine at varying price levels to better target spe-
cific demographics in order to maintain their cus-
tomers. Wineries should reconsider the wines they
offer to ensure that the visitors to the tasting room
are being satisfied as regards their wine taste pref-
erences. This type of research information is highly
useful for a winery manager, a brand manager, or
a tasting room manager as they should be able to
increase the number of loyal customers simply by
having a better understanding of the areas in which
 effects of wine tasting room on brand loyalty 413
a winery could improve. Care should be taken
when applying as business strategies the findings of
this study to visitors at all tasting rooms as they are
reflective of the winery tasting room visitors in the
Barossa Valley and may not represent the typical
tasting room visitor elsewhere. Also, as a result of
the relatively small final sample size and the short
execution time frame, this is an exploratory study.
Recommendations for Further Research
It is recommended that larger studies in other
regions and countries be conducted in order to bet-
ter prove the correlations and the impact of a win-
ery tasting room experience on brand loyalty. In the
process, the scales should also be tested for crite-
rion validity and further improved. Further research
to find the underlying reasons for the difference
between genders, socioeconomic groups, and their
overall winery experience should be conducted and
also to better understand the impact that the win-
ery experience can have on the customer and the
ultimate behavioral impact of brand loyalty. Such
research should explore the more specific anteced-
ents of wine brand loyalty. Finally, the best way to
confirm intention to purchase is through a longitu-
dinal study conducting follow-up research on the
same tasting room visitors and checking with them
if they actually did buy the wine brand again post-
visit.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York:
Free Press.
Alant, K., & Bruwer, J. (2004). Wine tourism behaviour in the
context of a motivational framework for wine regions and
tasting rooms. Journal of Wine Research, 15(1), 27–37.
Alant, K., & Bruwer, J. (2010). Winery visitation sets: Intra-
regional spatial movement of wine tourists in branded
wine regions. International Journal of Wine Business
Research, 22(2), 191–210.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009a). Education and
work, Australia (Cat. No. 6227.0). Retrieved September
25, 2012, from http://www.abs.gov.au
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2009b). Household income and
income distribution, Australia (Cat. No. 6523.0). Retrieved
September 25, 2012, from http://www.abs.gov.au
Bloemer, J. M. M., & Kasper, H. D. P. (1995). The complex
relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loy-
alty. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2), 311–329.
Bruwer, J. (2002). The importance and role of the winery
tasting room in the Australian wine industry: Some
perspectives. The Australian and New Zealand Grape-
grower and Winemaker, 463, 96–99.
Bruwer, J. (2003). South African wine routes: Some perspec-
tives on the wine tourism industry’s structural dimen-
sions and wine tourism product. Tourism Management,
24(4), 423–435.
Bruwer, J. (2004). The love affair of generation-X con-
sumers with the winery tasting room. The Australian
and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker, 491,
December, 19–24.
Bruwer, J. (2013). Service quality perception and satisfaction in
a New Zealand festivalscape: Buying behavior effect. Tour-
ism Analysis: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18(1), 61–77.
Bruwer, J., & Alant, K. (2009). The hedonic nature of wine
tourism consumption: An experiential view. International
Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(2), 235–257.
Bruwer, J., & Johnson, R. (2010). Place-based marketing
and regional branding strategy perspectives in the Cali-
fornia wine industry. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
27(1), 5–16.
Bruwer, J., Lang, S., Chaumont, S., & Li, E. (2012). Perspec-
tives on consumers’ attitudes to wine’s region of origin
in a restaurant setting. Journal of Foodservice Business
Research, 15(3), 300–318.
Bruwer, J., & Lesschaeve, I. (2012a). Wine tourists’ desti-
nation region brand image perception and antecedents:
Conceptualisation of a winescape framework. Journal of
Travel and Tourism Marketing, 29(7), 611–628.
Bruwer, J., & Lesschaeve, I. (2012b). Sources of informa-
tion used by tourists travelling to visit Canadian winery
tasting rooms. Tourism Planning and Development, 9(3),
269–289.
Bruwer, J., Lesschaeve, I., & Campbell, B. L. (2012). Con-
sumption dynamics and demographics of Canadian wine
consumers: Retailing insights from the tasting room chan-
nel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(1),
45–58.
Bruwer, J., Saliba, A. J., & Miller, B. (2011). Consumer
behaviour and sensory preference differences: Implica-
tions for wine product marketing. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 28(1), 5–18.
Bruwer, J., & Nam, K.-H. (2010). The BYOB phenomenon
of wine consumers in the Australian licensed on-premise
foodservice sector. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 29(1), 83–91.
Bruwer, J., & Rawbone-Viljoen, C. (2013). BYOB as a
risk-reduction strategy (RRS) for wine consumers in the
Australian on-premise foodservice sector: Exploratory
insights. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
ment, 32(1), 21–30.
Charters, S., & O’Neill, M. (2001). Service quality at the
tasting room: A comparison between regions. Interna-
tional Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 7–17.
Dodd, T. H. (1995). Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a
developing wine industry. International Journal of Wine
Marketing, 7(1), 5–16.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C., Uncles, M. D., & Goodhardt, D. J.
(2004). Understanding brand performance measures:
 414 bruwer ET AL.
Using Dirichlet benchmarks. Journal of Business
Research, 57(12), 1307–1325.
Famularo, B., Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2010). Region of ori-
gin as choice factor: Wine knowledge and wine tourism
involvement influence. International Journal of Wine
Business Research, 22(4), 362–385.
Fountain, J., Fish, N., & Charters, S. (2008). Making a con-
nection: Tasting rooms and brand loyalty. International
Journal of Wine Business Research, 20(1), 8–21.
Gill, D., Byslma, B., & Ouschan, R. (2007). Customer
perceived value in a tasting room visit: The impact on
behavioural intentions. International Journal of Wine
Business Research, 19(4), 57–275.
Goodwin, R., & Ball, B. (1999). Closing the loop on loyalty.
Marketing Management, 8(1), 24–34.
Gurviez, P., & Korchia, M. (2003). Proposal for multi-
dimensional brand trust scale. Paper presented at the
32nd EMAC Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, May
20–23. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from http://www.
watoowatoo.net/mkgr
Ha, C. L. (1998). The theory of reasoned action applied to
brand loyalty. Journal of Product and Brand Manage-
ment, 7(1), 51–61.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R. W. (1987). Brand loyalty: Mea-
surement and management. New York: Wiley.
Jensen, J., & Hansen, T. (2006). An empirical examination
of brand loyalty. Journal of Product and Brand Manage-
ment, 15(7), 442–449.
Johnson, T., & Bruwer, J. (2004). Generic consumer risk-
reduction strategies (RRS) in wine-related lifestyle
segments of the Australian wine market. International
Journal of Wine Marketing, 16(1), 5–35.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building,
measuring, and managing brand equity (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern
marketing communications environment. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 15(2–3), 139–155.
Lacey, S., Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2009). The role of perceived
risk in wine purchase decisions in restaurants. Interna-
tional Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(2), 99–117.
Lee, Y.-K., Lee, C.-K., Lee, S.-K., & Babin, B. J. (2008).
Festivalscapes and patrons’ emotions, satisfaction, and
loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 56–64.
McCutcheon, E., Bruwer, J., & Li, E. (2009). Region of ori-
gin and its importance among choice factors in the wine-
buying decision making of consumers. International
Journal of Wine Business Research, 21(3), 212–234.
Morris, R., & King, C. (1998). Delighting the wine tourist.
In R. Dowling & J. Carlsen (Eds.), Wine tourism, per-
fect partners: Proceedings of the First Australian Wine
Tourism Conference, Margaret River, Western Australia
(pp. 219–227). Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Tourism
Research.
Nowak, L. I., & Newton, S. K. (2006). Using the tasting
room experience to create loyal customers. International
Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(3), 157–165.
View publication stats
Odin, Y., Odin, N., & Valette-Florence, P. (2001). Concep-
tual and operational aspects of brand loyalty: An empiri-
cal investigation. Journal of Business Research, 53(2),
75–84.
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of
interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: A field
survey approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 21–35.
O’Neill, M., & Charters, S. (2000). Service quality at the
tasting room: Implications for Western Australia’s devel-
oping wine tourism industry. Managing Service Quality,
10(2), 112–122.
O’Neill, M., Palmer, A., & Charters, S. (2002). Wine pro-
duction as a service experience: The effects of service
quality on wine sales. Journal of Service Marketing,
16(4), 342–362.
Patterson, P. G., & Spreng, R. A. (1997). Modelling the
relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and
repurchase intentions in a business to business, service
context: An empirical examination. International Jour-
nal of Service Industry Management, 8(5), 414–434.
Petrick, J. F. (1999). An examination of the relationship
between golf travellers’ satisfaction, perceived value and
loyalty and their intentions to revisit. Unpublished disser-
tation, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.
Petrick, J. F. (2004). The roles of quality, value and satisfac-
tion in predicting cruise passengers’ behavioural inten-
tions. Journal of Travel Research, 42(4), 397–407.
Quester, P., & Lim, A. L. (2003). Product involvement/brand
loyalty: Is there a link. Journal of Product and Brand
Management, 12(1), 22–38.
Remaud, H., & Lockshin, L. (2009). Building brand salience
for commodity-based wine regions. International Jour-
nal of Wine Business Research, 21(1), 79–92.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, G. L. (1991). Why
we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values.
Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159–70.
Srinivasan, S., Anderson, R., & Ponnavolu, K. (2002). Cus-
tomer loyalty in e-commerce: An exploration of its ante-
cedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 78(1),
41–50.
Strauss, B., & Neuhaus, P. (1997). The qualitative satisfac-
tion model. International Journal of Service Industries
Management, 8(3), 236–49.
Taylor, S. A., Celuch, K., & Goodwin, S. (2004). The impor-
tance of brand equity to customer loyalty. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 13(4), 217–227.
Torres-Moraga, E., Vásquez-Parraga, A. Z., & Zamora-
González, J. (2008). Customer satisfaction and loyalty:
Start with the product, culminate with the brand. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 25(5), 302–313.
Winemakers Federation of Australia. (2010). Your guide to
wine tourism: The tasting room experience 1. Retrieved
September 25, 2012, from http://www.wfa.org.au/files/
wine_tourism/Fact_Sheet_4.pdf