College. He earned his. Master's in Wine Business from the university of. Adel@Ide In South ... nity in California has embraced ... Bourgogne being cheapest to.
M AR K ETIN G
Cons mer Impressions of Sonoma and Its Appellations Synergy in Regional Plus AVA Branding Story by R"yJ@hnso" @ridjoh"" Bruwer s regional wine marketing gains more adherents, the question naturally arises for marketers and retailers alike, "which
region is best to emphasize when more than one is available?"
small Grand Cru place names as best and most expensive. Nick Frey of the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission reiterated this, saying, "The fatal flaw is the conditioning of people to think that Sonoma County is somehow lower
and Russian River Valley is higher; what if both
E
its multi-dimensional brand image. It is also a
were on the same label?"
U
region composed of multiple appellations. This
The study, on which this paper is based, is a survey of consumer attitudes when offered just
Sonoma County is a wine region known for study explores consumer awareness of the appelIations within the county and that of Sonoma County itself, which is not an actual AVA. BRAN D SONOMA
Three decades ago, most wineries in the county used Sonoma County on their labels (Thomas,
2005). Since the creation of the first AVA in the United States in 1980, there have been thirteen legally approved AVAs in Sonoma County. The Sonoma Valley was officially established as America's eighth AVA on 24 ianuary 1982, less than one year after the Napa Valley. The Sonoma Valley Crape Growers heralded their efforts to differentiate themselves from their broader
regional identity (Wright, 1991). Today it is coinmori to label with a specific appellation rather than the county name,
Yet in the 2004 Newman-Stein-Friedman study, the larger regional brand of Sonoma County rated quite close in consumer awareness to Napa Valley. The awareness of two appellations within
compared to wines labelled with an AVA and the corresponding region, Sonoma County. In the United States, the geopolitical region that overlays most AVAs is the county. This formed the core subject of investigation in this research. The primary data was gathered by a highly structured online survey during a two-week period in May 2006. The data soughtwas mainly quantitative in nature, with some qualitative elements. Respondents could access the survey by following a link in
their invitation to participate. The overall research objective was to examine Sonoma County's regional brand image and its effect on consumers' quality perceptions when included on wine labels.
Life Guide to Enjoying
far lower levels. Yet the trend in
Wine ond tooches in the
the local industry's labelling has been toward specific appellations and away from the regional identity
male and female, 21 years and older. The study was limited to two groups of
Adel@Ide In South Austin-
lid. IOHAN BRuwER is one offhe leaders in the wine business progmm at
the Universi'ty of Adel@ide in South Austinfi@.
E ^
" r~
o o U "
o ^ >
o Z
^
= "
E "
co a = ,,
> a. "
C
^ e, , " >. " e
>
,
The sample population was wine consumers, both
from the university of
Q
.
RESEARCH ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIO N S
Russian River Valley) rated at
Master's in Wine Business
=
N
METHODOLOGY AN D OBIECTIVES
RAY IOHNSON is the author of The Good
College. He earned his
, E
two choices: wines labelled with an AVA alone
Sonoma (Dry Creek Valley and
Wine Studies Program @t the Sont@ RosoJunior
o
wine consumers who vol-
untarily opted to receive one of two wine newslet.
Much of the wine coinmu-
ters, this being either the
nity in California has embraced a Burgundian way of thinking. In Burgundy for example, a given producer works on a price-quality range from AC Bourgogne being cheapest to Village Appellations and finally
Russian River Wine Road
monthly e-mail newsletter or the quarterly e-mail newsletter for current and former students of the
Wine Studies Programs at UC Berkeley Extension and
> Over 500 highly involved wine consumers were
surveyed, > Consumers preferred wine labels that included Sonoma.
> Some regions like Sonoma enhance nth"
er than drag on the
equity of their AVAs, > The effect was most
pronounced on lesser-known AVAs.
M A R K ETIN G
now Often Wine is Consumed
Once a day
37.4%
California. The email and invitation were sent
A few times a week
51.7%
to 9,222 email boxes and 700 to the
current and former student group. The response rate was 6.2%, resulting in 570 usable surveys. The 570 respondents provided an acceptable level of accu racy and statistical significance for the results.
E
o U , E
= o
E ^
>
Table I: Respondent Wine Consumption Characteristics
sion and Santa Rosa junior College. Though subscribers receive the newsletters throughout the United States, the vast majority of 75% resides in
A limitation of the study was that the respondents in the survey couldn't be considered perfectly representative of American wine consumers' By definition, it is a self-selected sample. However, due to the size of the sample analysed. the data are considered, in all probability, to be representative of highIy involved American wine consumers. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Response %
Once a week
6.8%
Once every two weeks
2.9%
Once a month
1.0%
Once every two months Once every 4 months
0.2%
A few times each year Quantity of Wine Consumed per 110
Average
Bottles
8.3
Boxes
2.5
Monthly Household Spending on W $178.85
Total amount
Average amount spent per bottle
$21.61
Although several factors can be linked to consumers' wine consumption
" I\
o o N U "
o
behaviou r, the discussions following focus on their wine consumption frequency and volume and, most importantly, on their self-described wine knowledge.
^ >
o Z
E U
E co on *, C ,
E >. ^
co =
^ ea ^ .
,. >. 41 =
>
WINE CONSUMPTION AND SELF-DESCRIBED WINE KNOWLEDGE
As shown in Table I, almost 90% of the respondents drink wine at least a few times each week and over one'
third drinks wine every day. Over 99% of the group drinks wine at least once
Table 2: Respondent Self-described Wine Knowledge Level Knowledge level
Response % O. 2%
New to wine Know a little about wine
12.4%
Somewhat knowledgeable about wine
48.7ey,
Very knowledgeable about wine
28.7%
Expert or professional
7.6%
Other
2.4%
Table 3: Respondent Wine Purchasing Behaviour Purchase at least one bottle of win
Response V.
each month, a fact that makes them
over $ 15 retail weekly
regular or core consumers in the con-
Yes
49.8%
text of the USA wine market. Of those who noted bottled wine
No
50.2%
con s urn ption, the average quantity wasjust over 8 bottles per month or 2 per week. Monthly household spending on wine is almost $180, while the average price per bottle purchased is $21.61, which is comfortably within the ultra-premium wine price segmerit. Whether they also have higher levels of wine involvement, is further illuminated in Table 2
Table 2 shows that approximately 85% of the group is self-described as
being at least "somewhat knowledgeable about wine, " demonstrating a confidence that might be particular to the large group of Northern Call-
Most wine purchased is
under/over $ 15 per bottle retail
Response %
Under
30.3%
Over
69.7%
fornia respondents or the degree to which the sample group is he avily involved and/or interested in wine The research results should therefore
be viewed in that light. WINE PURCHASING BEHAVIOUR
Of particular interest to producers
of ultra-premium and icon wines is a segment of half of the respondents who purchase at least one bottle of wine over $15 retail every week. Furthermore, the vast majority (70%) of these respondents reported that most
of the wine they purchase is over $15 per bottle retail see Table 3. In summary, respondents in the
MAR K ETIN G
s u rvey a re overwh elmin 81y highly
For each pair of labels A & B, check the one from
involved wine con su mers. Approxi-
mately half of the group is comfortable spending more than $15 retail
which you'd expect the better quality wine.
on a bottle of wine. They are wine
knowledgeable and drink wine fre-
Minte Raylin
White Raylin
quently.
5
2005
Chardorinay
SONOMA AND ITS VITICULTURAL AREAS
Ballielt Yaley
Bellnett Valley
Cminty
To disguise the fact that the thrust of the research was to investigate the effect of Sonoma on quality perceptions, other regions and AVAs were also included in the survey to create a broader California Wine Label Survey theme.
Figure I presents an example of the pages built online to conduct the su rvey. The res pondents answered questions regarding their preference for labels with and without the region
E o U
Figure 13 Label Choices Presented in the Survey
, =
included. In each case, a label with an
AVA only was shown side by side with a label that displayed the same AVA as
well as the larger region in which that AVA falls. Overwhelming Iy respon-
C
o
E
dents preferred the label with both the region and the AVA. Figure 2 on the following page
illustrates the range of preference was
3 >
from 2 to I in the case of the Russian
River Valley up to 9 to I in the case
" F.
You Focus ON CREATING YOUR BEST WINES. ..
111.
LEr us SUPPLY You WITH THE BEST STOPPERS. ON TIME!
-=S^."' "' -- ^
o o N U q,
. .~ >
o
Z
= ,,
V
E
NA MING
,I Do to = to
> >. ^
" =
^ ea
\
A
, .
, >. " C
>
sphe re su"BURST
FREE BRANDl" "o Large Minimums NO Plate Charge "o Setup Charg
D E SIG N
...
...
o. 80.
VCieC.
00.0. .. 0,000. . 0.00 0.0_
B RAN DING
CORK
EC
FINE CORK PRODUCTS 17 MIDDLE RIVER DRIVE STAFFORD SPRINGS, Or 06076 PHONE:860,8519417 FAX;860,749,3478 WWWCOR, Crec. COM - SALE^OR, e^. COM
,
BRITTON DESIGN
Sonoma, California . 707938-8378 pb@britto"design. COM
M A R K ETIN G
81%
Knights Valley
Alexander Valley
68%
Russian Ri^r
67%
90%
Bennell Valley O%
1096 2070 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 2: Label Preferences for Sonoma AVAS With or Without the Region.
E
o V co C =
o
E ^ >
The strength of two AVAs, Russian River Valley and the Alexander Valley, is clear. Both of these areas long ago established themselves as strongly branded wine regions. The low scores for Bennett Valley could well be attrib-
tions on wine labels.
uted to the newness of the AVA. It
Within Sonoma County there was a difference in the degree to which the regional name made a difference in the preference of the respondents.
was only established in late 2003 and has little identity outside of the local region.
o o
AWARD WINNING FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING
N U "
.
FOIL STAMPING & EMBOSSING
... >
o
Z
= a. ,
E a,
06 ,, = "
= >~
DIGITAL OFFSET PRINTING CUSTOM DIE-CUTTING
LABEL DESIGN SUPPORT
co =
> ~
to >. a,
e >
408761-2142 WWW. elite Ia bel. coin
respondents, This might be attributed to the greater degree of knowledge and confidence associated with many who are more involved with wine and
spend more. Yet this segment did riot poll that much differently than the total sample. Increases in preference for the AVA alone are: Bennett Valley +4%, Knights Valley +5%, Alexander Valley +7% and Russian River Valley +To%. The largest increases were by the two regions that already have the most name recognition.
.a .
Figure 3 on the following page depicts the label preference of the segmerit purchasing at least one bottle of wine over $15 every week and who describe themselves as spending over $15 per bottle on most of the wine that they purchase. This segment of the total sample is of most concern to the members of the Sonoma County Winegrape Commission. The survival of the members is tied to higher priced, non-commodity wines or ultrapremium and icon wines A preference for AVA-only labels increased somewhat in this subset of
" ,~
Peter Michael, which has achieved cult
status and price levels, yet MIChael's wines may not be widely known among average wine consumers,
. AVA . AVA + Region
of Bennett Valley. In no case was the AVA-only label preferred. This indicates that regional names can add value and increase quality expecta-
Knights Valley, however, was established over 20 years ago in 1983. It has a long track record and name recognition associated with the widely available bottling of cabernet sauvignon produced by Beringer and designated with the appellation name. Like Bennett Valley, there are few wineries active in the region. Perhaps the most famous is
'25/7/1, Label
SONOMA AND ITS AVAS-
QUALITY PERCEPTIONS
Figure 4 on the following page depicts
C',~~, Arti^ I
,^!^ c,
crea ting value in winemakihg
80+ Years of Exceptional Quality, Traceability and Proven Food Safety, Contact U. S. Sales Manager Susan johnson for a Free Catalog: Napa/Sonoma U. S. Sales Office
the quality perception associated with Sonoma County and four of its American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). Sonoma County and its two most. famous AVAs scored very well in their quality expectation. 42% of the respondents rated the quality of Alexander Valley as "great, " 61% of respondents rated the Russian River as "great" and 56% of respondents rated Sonoma County as " great. "
Russian River Valley achieved the
Phone: 707-5422719 Cell: 707-570-9318 Fax: 707-5422719
highest ratings overall. Within a small
Email: susan. johnson@essecousa. coin . WWW. enartis. coin
margin, the number of respondents who did riot venture an opinion about
haul, I, ami",, v^ly chinb",, d by ^^$^
Q
Z ^
C "
E aJ on re = 10
^
ea
be interested to see how the results
to their regions, whether the regional brand is a single county or an entire
,
Please send your replies to feedback@vwm-online. coin.
a. U =
,
of this study might be extrapolated
38
Figure 43 Quality Opinion of Sonoma Wine Regions (Detail).
"
Sonoma.
state.
. no opinion . Poor . Fair . Good . Very Good . Great
U
>
ers throughout North America should 235
o
of Sonoma as a regional brand and its halo effect on the appellations within The proliferation of AVAs nationwide and their diluting effect on regional brands is an issue that is being currently discussed but is beyond the area of this study. Wine industry marketers and winery own-
16
E
*
.
" >. " e
>
