4.1. Main Findings
From the descriptive analysis of the sample of 18 wineries in total, 1,963,416 followers added, of which 82.2% corresponded to the social network Facebook, 13% to Instagram, and 4.9% to Twitter. In Facebook the amount of 1,613,239 (Mean = 86.45; Sd = 190,168.39), in the case of Instagram the amount of 327,981 users (Mean = 13.665; Sd = 18,959.59) and for the social network Twitter 95,153 users (Mean = 95.153; Sd = 4116.25 ), with the social network Facebook being the social platform preferred by users who follow the vineyards. Similarly, a total of 62,113 publications on the three social networks distributed 27.1% on Facebook, 14.5% on Instagram and 58.5% on Twitter. In the case of Facebook, the wineries as a whole had 16,812 publications (Mean = 934; Sd = 514.38), for Instagram 8973 publications were registered (Mean = 498.5; Sd = 401.58) and finally, for Twitter, with 36,328 tweets (Mean = 2018.22; Sd = 1037.24).
For the social network Facebook, the winery with the highest number of followers was identified, which had 824,355 users belonging to Viña Concha y Toro, on the contrary, the winery with the lowest number falls on Viña Santa Cruz with 1391 followers. Regarding the number of publications on this social network, the Montgras Vineyard was the one with the highest number of publications with 1962 and the least frequent with 163 belonging to the Gillmore Estate Vineyard. However, how the group of vineyards mostly manifested itself on Facebook was through publications type “Photos” with 11,915 photographs in total (Mean = 661.94; Sd = 416.5); instead, the publications type “Surveys” was quite small with only 10 surveys in total. In general the publications of the wineries were shared a total of 179,226 times (Mean = 9957; Sd = 14,339.21). This is an important metric since it increased the visibility of the content, which provided an additional advantage for promotions, advertising campaigns and brand recognition, as they could reach consumers around the world, increasing sales [9
]. On the other hand, a total of 100,152 publications were commented (Mean = 5564; Sd = 6340.17), which according to [61
], comments tend to influence public opinion, since they are among the first things that the users read when they browse, which indirectly affects brand awareness and purchase intent. Regarding the Facebook reactions, officially published in February 2016, they were an extension of the old “Like” button (Period 2004–2016). Its six options (Like, Love, Care, Haha, Wow, Sad and Angry) were represented by lightly edited versions of various emojis that allowed for a more nuanced expression of how users felt towards a post. Users responded to the publications 2,272,827 times in total, the reaction “Like” occupying 88.6% of the reactions (2,013,834 “Likes”), followed by the reaction “Love” with 11% (250,298 “Love”) and the valuation “Angry” far below with 0.01% (288 “Angry”).
For its part, the social network Instagram Viña Concha y Toro account with 81,000 followers was the most followed in the sample, unlike Viña Maipo with 890 which was the one with the least number of followers. The winery with the highest number of publications is Viña Montes with 1420 publications and, on the contrary, the one with the lowest frequency of publications was Viña Maipo with only 11. Given the three ways of publishing content through Instagram, they were distributed in 88.4% of type “Photos” (Mean = 7929; Sd = 440.1) being the most used, “Videos” with 6.3% (Mean = 31.55; Sd = 29.15) and “Carousel” with 5.3% (Mean = 475; Sd = 26.39). Similarly, the winery with the highest number of comments on the web was Viña Concha y Toro with 7828 comments and, on the contrary, Viña Maipo had only 46 comments.
In the case of the social network Twitter, the winery with the highest number of followers was Viña Concha y Toro with 15,285 followers. On the contrary, the winery with the fewest with only 514 belonged to Viña San Esteban. On the other hand, the winery that tweeted the most was Viña Concha y Toro with 3200 tweets. This figure is due to the maximum limited by the Twitter API, contrasting the above with Viña Tarapacá 425 tweets. About the “Favorites”, the vineyard which obtained the greatest amount of this metric was Viña Montes with 7430 favorites, unlike Viña Tarapacá with only 75 of that metric, the lowest of the vineyard sample.
4.3. Network Analysis
In the case of Facebook, 16,812 publications, 1,613,239 followers, 2,094,748 Facebook reactions (Like, Love, Care, Haha, Wow, Sad and Angry), 100,152 comments, and 179,226 shares were analyzed.
Following this, note that the analysis discriminated between five vineyards, which were Viña Bouchon Family, Viña Corral Victoria, Viña Gillmore Estate, Viña San Esteban, and Viña Santa Cruz, resulting in a network of vineyards of 13 nodes. This network had a mean geodetic distance of 1.615 and a standard deviation of 0.487. In the same way, the network with 13 actors had a network density of 19.6% which, based on the scale proposed by Coronado-Padilla [62
] for the density´s measurement, could be determined as a low density, where it showed that the network was not very cohesive, where according to Chandes and Paché [63
], Maghsoudi and Pazirandeh [64
], Tatham and Spens [65
] it ratifies a problem in the coordination between the actors.
When the centrality metrics were analyzed, note that the average degree of the network was 3.333 degrees. Note that Viña Concha y Toro had 12.00 degrees, the highest in the network, positioning the vineyard as the most influential within the group. The next most influential vineyard in the network was Viña Santa Carolina obtaining 10.00 degrees, where together with the first vineyard, they were positioned in the central part of the network. It is equally important to show that the De Martino and Casa Marin vineyards had a fairly low influence, both only with 1.0 degrees where both were only related to the two previously highlighted vineyards. Similarly, analyzing the structural centrality, Viña Concha y Toro obtained the highest value with 0.44, evidencing the influence that it had as a central node in the network, thus highlighting the importance of this vineyard in the sample as a channel and the fundamental core of the network, however, there was also Viña Santa Carolina with 0.42 which, as a whole, was the link between the group of vineyards and those that were not connected to the others as axes of the network. Equally important, note that a group of five vineyards was formed, which shared similar characteristics as shown in Figure 5
on the right side of the network.
Regarding the measurement of the intermediation value, in the same way as the previous measures, Viña Concha y Toro was found with the highest degree of intermediation with 34.2, supporting the importance that this vineyard played in the network on the social network Facebook.
For the social network Instagram, we analyzed 8973 publications, 255,024 followers, 1,401,255 “likes” and 31,602 comments. The procedure did not consider Viña Balduzzi, Viña Bouchon Family, Viña Casa Marín, Viña Corral Victoria, and Viña Maipo from the graphic network.
This network had a mean geodetic distance of 1.564 and a standard deviation of 0.496. In the same way, the network with 13 actors had a network density of 0.22 which, based on the scale proposed by [62
] for measuring density, it can be determined that the network had a low density, where it showed that the network was not very cohesive and where according to [63
] it ratified a problem with the coordination between the actors.
Regarding the centrality metrics, it is evident that the average degree of the network was 3.778. Note that Viña Concha y Toro had 12.00 degrees, the highest in the network, positioning the vineyard as the most prominent influential within the group, as in the case of Facebook. The next most influential vineyard in the network was Viña Montes obtaining 9.0 degrees, where together with the first vineyard, they were positioned in the central part of the network, also note that Viña Montes belonged to an affiliated group of vineyards on the left side of the network, as shown in Figure 6
, a group of seven vineyards which shared similar characteristics, giving Viña Concha y Toro the centrality of the network. Contrasting the above, the low representativeness that Viña San Esteban (0.11) and Viña Santa Carolina (0.167) had in the sample, the latter showed a substantial difference in this case on Instagram to Facebook.
Now, regarding to structural centrality, Viña Concha y Toro obtained the highest value with 0.4, demonstrating the influence in the central section of the network, very closely Viña Montes was found with 0.38. Continuing with the measures of centrality, the value of intermediation, Viña Concha y Toro has the highest degree of intermediation with 35.57, as in Facebook, thus showing the relevance of this vineyard in the sample of this research.
In the case of Twitter, the analysis consisted of 36,328 tweets, 95,153 followers, 3057 comments, 31,301 favorites, and 609 mentions. The procedure for creating the graphic network left out Viña Bouchon Family, Viña San Esteban, and Viña Undurraga. This network had a mean geodetic distance of 1.533 and a standard deviation of 0.499. In the same way, the network with 15 actors had a network density of 0.32 which, based on the scale proposed by [62
] for measuring density, it can be determined that the network had a low density, where it showed that the network was not very cohesive, which according to [63
] ratified an issue of coordination between the actors.
Regarding the centrality metrics, it is evident that the average degree of the network was 5.444. Regarding the vineyard, which had the highest degree Viña Concha y Toro has 14.00 degrees, thus being the most important vineyard within the group. Followed by this vineyard was Viña Montes, the same phenomenon as on Instagram, obtaining 13.0 degrees. It should also be noted that a group of seven vineyards was formed the right part of the network, that share similar characteristics as shown in Figure 7
, highlighting the centrality of Viña Concha y Toro network. However, it shows the low representativeness that Viña Tarapacá had in the sample with only 1.0 degrees, having no interaction with the other vineyards. Continuing with the analysis, referring to structural centrality, Viña Concha y Toro obtained the highest value with 0.368, demonstrating representativeness in the central section of the vineyard network and in a similar way, Viña Montes with 0.384. Regarding the value of intermediation, Viña Concha y Toro had the highest degree of intermediation with 32.94, as in Facebook and Instagram, showing the role that this vineyard had for the interconnection between the rest of the vineyards and the preponderance that it had in the Chilean national wine market.