Content uploaded by Louise A. Heslop
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Louise A. Heslop on Dec 10, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
IJWBR
22,3
288
International Journal of Wine
Business Research
Vol. 22 No. 3, 2010
pp. 288-307
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1751-1062
DOI 10.1108/17511061011075400
Received July 2009
Revised December 2009
Accepted December 2009
Cue incongruity in wine
personality formation and
purchasing
Louise A. Heslop, David Cray and Anahit Armenakyan
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the direct and interaction effects of brand name
(BN) of wine and country-of-origin (COO) on perceptions of the personality image of the wine,
expected price, and willingness to engage with the wine.
Design/methodology/approach – A field experiment in which label information for a fictitious
wine was presented to wine consumers with a questionnaire on wine perceptions and response
measures. The label information was manipulated across subjects using four BNs and three COOs.
Findings – The study confirms BN and COO effects on perceived wine personality and responses to
the wine. Findings also indicate the effects of BN and COO as well as a BN-COO interaction effect on
price expectations.
Research limitations/implications – Findings link different personality dimensions to the two
different cues, suggesting greater independence of the cues than originally expected. However, some
BN-COO incongruity effects are found particularly regarding price perceptions. A small set of wine
BNs and COOs are tested and sample size/treatments are limited. With larger sample sizes, some
weak effects might prove more significant. For more substantive support of these findings, the study
could be repeated in different locations with different BN and COO examples.
Practical implications – The results suggest consumers are open to some fluidity in brand name
use across wine-producing countries with appropriate pricing strategies. They also highlight the
importance of understanding consumer perceptions of wine personality in assessing consumer
responses and price expectations.
Originality/value – The research addresses BN and COO direct and interaction effects on many
aspects of wine evaluation and the central role of personality dimensions in wine assessments. The
paper provides evidence of value in a rapidly evolving marketplace for wine and insights into the
ongoing strategic changes in the wine market. It also contributes to theory and research on
information cue use and cue incongruity effects.
Keywords Country of origin, Brand image, Consumer behaviour, Wines, Personality
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The purchase of a bottle of wine can be a challenging process for the average wine-
buyer overwhelmed by the number and diversity of choices presented on the shelves
and a rapidly evolving marketplace. For most frequently purchased consumables, like
food products, the consumer faces a much smaller choice set than for wine. Even the
most diverse products in the supermarket, such as cereal, provide about 50-60 items to
choose from, but the average full service liquor store in most larger cities will offer the
buyer hundreds of options. Wine shopping can be characterized as a ‘‘high information
ne ed – low information provision’’ environment. As a result, consumers generally use
information cues, such as brand na me of wine (BN), country-of-origin (COO), and price
in assessments of quality, and suitability for purchase and use in different situations.
While some of these cues have been confirmed as critical to consumers’ choice of wine,
most notably COO, relatively little research has examined cue combinations and how
The cu rrent issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1062.htm
Appreciation is expressed to Christie Jamieson and Dana Haley fo r assistance in data collection.
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
289
images of what different cues mean may be interpreted in a wine market that has
changed dramatically in the last two decades. The purpose of this study was to
examine the direct and interaction effects of wine brand and COO on perceptions of the
image of the wine, expected price, and willingness to engage with the wine. A field
experiment design was used to allow for experimental manipulation of brand and COO
cues in information presented to respondents.
Wine industry revolution
In 2005, the International Organization of Vine and Wine repo rted a turnaround in
world wine industry trends and a slow yet consistent rise in wine consumption around
the world (World Vitivinicultural Statistics, 2005). This was ‘‘good’’ news for wine
producers and marketers who had faced sagging consumption numbers until the mid-
1990s. The ‘‘bad’’ news for some was the obvious shift in the world’s wine power
distribution, which came from an increase in competition within and between two
distinct camps – the so-called Old World wine producing countries, dominated by
France, Italy, and Germany, and the New World wi ne producing countries, led by the
USA (particularly California), Australia, and New Zealand. The question of how to
compete in this ever changing market became more pressing as the volume of wine
produced began to exceed world-wide consumption. How to attract buyers and
understanding why, when, and how the decision to buy a bottle of wine is made has
become paramount for all players of the market, i.e. wine producers, distributors,
retailers, etc. Extensive integrated communication via advertising, creative branding
strategies, sales promotion, wine testing events, wine-experience trips, use of
celebrities, packaging, etc. were embraced to attract consumers around the world
(Thomas, 2000; Smith, 2006).
Branding strategies for New World suppliers are dramatically different in style from
traditional approaches of Old World vintners. New World supplier approaches reflect
their desire to appeal to new, younger, less sophisticated wine buyers with conside rable
disposable incomes but little tolerance for u
¨
ber-experts telling them what to like. Wine
producers in Australia, California, and New Zealand rejected the designation of region
as the basis for classifying wines, opting instead to differentiate by grape variety.
Further, the fresh approach and cheekier attitude of these producers led them to adopt
less pretentious, fun names, often associate d with ‘‘critters’’ (e.g. kangaroos, birds,
penguins, lizards, etc.). Most Old World producers have generally maintained their
approach of clai ming greater quality based on tradition, choosing to continue to stress
regions and BN s, suggestive of the prestige of the producer (e.g. house or Chateau).
However, more recently several French wines have been introduced with non-
traditional names. The question that arises concerns the response of consumers to
what would appear to be an oxymoron, a ‘‘trendy French wine.’’ It is the influence of
BN, COO, and the congruity or lack thereof the two on consumer reactions to wine that
is the focus of this research. The study of those reactions will be informed by research
on the use of BN and country information in consumer decision processes and the
effects of BN-COO incongruity.
Literature review and hypotheses
Wine and consumer decision-making processes
Wine is one of a very few products for which many consumers buy a large number of
different brands, usually from more than one COO. Some consumers of wine have little
interest and involvement in wine buyin g. However, many others are more serious, are
IJWBR
22,3
290
quite concerned about the wine selection process, and often feel considerable uncertainty
about their capabilities to judge the quality of wine for a number of reasons. The reasons
for uncertainty arise from the nature of the product, the marketplace structure, and the
symbolic meaning of wine. Wine selection uncertainty and confusion is heightened by
the relative newness of wine as a widely used consumer product; rapid increases in the
wine producing regions of the world; an explosion of brands, types of wines, and wine
grape varieties on the market; changing practices in wine production and marketing;
the large number of factors that affect wine quality; high intra-brand and inter-year
variability of wine; the highly subjective nature of wine experiences; the importance of
expert opinions to wine quality evaluations and ratings; the snob appeal of quality
wines; variability of the price-quality relationship; an inability to assess the intrinsic
characteristics of the product before buying; and uncertainty about personal expertise
level and personal evaluation capabilities. For all these reasons, wine is a difficult product
to assess and is best classified as a credence good for which quality cannot be
consistently predicted prior to purchase nor assured even after purchase (Barber et al.,
2006). The high uncertainty conditions surrounding wine purchasing generate
conditions of risk. At the same time, consumers also face difficulty in acquiring
information. Information is often perceived to reside in experts who have unique
abilities, knowledge, and training to assess wine quality. However, these experts often
communicate in a sophisticated language that can mean little to the average buyer.
Under conditions of high uncertainty and risk but difficulty in accessing
information, consumers often turn to surrogate measures of quality, such as BN, price,
and COO. For wine, the list of surrogate indicators often includes advertising media,
the mix of wines in the store, packaging, the winery, the country or region, information
on the label, etc. (Gluckman, 1990). While each of these indicato rs has been found to
influence wine decision-making processes, the importance of packaging and, in
par ticular, wine label influence cannot be overstated (Shaw et al., 1999; Tustin and
Lockshin, 2001; Thomas and Pickering, 2003). The shape of the bottle, color, and other
information on the wine label are used to simplify the process of wine selection
(Spawton, 1991). Moreover, wine label information is a direct communication channel
used by wine-makers to link with current and potential customers and tell about the
uniqueness of the wine, the history of the winery, suggesti ons on the consumption
occasion, as well as information on grape variety, year of production, BN, and COO.
This label information can contribute to the development of perceptions of the wine
and can affect consumers’ decision-making processes.
Cue use in wine decision making
According to attribution theory, a consumer evaluates a product in terms of its visible
accessible information attributes, inc luding those on the label, to make inferences
regarding non-observable characteristics (e.g. taste, acidity, texture) and outcomes of
purchase (e.g. product quality, riskiness, and satisfaction). Used as such, the observable
attributes serve as cues of the other inferred characteristics or attributes. These
inferred attributes are combined with the visible attributes to arrive at the preference
or choice (Huber and McCann, 1982).
Informational cues are especially important for a product like wine or any other
experience product for which the actual evaluation of quality and suitability happens
at the point of consumption (Charters and Pettig rew, 2006). For wine, g rape variety and
alcohol level would be examples of intrinsic cues which are inherent to the product’s
physical character, while BN and price would serve as extrinsic cues, which can be
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
291
changed without changing the product’s physical characteristics. However, for wine,
COO and even region-of-origin carries considerable information about the product, and it
is believed by many that terroire is an absolute or at least a significant determinant of
wine taste and quality characteristics. Oenophiles, highly sophisticated wine consumers,
follow and collect information on the characteristic properties of specific vineyards in
different regions of the world. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that COO is an intrinsic
cue for wine quality judgments. However, recent studies on wine consumption identify
several non-wine savvy segments of the market – aspirational drinkers, beverage wine
drinkers, and new wine drinkers (Spawton, 1991) – that pay more attention to the
intangible aspects of wine consumption (e.g. prestige, sophistication, impressions on
others, etc.). These consumers use COO to infer these desired characteristics of wines and
in this function, and, in this case, COO is acting as an extrinsic cue. Therefore, COO for
wine can act as both an intrinsic and an extrinsic cue. Our further discussion will evolve
around two extensively examined quality information cues – BN (an extrinsic cue) and
COO (both an extrinsic and an intrinsic cue for wine). A rich body of research on product
evaluations confirms the significance of these cues for the formation of perceptions of
many product characteristics, including quality and suitability for use (Gaedeke, 1973;
Heslop et al., 1987; Tse and Gorn, 1993).
COO and wine. One of the earliest definitions of COO views it as ‘‘the picture, the
reputation, the stereotype [people] attach to products of a specific country’’ (Nagashima,
1970, p. 68). The main functions of image, according to Poiesz (1989), are to reduce
complexities of information processing, to serve as a gatekeeper to more extensive
elaboration, and to serve as a simplifying heuristic. COO images are formed and affected
by many factors (e.g. products, experiences, communication, events, etc.) and are often
utilized as cues to imply other product attributes (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002) that
are then applied in product evaluations and decision-making processes (Hamzaoui and
Merunka, 2006). COO information gathered from many sources over time is stored
and retrieved during the decision-making process as a surrogate indicator of quality.
According to Liu and Johnson (2005), the mere presence of COO information
spontaneously activates country stereotypes and affects product judgments.
It is important to bear in mind that COO image is not a static but a dynamic concept
that is affected by many factors and can be changed over time. It is affected by psycho-
social, demographic, and other factors as well by product-related attributes such as
price, retailer reputation, BN, etc. The overwhelming evidence is that the lower the
image of the COO, the higher the perceived riskin ess of the product quality and
purchase (Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002). However, the lowering effect of poor
country image on the perception of product quality may be offset by a strong BN,
retailer reputation, warranties, etc. Thus, COO can affect and can be affected by thes e
additional information cues.
Traditionally, Old World wine countries employed a destination-of-origin (DO)
system to distinguish wines based on the location of production. The complex and
heavily regulated DO system is rooted in the culture of traditional wine-producing
nations. However, the DO system is controversial. Proponents argue that in today’s
highly competitive wine market location-based marketing provides competitive
advantages, since DO is an attribute that provides unique information on wine,
heritage, and, hence, quality, that is impossible to duplicate (Thode and Maskulka,
1998). The opposite viewpoint is that the operationalization of the DO system requires
that the consumer be knowledgeable about all designated wine regions. Suc h an
assumption is unlikely, especially considering the increasing number of New World
IJWBR
22,3
292
wine-producers and the changing profile of wine consumers (Hall and Winchester,
1999; Smith, 2006). While still recognizing the importance of the origin, New World
wine producers stake their reputation on such attributes as grape variety and BN and
label their wines accordingly.
Thode and Maskulka (1998) note that where the grape is grown has an effect not only on
wine perceptions but also on much of a wine’ s image and mystique. COO is consistently
cited in research as a top determinant of wine quality estimations and choice criteria.
Respondents in the study by Barber et al. (2006) reported that COO was the most important
la bel information in their selection decisions. Schamel (2006) proposed that consumers have
little time and attention to giv e to the complexities of wine information and ‘‘will pay much
higher prices for reputab le wines from a well-known producer or region because they do
not hav e suf ficient information or they are uncertain about quality’’ (p. 364). French wines
are often found to hav e the highest quality perceptions among consumers (Keown and
Casey, 1995; W aal, 1997). Orth et al. (2005) determined that what is important to a wine
consumer will significantly impact their choice of the COO for their wine. Consumers with
a quality orientation will ha v e higher prefere nces for wine from France; those interested in
price will likely show a higher preference for wines from other regions, such as South
America or South Africa. Some wines from California or New Zealand hold strong social
meanings, and some from Oregon may be chosen for envir onmental value.
BN and wine. BN is defined as ‘‘a name, term... or any other feature that identifies the
goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and dif fer entiates those goods
or services from those of competitors’’ (Aaker, 1991, p. 7). BN serves to identify products
in the market and ensure consistency of product experiences. While the research on
utilization of BN in product judgments has had mixed results, BN information is used
more frequently than any other information for many product quality judgments (Purohit
and Srivastava, 2001). Whether in single-cue or in multi-cue studies, BN is often the
strongest cue affecting product quality judgments (Rao and Monroe, 1988; Brucks et al.,
2000; Dodds et al., 1991). BN and its associated reputation is often the most preferred
heuristic cue in simplifying the decision-making process (Maheswaran et al., 1992).
There is much less research on BN effects on wine buyers than COO. Gluckman (1990)
notes that BNs are not clear concepts in consumers’ minds. He observes that consumers
often confuse them with grape varieties (e.g. Shiraz) and select among them as if they
were a single brand. Therefore, BNs are probably less important to occasional buyers
with little expertise than skilled buyers who are willing to pay more for brands they like.
He concludes that ‘‘(w)ine brands are restricted...in the degree to which they are able to
project distinctive elements in order to differentiate themselves from the plethora of
offerings in the market (Gluckman, 1990, p. 41). While the product proliferation has only
worsened in the almost two decades since he wrote this, the increase in advertising by
wine sellers and the use of point-of-sale promotional materials and more distinctive
labeling may have allowed BN power to grow for wines. Thomas (2000) and Thomas and
Pickering (2003) reported that BN, along with grape variety and price were the most
important informational items used in assessing wine products before purchase. Barber
et al. (2006) and Boudreaux and Palmer (2007) both observed labeling impacts on
consumer responses to wine. While neither tested BN, they indicate that other labeling
cues can affect responses. Also, respondents in the study by Barber et al. (2006) selected
BN as the second most important label information, tied with vintner.
Cue congruence and perceived fit. When discussing the importance of cues and their
roles in evaluation process, it is imp ortant to remember that a product evaluation,
arising from quality judgments and affective reactions that influence behavioral
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
293
responses, is a not a single-cue, but a complex multi-cue use process (Rao and Monroe,
1988). Thus, the cue compatibility or congruence issue needs to be addressed. In his
study of dimensions of brand knowledge, Keller (1993) reviewed cue compatibility
or congruence from the perspectives of an associative network memory model and
defined it as the ‘‘extent to which a brand association shares content and meaning with
another brand association’’ (Keller, 1993, p. 7). Keller’s cue compatibility principle states
that ‘‘a successful recall of [brand associations] is more likely to occur when the type of
information contained in retrieval cues is compatible or congruent with the type of
information stored previously’’ (Keller, 1993, p. 2). On the other hand, when cues are
incongruent, the evaluation process may suffer from confusion resulting from less
developed and weak brand associations or from the absorption effect when one brand
attribute discounts or overlooks other relevant associations.
Applying the same logic to product quality evaluation processes, cue congruence can
be defined as an extent to which a product characteristic association, or a cue, shares
content and meaning with another product association(s). In other words, it is expected
that perceptions of wine characteristics, both tangible (e.g. taste, price) or intangible (e.g.
personality, prestige) are affected by the extent to which BN and COO are congruent with
each other. In agreement with Keller’s (1993) model, Ha
¨
ubl and Elrod (1999) suggest that
BN-COO congruity affects ‘‘quality judgments via consumers’ confidence in their own
ability to correctly assess a product’s quality and their degree of certainty about the
validity of their judgment’’ (p. 201). By recognizing associations of the same brand vary
across different countries, they treat congruity as ‘‘a strength [degree] with which a brand
is associated with its [COO]’’ (Ha
¨
ubl and Elrod, 1999, p. 203). In addition, they propose
that the higher the degree of congruity, the more favorable the product quality
evaluations and affective reactions to the product will be.
Product personality and wine
Consumers’ evaluations of a product involve the use of perceptions of the product to
develop both beliefs about expected outcomes of engaging with the product and
emotional reactions to it. As noted above, brand beliefs and associations are the source of
perceived consumer benefits to be derived from using the brand and the equity of the
brand in the marketplace. These beliefs represent ‘‘personal value and meanings that
consumers attach to the brand’’ (Keller, 2003, p. 596). Some of these are performance
beliefs and some are symbolic beliefs. A central concept in the study of brand effects on
consumers is that symbolic personal meanings are interpreted as the brand’s personality.
It is argued that brand personalities, or ‘‘human characteristics associated with a brand’’
(Aaker, 1997, p. 347), are strongly associated with purchase intentions and affect product
preferences, as well as help in building customer loyalty (Boudreaux and Palmer, 2007).
Personality traits are associated with a brand in direct ways (i.e. personality traits of
people related to the brand are transferred to the brand) and/or in indirect ways (i.e.
through other product-related attributes such as COO, price, retailer reputation, product
category) (Batra et al., 1993). Based on 42 selected personality traits clustered around 15
facets, Aaker (1997) distinguished five dimensions of brand personality with associated
descriptor traits, Sincerity (down-to-earth, honest, wholesome), Excitement (daring,
spirited, imaginative), Competence (reliable, intelligent, successful), Sophistication (upper
class, charming), and Ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough, rugged). These dimensions have
been confirmed in other studies (Sweeney and Brandon, 2006).
Managers also view brand personality as both a means of differentiating a brand
(Ver nadakis, 2000) and a common denominator for marketing a brand across cultures
IJWBR
22,3
294
(Aaker et al., 2001; Sung and Tinkham, 2005). Aaker (1997) further proposes that three
of brand p ersonality dimensions (i.e. Sincerity, Excitement, and Competence) relate to
the ‘‘Big Five’’ human personality dimensions and may coincide with what individuals
think about themselves. Whereas, two others (i.e. Sophistication and Ruggedness) may
be related to the aspirational associations and desired character features. In other
words, the match between perceived brand personality and self-perception may affect
consumers’ product preferences and purchasing behavior in different ways.
The value of BNs, their personalities, and related benefits sought from different
brands are of particular importance for products like wine that, in addition to their
practical use, are associated with strong symbolic meanings. In research on wine, Orth
and Malkewitz (2008) found five generalizable response dimensions in brand personality
data that were reflective of Aaker’s five dimensions of Ruggedness, Sincerity,
Excitement, Competence, and Sophistication. They also found strong associations
between various holistic package design concepts and personality assessments of the
wines. For example, delicate package designs scored ‘‘high on competence and
sophistication, whereas sincerity, excitement, and ruggedness responses (were) only
average’’ (Orth and Malkewitz, 2008, p. 73). Orth et al. (2004) also noted that symbolic
beliefs, of which personality is one, are so strong that they will endure even in the face of
experiences with the product. Boudreaux and Palmer (2007) noted wine label impacts on
personality images of wines. In their study, they controlled on region of origin and used
ten facets of only three of Aaker’s personality dimensions (Excitement, Sophistication,
Ruggedness) to generate personality traits which showed high variance across their
different label designs and were predictive of wine purchase intent.
The literature presented strongly suggests that for experience and credence
products, like wine, with strong symbolic meanings, consumers’ decision-making
processes, as well as expectations concerning other important attributes, such as price,
will be strongly affected by images, specifically perceptions of p ersonality, fo rmed on
the basis of accessible extrinsic cues, i.e. BN and COO. From previous research at the
general level and specifically with wine, BN and COO can both be expected to impact
wine evaluations and price expectations. As well, incongruence of BN and COO cues
may also impact evaluations, as noted in research find ings presented above. In
addition, brands frequently are associated with personality characteristics and country
images contain reflections of personality traits of the country and its people. Therefore,
wine personality characteristics may be derived by consumers from both BN and COO
associations and the cong ruency of BN and COO cues. In light of these considerations
we propose a framework of hypotheses that link COO, BN, BN-COO congruency,
personality, price expectations, and wine evaluations:
H1. Consumer assessments of wine personality characteristics will be affected by
(a) COO; (b) BN; and (c) BN-COO congruency.
H2. Consumer price perceptions will be affected by (a) perceptions of wine
personality; (b) COO; (c) BN; and (d) BN-COO congruency.
H3. Consumer responses to wines will be affected by (a) perce ptions of wine
personality; (b) COO; (c) BN; and (d) BN-COO congruency.
Methodolog y
To test the hypotheses, a field experiment in which labeling information containing the
BN and COO of fictitious wines was presented to wine consumers and their reactions
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
295
were assessed. BN and COO were manipulated between subjects across four COO and
three BNs to test for main and interaction effects. The study design is outlined in this
section, first explaining how appropriate COO and BNs were chosen in a pretest and
then the main experiment is described.
Pretest of BNs and selection of countries for the main experiment
The development of suitable BN and COO of origins for testing involved pre-testing
of various individual and combinations of BN and COOS. In the main experiment, the
plan was to use four countries and three fictitious BNs for a total of 12 (4 3 design)
treatment combinations. To identify effects of COO on personality assessments and
response jud gments and to allow for both congruent and incongruent BN matching,
countries representing Old vs New World were chosen through consulting industry
information and a wine retail manager familiar with the study’s local consumers.
France was chosen to represent an Old World country well-established and well-known
to wine drinkers; Chile was chosen as a relatively newly established wine producing
country but with a history of wine production in the Old World style and until recently,
a strong emphasis on parentage and traditions. Australia was used as an example of a
newly established wine producing country with a rapidly growing market share, and
Canada was chosen to present another New World producer with a longer history of
production, as well as the domestic wine industry producer.
To develop BNs that were congruent and incongruent with the countries chosen, a
list of fictitious BNs was developed through a market scanning process and then pre-
tested with a group of faculty and graduate students in a majo r Canadian university
through a brief questionnaire. In total, 12 fictitious brands were tested. The subjects
were asked to rate the likelihood that the brands originated from each of the four
countries used in the experiment. The brands with varying levels of association with
the countries desired for testing in the main experiment. The three brands were
Chateau Rochelle (ChR), associated strongly with France and moderately with Cana da
but not with Chile and Australia; Blue Umbrella (BU), associated strongly with
Australia but not with the other three countries; and Speckled Toad (ST), which had
strong associations with Australia but also some association with France but not with
Canada or Chile.
During the pre-test, subjects were also provided with six potential fictitious wine
label designs. This pretest indicated wide variances in response to label design (also
noted by Orth and Ma lkewitz, 2008) and therefore, it was dec ided not to use any actual
labels in the main experiment so as not to cause confounding effects. Instead,
respondents were simply presented with a written script in the main experiment and
told that it was information that would appear on the wine label.
Experiment of COO and BN effects
Procedure. A questionnaire that included the content of the front and back label of
a proposed new wine (see Appendix) and questions on personality perceptions, price
expectations, and response measures was given to 1,170 potential respondents of legal
alcohol-consumption age. To diversify the sample, potential respondents were
approached at two areas. Half of the respondents were approached at a major Canadian
university campus. The campus sample contained students, staff, and faculty
members, and campus visito rs who were randomly approached in busy university
public spaces or in classrooms. Respondents were pre-qualified as being of drinking
IJWBR
22,3
296
age and agreed to fill out the questionnaire on wine. They were given a labeled
envelope and asked to return it through inter-office mail. The other half of respondents
was ap proached while shopping in the wine section of a liquor sales outlet. Each
par ticipant was asked to complete one of 12 questionnaires (3 BNs 4 COOs). In total,
723 responses were collected rep resenting a 61.8 percent response rate. Several
questionnaires were excluded from analysis be cause responde nts did not consume
wine or because the questionnaires were not completed fully or correctly. Six hundred
ninety-five questionnaires were used for analysis.
Instrument. The questionnaire used was comprised of three main parts. The first
par t presented the experimental label information of the fictitious wine. The wine type
chosen for research was Cabernet Sauvignon, which is the largest selling red wine in
Canada. Respondents were told that the retailer was considering stocking the wine and
asked to rate it on the scales provided and indicate their interest in purchasing it for
various uses. The informatio n on country and BN, grape variety, alcohol level, and year
of production was presented as a script of the front label. These information pieces are
all the ones that are consistently available on wine bottles. Since the purpose was to
determine the effects of BN and COO, only this information varied across respondents
and all other information (grape variety, alcohol level, and volume) was held constant.
According to research by Thomas and Pickering (2003), respondents who preferred
Cabernet Sauvignon, which was rated during the pre-test as the most preferred grape
variety, placed a greater emphasis on the front label rather than on the back one, which
presents generic information on flavor and aromas. However, since normally a wine
buyer does have the back label available for examination, information of the type often
provided on the back label (flavor notes, use occasions, etc.) was also provided to
respondents in the form of a generic descriptor of Cabernet Sauvignon drawn from
several wine information sources.
Respondents were provided a list of 25 personality characteristics (e.g. trendy,
nuanced, delicate, etc.) and asked to characterize the wine using a seven-point scale as
to whether or not it was likely to have this characteris tic. The end points of the scale
were identified as Highly Unlikely (1) and Highly Likely (7). Twelve of the personality
traits were taken directly or adapted from Aaker’s (1997) set of personality traits. The
remaining 13 traits were developed with the help of a wine retailer to be reflective
of Aaker’s dimensions adapted to be better descriptors of wine. The most adaption
involved Aaker’s dimension of Ruggedness, which includes traits of outdoorsy,
masculine, Western, tough and rugged. None of these is a particular positive or even
good descriptor of wines and may even be misused in the context of the study (i.e.
Western). However, a wine could easily be described in terms closely reflective of this
trait with terms such as strong, bold, and aggressive. Boudreaux and Palmer (2007)
also noted some difficulties with the use of Aaker’s trait descriptors in their study of
wines. The personality characteristics items used can be seen in Table II. A pre-test
indicated they were comprehensible and usable wine descriptors.
In the second part of the questionnaire, respondents rated the wine on a list of nine
seven-point response orientation scales (would read more, would try, would try at wine
tasting, would serve with casual meal, would serve with elegant meal, would give to
friend, would give to boss, like the idea, would buy) and were asked to indicate their
potential intentions towards the presented wine. In addition, resp ondents were asked to
indicate a price they would expect to be charged for the wine. The third part asked for
respondents’ demographic information (e.g. age, income, gender, and education), as
well about their wine consumption characteristics. In addition, respondents were asked
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
297
to recall the last bottle of wine they had bought, and the countries they had bought
wine from during the last month .
Results
Sample characteristics
The sample was well balanced on sex of respondents. The median age for respondents
was in 30-49 years age group (45 percent) with 23 percent in under 30 years ag e group
and 31 percent over 49 years age group. The full information on sample characteristics
is presented in Table I. The participants were also asked to indicate the origin of the
last bottle of wine they had tried within last month, which indicated consumption of
mainly Australian (23.5 percent), Italian (14.8 percent), Canadian (14.7 percent), and
French (12.1 percent) wines.
Wine personality constructs
Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation was used to determine the p attern
of groupings of the 25 wine personality measures. As seen in Table II, 23 personality
traits loaded into five factors. Two traits loaded poorly with all dimensions and were
excluded from the analysis. Fou r of the dimensions coincide with Aaker’s (1997)
personality dimension framework with one appearing to combine both of Aaker’s
Competence and Sincerity dimensions. A fifth factor, termed creativity, emerged as a
Table I.
Respondent
characteristics
Demographic factors Frequency
Percentage (based
on valid responses)
Level of expertise
Novice 263 38.0
Intermediate 398 57.4
Expert 32 4.6
Consumption frequency
Daily 84 12.1
A few times a week 323 46.5
A few times a month 231 33.2
Once every few months 57 8.2
Age
<30 159 23.0
30-49 311 44.9
>49 222 32.1
Gender
Male 353 51.0
Female 339 49.0
Education
High school o r less 31 4.5
Some post-secondary 152 22.0
Post-secondary completed 508 73.5
Income
Under $25,000 96 14.5
$25,000-$50,000 144 21.7
$50,001-$75,000 243 36.7
$75,001-$100,000 63 9.5
Over $100,000 117 17.6
IJWBR
22,3
298
Table II.
Wine personality
dimensions derived
from wine descriptors
Dimension names (factor loadings of descriptors)
Ruggedness Competence-Sincerity Sophistication Creativity Excitement
Personality trait measures Strong (0.718) Honest
a
(0.653) Nuanced (0.655) Unique
a
(0.685) Trendy
a
(0.764)
Aggressive (0.715) Consistent (0.468) Delicate (0.532) Charming
a
(0.465) Frivolous (0.521)
Bold (0.754) Down-to-earth
a
(0.702) Sophisticated
a
(0.763) Characteristic (0.483) Young
a
(0.659)
Intense (0.787) Sincere
a
(0.699) Subtle (0.594) Imaginative
a
(0.745) Contemporary
a
(0.668)
Complex (0.563) Intelligent
a
(0.547)
Reliable
a
(0.693)
Eigenvalues 27.45 10.69 9.99 5.3 5.23
% Variance explained 14.21 12.86 12.57 9.89 9.14
Cronbach’s alpha 0.813 0.802 0.687 0.729 0.643
Note:
a
Original items reported in Aaker (1997)
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
299
unique factor. Cronbach’s alphas were sufficiently high to allow for combining the
items through equal weighted averaging into five personality dimension measures.
Cue effects on wine personality dimensions – H1
As noted earlier there were 12 treatment conditions (3 BN 4 COO) with an average of
58 respondents/treatment. MANOVA was used to examine personality dimension
scores for main and interacti on effects of BN and COO. Significant main effects of BN
(Wilk’s Lambda) and border-line main effects of COO (Roy’s Largest Root only) but no
interaction effects were found (Table III). BN showed strong main effects on the
perception of the personality dimensions of Competence-Sincerity, Sophistication, and
Excitement. W hile overall COO effects were not found, it is noted that the dimensions
of Ruggedness and Creativity showed weak ( 0.10) effects.
Therefore, BN seems to carry most of the image of the personality of the wines on
three dimensions. COO showed only weak signs of affecting the two other dimensions.
Since BN and COO effects are associated with different personality dimensions and no
personality dimension interaction effects were found, the findings suggests BN-COO
incongruity may not create confusion in the formation of wine personality images.
Therefore, H1a shows marginally weak supp ort, H1b is partially supported, and H1c
is not supported.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship and more clearly indicates the nature of the
effects. For Competence-Sincerity and Sophistication, the ChR brand was highest, and
the Speckled Toad (ST) brand scored best for Excitement. On Creativity, France was
higher than all the other countries for all wines, and for Ruggedness, Australia was
consistently highest and Canada lowest across all brands. The absence of interaction
effects is clear from the graphs in Figure 1. However, when the wine is labeled as
Chilean, the pattern of ratings on different names does deviate from the other countries
for Creativity and Competence-Sincerity.
Cue and personality effects on price perceptions – H2
Respondents were asked their expectations for the price of the wine. Expected price
means are shown in Table IV. ANOVA revealed significant main effects of BN
(F ¼ 7.295; p < 0.01) and COO (F ¼ 4.692; p < 0.05). The test also showed a BN-COO
interaction effect that approached significance (F ¼ 1.407; p ¼ 0.107). Hence, all
aspects of H2b, c,andd were supported at least to some extent. Respondents expected
higher prices for ChR and BU, and ST was expected to have a lower price tag. French
wines were expected to be relatively higher in price, followed by Australian and
Canadian at about the same level, with Chilean wines being lowest priced. This
Table III.
Personality dimensions –
multivariate tests on
BN and COO
Cue effects
Personality dimensions BN, F (Sig.) COO, F (Sig.) BN COO, F (Sig.)
Ruggedness 0.464 (0.629) 2.141 (0.094) 0.047 (1.000)
Competence-Sincerity 4.185 (0.016) 1.344 (0.259) 0.612 (0.721)
Sophistication 4.711 (0.009) 0.905 (0.438) 0.424 (0.863)
Creativity 0.978 (0.377) 2.032 (0.108) 0.468 (0.833)
Excitement 28.746 (0.000) 0.162 (0.922) 0.685 (0.662)
Wilk’s Lambda 7.889 (0.000) 1.032 (0.418) 0.557 (0.976)
Roy’s Largest Root 15.385 (0.000) 1.519 (0.182) 1.741 (0.109)
IJWBR
22,3
300
suggests that the Old World country with a historically stable high image of wine
production continues to enjoy favorable price expectations from consumers. Regarding
BN, ChR takes a leading position with expected congruity on price expectations.
With regards to the BN-COO incongruity effects, respondents expected higher
prices for ChR, the French-sounding BN, originating from France and also from
Canada, a country with historical French ties, than other countries. This finding
suggests the value of French names accrues more to France, and other countries with
no rationale for French naming may receive little country-brand equity from borrowing
the leader country image. Interestingly, the respo ndents expected to see the same price
tag for ST originating from France and Australia. While this ‘‘critter’’ name is not
sur prising fo r Australian wines, known for their exciting and out-of-box branding
strategies, it is less expected for French wines known for their traditional branding
strategies. Nevertheless, these results are not totally unexpected since the pre-test
found some respondents saw associations between ST and France. This suggests that
brand incongruity issues that might have been expected for French vintners moving to
adopt quirky and novel, rather than traditional names for wine is not a problem now,
if it ever was. Consumers are able to accept the possibility of such wines being
Figure 1.
Wine personality
dimensions by
BN and COO
Table IV.
Expected means of price
by BN and COO
Countries
Brand names Mean price France Canada Chile Australia
Speckled Toad $14.27 $15.48 $13.06 $13.07 $15.48
Blue Umbrella $14.98 $15.74 $14.88 $13.86 $15.44
Chateau Rochelle $16.20 $17.11 $17.43 $14.99 $15.27
Mean for all $15.15 $16.09 $15.06 $13.97 $15.40
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
301
appropriate, even thoug h France is still seen as producing the most competent and
sophisticated wines. However, the expected price for these ‘‘critter’’ wines from France
is lower than for the more traditionally named wines. Canadian wines had the widest
variances in pricing across different BNs, suggesting a less fixed image of Canadian
wine producers.
Since price exp ectations and the composite personality dimension measures are all
continuous variables, regression analysis was used to examine the relative importance
of the personality image dimensions in explaining variance in price perceptions. The
regression analysis results in standardized model form with price as a dependent
variable and personality traits as independent variables confirms that price
expectations of consumers are related to perceptions of wine personality (F(5,
1482) ¼ 10.751; p <0.001).
Price ¼ 0:233 Sophistication 0:087 Excitement þ 0:031 Ruggedness
þ 0:011 Competence Sincerity þ 0:055 Creativity
Only two personality dimensions had significant standardized betas. Sophistication
( p < 0.001) and Excitement ( p < 0.05) personality dimensio ns had significant but
opposite effects on price expectations. The more sophisticated the wine is perceived to
be the higher its expected price; but the more exciting its personality, the less expensive
it is expected to be. Hence, 2a is partially supported.
Cue and personality effects on beha vioral orientations – H3b, c, d
Nine behavioral orientation responses to the proposed wine were assessed in the
experiment (would read more, would try, would try at wine tasting, would serve with
casual meal, would serve with elegant meal, would give to friend, would give to boss,
like the idea, would buy). MANOVA analysis indicated no significant overall Wilk’s
Lambda for any of BN, COO, or BN-COO interaction effects on these measures.
However Roy’s Largest Root was significant at 0.05 for all three, suggesting some
of the measures were significant.
BN effect was significant for the inten tion to serve with elegant meal (F ¼ 3.923;
p < 0.05) and approached significance for the intention to give to boss (F ¼ 2.225;
p ¼ 0.109). COO effects were significant only for the intention to give to boss
(F ¼ 2.779; p < 0.05). Therefore, there was only weak and limited support for H3b and
H3c and none for H3d, i.e. there were no significant interaction effects for any
individual measure. It should be noted that the behavioral orientation measures
showing significance are those reflecting behaviors with distinctly higher social risk.
Elegant meals are usually designed to be impressive, and one is more likely to wish to
impress a boss than a friend and le ss willing to incur a social mistake in either
situation. Therefore, the results suggest the main value of these two cues of BN and
COO may be in reducing perceived social risk associated with choosing an inherently
complex product with high image conten t.
Wine personality and behavioral orientations – H3a
Table V presents results of regressions with the individual response items as the
dependent variables and the personality dimensions as predictors. Personality
dimensions were found to be useful predictors of all response orientations. The
Sophistication and Competence-Sincerity dimensions showed the highest adjusted
IJWBR
22,3
302
betas. Ruggedness, Creativity, and Excitement dimension effects as measured by
adjusted betas were lower and not always predictive of some behavioral orientations.
The Excitement dimension had a negative adjusted beta coefficient in all cases that it
was significant. Although funny and cute names may draw significant attention in the
marketplace and be seen as evidence of a wine with a creative and exciting personality,
this finding indicates that they may not be associated with positive behavioral
orientations toward wines, and, in fact, Excitement as a personality dimension
perception is actually a deterrent to acceptance. The results suggest, for elegant meals,
the wine should ooze sophistication. A wine going to a boss or even a friend should be
sophisticated and competent-sincere.
Discussion and conclusions
This study provided wine consumers with wine label information in script form within
which BN and COO infor mation was manipulated to allow for examination of BN, COO
and brand cue congruity effects on price and personality perceptions and resp onses to
the wine. The research contributes to the understanding of wine decision making and to
theoretical approaches to cue use and congruity effects and also to product personality
profiling.
In the study results, consumers did show strong evidence that they were forming
images of the wine along personality dimensions that largely cor responded to
previously identified personality traits. This finding suppor ts and extends the work on
wine labels of Orth and Malkewitz (2008) who ident ified five personality dimensions
associated with wine label designs and Boudreaux and Palmer (2007) who used three
dimensions to assess wine label designs. In the study reported here, BN was associated
with three dimensions – Sophistication, Excitement and Sincerity-Competence. COO
was weakly ass ociated with the two others – Ruggedness and Creativity. No BN-COO
interaction effects were observed, which flows from the finding that the two cues
affected perceptions of different aspects of personality. This finding suggests new
directions for theory and the study of product perso nality development. Products
usually carry information on both BN and origin. While much research has focused on
brand personality development in product images, product personalities may also arise
from COO cues and from the combination of the two. Within specific research on wine
Table V.
Behavioral response
measure effects of
perceived personality
R
2
F
Betas
Ruggedness
Competence-
Sincerity Sophistication Creativity Excitement
Read more 0.243 43.92 0.109 0.109 0.256 0.181 ns
Try wine 0.246 44.53 ns 0.173 0.304 0.118 0.134
Wine club tasting 0.121 18.79 ns ns 0.348 0.145 ns
With casual meal 0.146 23.26 0.138 0.259 0.185 ns ns
With elegant meal 0.360 76.40 0.164 0.166 0.375 ns 0.225
Give to friend 0.217 50.71 0.082* 0.174 0.292 0.132 0.157
Give to boss 0.230 40.58 ns 0.168 0.117 0.138 0.168
Like 0.308 60.75 0.060 0.214 0.311 0.129 0.103
Buy wine 0.263 48.61 ns 0.203 0.270 0.135 0.177
Note: All overall models and adjusted betas are significant at 0.01, except if marked with
*for 0.05 or ns – not significant
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
303
decision making it would appear that certain personality components may arise from
BNs and others from country identifiers. For marketers this finding suggests the
possibility of more flexibility in branding strategies across certain countries. Moreover
the study found certain countries, like Canada, with little established wine history or
world presence may have more flexibility for directions with branding strategies and
wine personality development.
All personality dimensions of wine were related to response orientations, signaling
the key importance for wine marketers of understanding the processes by which
consumers form wine personality profiles from brand and country cues, and how these
personalities are associated with price expectations. Particularly strong predictive
power was demonstrated for three of them, associated with BN Sophistication
(positive), Competence-Sincerity (positive), and Excitement (negative). The other two –
Creativity and Ruggedness – associated only with COO, showed signific ant but less
impact on response orientation. Therefore, this research found that BN and COO have
distinct impacts on personality perceptions; and hence, the absence of BN-COO
incongruity effects can be explained as a consequence of these differential personality
dimension effects. Thus, BN-COO incongruity may not be a significant problem to
wine image definition clarity.
BN, COO, and BN-COO interaction effects were found for price expectations. This
was the main interaction effect noted. Therefore, a key result of the study concerns the
issue of how BN-COO incong ruity can affect price expectations. This finding is a novel
contribution to the study of cue effects, especially in the area of country equity and
branding. There is relatively little research on cue congruity, particularly with regards
to COO effects. This finding of cue incongruity effects is of direct and major relevance
to marketers of wine. France is still seen as the ‘‘priciest’’ wine region, and respondents
in this study associated the French-sounding BN with higher wine price expectations.
This association benefited wines from all countries (particularly wines from France
and Canada) except Australia. The BN-COO incongruity factor may be the issue for
Australian wines with French-sounding names. While Canada has historical links to
France and Chilean wine production methods have roots in France, some credence of
the association of a French name with wines from these countries is credible, if a
stretch. There is no such support for Australia; hence, if marketers of Australian wines
use a French name , it may be seen as a farce or perceived as an attempt to deceive. On
the other hand, for France, not using a French name can lead to lower price perceptions.
French wine using a ‘‘critter’’ naming strategy was identified with the lowest price
point for French wines. However, the lack of both main and interaction BN and COO
cue effects on response orientations would suggest that France would not be
disadvantaged in selling the bottle of wine, although it would have to price it lower. If
marketers of French wines are willing to sell at lowe r price p oints, this may not be a
problem in the short run. However, in the longer term, it may lead to a general
devaluing of the current quality image of French wines and lead to resistance to paying
high prices for high quality, prestigious French brands.
Combining all these findings suggests tha t price, which is often one of the strongest
cues for quality, is impacted by BN and COO. Incongruities arising from lack of fit can
impact price expectations, either positively or negatively. Personality images are
affected by BN and COO in different ways through different dimensions. Suitability for
use in different situations is strongly linked to personality traits of the wine and
par ticularly the traits associated with BN. This combination of results suggests that
consumers may be more heavily influenced by BN if they shop with use occasion in
IJWBR
22,3
304
mind. Indeed, most non-expert buyers consume wine purchases within hours of
purchase. Therefore, they are likely purchasing with the use occasion in mind.
However, more sophisticated shoppers are more likely to select wines for quality
characteristics and to develop a stoc k of wine. Such buyers would look for quality
indicators and be willing to pay a higher price. Thus, wine marketers should be
concerned that brand incongruity would be a more dangerous approach if
sophisticated, quality buyers were the target market. This may also be the case for
wine buyers buying for high social risk occasions. Based on our observations about
price and cue effects, both cues and their interactions will affect price expectations and
therefore, quality exp ectations. Such a conclusion would be congruent with other wine
research findings on the importance of BN and COO in wine decision making (e.g.
Barber et al., 2006; Orth et al., 2005; Thomas and Pickering, 2003).
This research has limita tions common to many field experiments, in that it tested a
small set of wine BNs and COOs with consumers in limited locations. The samples for
eac h experimental condition were reasonable but not large. With larger sample sizes
and a wider range of BNs and COOs, some marginal effects might become significant.
Fo r more substantive proof of findings, the study could be repeated with different BN
and COO example s and in different locations.
The study does provide evidence of value in a rapidly evolving marketplace for wine. It
highlights the importance of wine personality in assessing consumer responses to wines
and the significance of situational use factors in determining the important dimensions of
the wine image suited to the wine consumption experience. Wine marketers often choose
wine names to connote characteristics of their wine, and personality images can serve as a
good way to understand the way consumers encode and use the BN information. The
results also indicated a weaker effect of country on these images, but further research with
larger samples may prove these relationships to be stronger. Both BN and country impact
wine price perceptions. Price is both a quality cue and also an inhibitor of purchase. In the
case of wines, it is also related to personality images. Therefore, BN decisions directly
affect the bottom line for wines in both direct and indirect ways.
As is often found (e.g. Keown and Casey, 1995; Schamel, 2006; Waal, 1997), COO is
seen here to affect perceptions of price. BN and COO interactions have been noted in
studies with other products in which changing the COO affects brand equity. That
effect is also seen in wines and is directly translated into price perceptions. It is in this
regard that the interaction was observed, but the interaction is also seen in the impact
of higher image countries in raising BN assessments. However, for wine marketers in
one of the New Wo rld powerhouse countries, Australia, BN was found to have very
little impact on price perceptions. This may be because Australia has quickly
established itself with an ‘‘anything goes’’ creative image that has not used fancy BN s
to shore up the prestige of its wines. France wine producers may choose trendy wine
names, but price expectations may be driven down in doing so. Therefore, for
marketers of French wines, such a branding strategy is risky in mainstream markets,
and the success of such a strategy would depend on targeting less sophistic ated,
occasion-based buyers and gaining volume sales to offset a necessary lower price p oint.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name,Free
Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), ‘‘Dimensions of brand personality’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 347-56.
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
305
Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J. (2001), ‘‘Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: a study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs’’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 492-508.
Barber, N., Almanza, B.A. and Donovan, J.R. (2006), ‘‘Motivational factors of gender, income and
age on selecting a bottle of wine’’, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 218-32.
Batra, R., Lehmann, D.R. and Singh, D. (1993), ‘‘The brand personality component of brand
goodwill: some antecedents and consequences’’, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A. (Eds), Brand
Equity and Advertising, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 83-96.
Boudeaux, C.A. and Palmer, S.E. (2007), ‘‘A charming little Cabernet: effect of wine label design
on purchase intent and brand personality’’, International Journal of Wine Business
Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 179-86.
Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V.A. and Naylor, G. (2000), ‘‘Price and brand name as indicators of quality
dimensions for consumer durables’’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 359-74.
Charters, S. and Pettigrew, S. (2006), ‘‘Product involvement and the evaluation of wine quality’’,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-93.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), ‘‘Effects of price, brand, and store information
on buyer’s product evaluation’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-20.
Gaedeke, R. (1973), ‘‘Consumer attitudes towards products ‘made in’ developing countries’’,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 13-24.
Gluckman, R.L. (1990), ‘‘A consumer approach to branded wines’’, International Journal of Wine
Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-46.
Hall, J. and Winchester, M. (1999), ‘‘An empirical confirmation of segments in the Australian wine
market’’, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 19-35.
Hamzaoui, L. and Merunka, D. (2006), ‘‘The impact of country of design and country of
manufacture on consumer perceptions of bi-national products’ quality: an empirical model
based on the concep t of fit’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-55.
Ha
¨
ubl, G. and Elrod, T. (1999), ‘‘The impact of congruity between brand name and country of
production on consumers’ product quality judgments’’, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 199-215.
Heslop, L.A., Liefeld, J. and Wall, M. (1987), ‘‘An experimental study of the impact of country-of-
origin information’’, in Turner, R.E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences
Association of Canada Conference (ASAC), Marketing Division, Toronto, ON, pp. 179-85.
Huber, J. and McCann, J. (1982), ‘‘The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations’’,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 324-33.
Keller, K.L. (1993), ‘‘Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2003), ‘‘Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge’’, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Keown, C. and Casey, M. (1995), ‘‘Purchasing behavior in the Northern Ireland wine market’’,
British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 17-20.
Liu, S.S. and Johnson, K.F. (2005), ‘‘The automatic country-of-origin effects on brand judgments’’,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 87-97.
Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D.M. and Chaiken, S. (1992), ‘‘Brand name as a heuristic cue: the effects
of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgment’’, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 317-36.
IJWBR
22,3
306
Nagashima, A. (1970), ‘‘A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward foreign products’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 68-74.
Orth, U.R. and Malkewitz, K. (2008), ‘‘Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions’’,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 (May), pp. 64-81.
Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T. and Lopetcharat, K. (2004), ‘‘Promoting brand benefits:
the role of consumer psychographic and lifestyle’’, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 97-108.
Orth, U.R., Wolf, M.M. and Dodd, T.H. (2005), ‘‘Dimensions of wine region equity and their
impact on consumer preferences’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 88-97.
Papadopou los, N.G. and Heslop, L.A. (2002), ‘‘Country equity and country branding: problems
and prospects’’, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 9 Nos. 4/5, pp. 294-314.
Poiesz, T.B.C. (1989), ‘‘The image concept: its pace in consumer psychology’’, Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 457-72.
Purohit, D. and Srivastava, J. (2001), ‘‘Effect of manufacturer reputation, retailer reputation, and
product warranty on consumer judgments of product quality: a cue diagnosticity
framework’’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 123-34.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1988), ‘‘The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization
in product evaluations’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 253-64.
Schamel, G. (2006), ‘‘Geography versus Brands in a Global Wine Market’’, Agribusiness, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 363-74.
Shaw, M., Keeghan, P. and Hall, J. (1999), ‘‘Consumers judge wine by its label, study shows’’, Wine
Industry Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 84-7.
Smith, D. (2006), ‘‘France fights back against New World wine rivals’’, available at:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/22/france.foodanddrink (accessed 10 June 2008).
Spawton, T. (1991), ‘‘Wine and the marketing mix’’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 19-31.
Sung, Y. and Thinkham, S. (2005), ‘‘Brand personality structures in the United States and
Korea: common and culture-specific factors’’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 334-50.
Sweeney, J.C. and Brandon, C. (2006), ‘‘Brand personality: exploring the potential to move from
factor-analytical to circumplex models’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 639-63.
Thode, S.F. and Maskulka, J.M. (1998), ‘‘Place-based marketing strategies, brand equity and
vineyard valuation’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 379-99.
Thomas, A. (2000), ‘‘Elements influencing wine purchasing: a New Zealand view’’, International
Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 47-62.
Thomas, A. and Pickering, G. (2003), ‘‘The importance of wine label information’’, International
Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 58-74.
Tse, D.K. and Gorn, G.L. (1993), ‘‘An experiment on the salience of country-of-origin in the era of
global brands’’, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 57-76.
Tustin, M. and Lockshin, L. (2001), ‘‘Region of origin: does it really count?’’ Australia & New
Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 139-43.
Vernadakis, G. (2000), ‘‘What the ‘bug’ can teach Gates: brand personality goes a long way’’,
Advertising Age, Vol. 71 No. 27, pp. 48.
Waal, P. (1997), ‘‘What’s red and while and drunk all over?’’, Canadian Business, Vol. 70,
pp. 110-13.
World Vitivinicultural Statistics: International Organization of Vine & Wine (2005), ‘‘Situation
report for the world Vitivinicultural sector in 2005’’, available at: http://news.reseau-
Wine personality
formation and
purchasing
307
concept.net/images/oiv_uk/client/Commentaire_Statistiques_2005_EN.pdf (accessed
October 2007).
Further reading
Aaker, D.A. (1992), ‘‘The value of brand equity’’, Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 27-32.
Anholt, S. (2004), ‘‘Branding places and nations’’, in Clifton, R. and Simmons, J. (Eds), Brands and
Branding, Bloomberg Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 213-26.
Boulding, K.E. (1956), The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society, University of Michigan Press,
Ann Arbor, MI.
Chaney, I.M. (2000), ‘‘External search efforts wine’’, International Journal of Wine Marketing,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 5-21.
Han, M.C. (1989), ‘‘Country image: halo or summary construct?’’, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 222-9.
Hugstad, P.S. and Durr, M. (1986), ‘‘A study of country of manufacturer impact on consumer
perceptions’’, in Malhotra, N. and Hawes, J.J. (Eds), Developments in Marketing Science,
Academy of Marketing Science, Coral Gables, FL, Vol. 9, pp. 115-19.
Ophius, P.A. and van Trijp, H. (1995), ‘‘Perceived quality: a market driven and consumer oriented
approach’’, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 177-83.
Papadopou los, N.G. and Heslop, L.A. (1993), Product-Country Images: Impact and Role in
International Marketing, International Business Press, New York, NY.
Appendix
Sample of stimulus information presented to respondents
Imagine you are in the LCBO and have picked up a bottle of wine with the following information
on it:
Front label
Brand name: The Blue Umbrella
Grape variety: Cabernet Sauvignon
Year: 2004
Country: France
Alcohol: 13.5% alc/vol
Volume: 750 ml
Back label
This wine from one of the finest of grapes is full, rich and distinctive with well balanced tannins.
It has a predominant black currant flavor with overtones of plum and black cherry, and aromas
of violets, blackberry, cedar, and spices.
Corresponding author
Louise A. Heslop can be contacted at: lheslop@carleton.ca
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
