Understanding Australian Wine Consumers’ Preferences for Different Sparkling Wine Styles
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Consumer Survey
2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Influence of Consumer Segmentation on Preferences for Different Sparkling Wine Styles
3.2. Influence of Sparkling Wine Style on Consumer Perceptions and Preferences
3.3. Influence of Occasion on the Consumption of Different Sparkling Wine Styles
3.4. Influence of Price on Consumer Purchasing Behavior
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lockshin, L.; Corsi, A. Consumer behaviour for wine 2.0: A review since 2003 and future directions. Wine Econ. Policy 2012, 1, 2–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Riviezzo, A.; Nisco, A.; Garofano, A. Understanding wine purchase and consumption behavior: A market segmentation proposal. In Proceedings of the 6th AWBR International Conference, Bordeaux, France, 9–10 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Charters, S.; Pettigrew, S. The dimensions of wine quality. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 997–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charters, S.; Pettigrew, S. Product involvement and the evaluation of wine quality. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 2006, 9, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charters, S. Drinking sparkling wine: An exploratory investigation. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2005, 17, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerjak, M.; Tomić, M.; Fočić, N.; Brkić, R. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic sparkling wine characteristics and behavior of sparkling wine consumers in Croatia. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2016, 28, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veale, R.; Quester, P. Consumer sensory evaluations of wine quality: The respective influence of price and country of origin. J. Wine Econ. 2008, 3, 10–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchio, R.; Lisanti, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L.; Gambuti, A.; Moio, L.; Siani, T.; Marotta, G.; Nazzaro, C.; Piombino, P. The role of production process and information on quality expectations and perceptions of sparkling wines. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 124–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Culbert, J.; Ristic, R.; Ovington, L.; Saliba, A.; Wilkinson, K. Influence of production method on the sensory profile and consumer acceptance of Australian sparkling white wine styles. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2017, 23, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coates, C. An Encyclopedia of the Wines and Domaines of France; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 537–557. ISBN 9780520220935. [Google Scholar]
- Silverstein, M.; Fiske, N. Luxury for the masses. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyneke, M.; Berthon, P.; Pitt, L.; Parent, M. Luxury wine brands as gifts: Ontological and aesthetic perspectives. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton, A.-L.; Healy, M.; Rivers, C. Beyond the bubbles: Identifying other purchase decision variables beyond country of origin effect that make Australians buy champagne. In Proceedings of the Australian New Zealand International Business Association Conference, Canberra, Australia, 5–6 November 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Rossetto, L.; Gastaldello, G. The loyalty structure of sparkling wine brands in Italy. J. Wine Econ. 2018, 13, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charters, S.; Velikova, N.; Ritchie, C.; Fountain, J.; Thach, L.; Dodd, T.; Fish, N.; Herbst, F.; Terblanche, N. Generation Y and sparkling wines: A cross-cultural perspective. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunner, T.; Siegrist, M. Lifestyle determinants of wine consumption and spending on wine. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steichen, D.; Terrien, C. A model of demand in a repeated purchase situation: A simulation of the Champagne wine market. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2009, 21, 354–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charters, S.; Spielmann, N. Characteristics of strong territorial brands: The case of Champagne. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1461–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velikova, N.; Charters, S.; Fountain, J.; Ritchie, C.; Fish, N.; Dodd, T. Status or fun? A cross-cultural examination of young consumers’ responses to images of Champagne and sparkling wine. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 1960–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charters, S.; Pettigrew, S. Why do people drink wine? A consumer-focused exploration. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2008, 14, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judicia, F.; Perkins, S. A means-end approach to the market for sparkling wines. Int. J. Wine Mark. 1992, 4, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, R.; Bruwer, J. Regional brand image and perceived wine quality: The consumer perspective. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2007, 19, 276–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkin, T.; Newton, S. Consumer awareness and quality perceptions: A case for Sonoma county wines. J. Wine Res. 2012, 23, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickering, G.; Jain, A.; Bezawada, R. Segmentation and drivers of wine liking and consumption in US wine consumers. Int. J. Wine Res. 2014, 6, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Charters, S. An ambivalent luxury: Images of Champagne in the Australian market. In Proceedings of the Beccus Wine Conference: Fourth Interdisciplinary and International Wine Conference, Dijon, France, 7–9 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Dobele, A.; Greenacre, L.; Fry, J. The impact of purchase goal on wine purchase decisions. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2018, 30, 19–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, T.; Bastian, S. A preliminary study of the relationship between Australian wine consumers’ wine expertise and their wine purchasing and consumption behaviour. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2007, 13, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruwer, J.; McCutcheon, E. Marketing implications from a behaviourism perspective of consumption dynamics and socio-demographics of wine consumers. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2017, 29, 519–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaefer, A. Do demographics have an impact on country of origin effects? J. Mark. Manag. 1997, 13, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Müller, S. The country-of-origin effect of sparkling wine. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Wine Business Research Conference, Montpellier, France, 6–8 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Terrien, C.; Steichen, D. How Taste and Reputation Affect the Champagne Market. Available online: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwirp_qev_LnAhXVb30KHWXPAzQQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vdqs.net%2FWorking_Papers%2FText%2FWP_2005%2Fterrien.pdf&usg=AOvVaw29o4mH42Iv329Chlj84o_I (accessed on 11 January 2019).
- Orth, U.; Kahle, L. Intrapersonal variation in consumer susceptibility to normative influence: Toward a better understanding of brand choice decisions. J. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 148, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vignes, A.; Gergaud, O. Twilight of the idols in the market for Champagne: Dissonance or consonance in consumer preferences? J. Wine Res. 2007, 18, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rokka, J. Champagne: Marketplace icon. Consum. Mark. Cult. 2017, 20, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culbert, J.; Cozzolino, D.; Ristic, R.; Wilkinson, K. Classification of sparkling wine style and quality by MIR spectroscopy. Molecules 2015, 20, 8341–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culbert, J.; Ristic, R.; Ovington, L.; Saliba, A.; Wilkinson, K. Sensory profiles and consumer acceptance of different styles of Australian Moscato. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2018, 24, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caliari, V.; Burin, V.; Rosier, J.; BordignonLuiz, M. Aromatic profile of Brazilian sparkling wines produced with classical and innovative grape varieties. Food Res. Int. 2014, 62, 965–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Caliari, V.; Panceri, C.; Rosier, J.; Bordignon-Luiz, M. Effect of the traditional, Charmat and Asti method production on the volatile composition of Moscato Giallo sparkling wines. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 61, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dal Bianco, A.; Boatto, V.; Trestini, S.; Caracciolo, F. Understanding consumption choice of Prosecco wine: An empirical analysis using Italian and German homescan data. J. Wine Res. 2018, 29, 190–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Onofri, L.; Boatto, V.; Dal Bianco, A. Who likes it “sparkling”? An empirical analysis of prosecco consumers’ profile. Agric. Food Econ. 2015, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiene, M.; Scarpa, R.; Galletto, L.; Boatto, V. Sparkling wine choice from supermarket shelves: The impact of certification of origin and production practices. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44, 523–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunstan, D. Better than Pommard! A History of Wine in Victoria; Australian Scholarly Publishing: North Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 1994; ISBN 1875606130. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J.; Lockshin, L.; Sharp, B. A better understanding of the structure of a wine market using the attribute of variety. Int. J. Bus. Glob. 2012, 8, 66–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Johnson, T.; Bastian, S. A fine wine instrument—An alternative for segmenting the Australian wine market. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2015, 27, 182–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verdonk, N.; Wilkinson, J.; Culbert, J.; Ristic, R.; Pearce, K.; Wilkinson, K. Toward a model of sparkling wine purchasing preferences. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2017, 29, 58–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Odiase, J.I.; Ogbonmwan, S.M. Mood test. In International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science; Lovric, M., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 863–864. ISBN 9783642048975. [Google Scholar]
- Verdonk, N.; Culbert, J.; Wilkinson, K. Sparkling wine: All that sparkles: Consumer perceptions of sparkling wine. Wine Vitic. J. 2015, 30, 71–73. [Google Scholar]
- Morton, A.; Rivers, C.; Charters, S.; Spinks, W. Champagne purchasing: The influence of kudos and sentimentality. Qual. Mark. Res. 2013, 16, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kallas, Z.; Escobar, C.; Gil, J. Assessing the impact of a Christmas advertisement campaign on catalan wine preference using choice experiments. Appetite 2012, 58, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bruwer, J.; Saliba, A.; Miller, B. Consumer behaviour and sensory preference differences: Implications for wine product marketing. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pettigrew, S.; Ogilvie, M.; Ryan, M. Let’s party like it’s 1999: Intentions to consume alcohol on the eve of 2000. In Proceedings of the Australian & New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 28 November–1 December 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Anchor, J.; Lacinova, T. Czech wine consumers: Maturing with age? Ekon. A Manag. 2015, 18, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spawton, A. Grapes and wine seminar—Prospering in the 1990s: Changing your view of the consumer. Int. J. Wine Mark. 1993, 3, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, J. An exploratory study into wine drinking in bars, pubs and nightclubs in the United States. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Siena, Italy, 17–19 July 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Keown, C.; Casey, M. Purchasing behaviour in the Northern Ireland wine market. Br. Food J. 1995, 97, 17–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaney, I. External search effort for wine. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2000, 12, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gluckman, R. A consumer approach to branded wines. Int. J. Wine Mark. 1990, 2, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jover, A.; Montes, F.; del Mar Fuentes, M. Measuring perceptions of quality in food products: The case of red wine. Food Qual. Prefer. 2004, 15, 453–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, A.; Monroe, K. The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. J. Mark. Res. 1989, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skuras, D.; Vakrou, A. Consumers’ willingness to pay for origin labelled wine: A Greek case study. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 898–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schamel, G.; Anderson, K. Wine quality and varietal, regional and winery reputations: Hedonic prices for Australia and New Zealand. Econ. Rec. 2003, 79, 357–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oczkowski, E. A hedonic price function for Australian premium table wine. Aust. J. Agric. Econ. 1994, 38, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lecocq, S.; Visser, M. What determines wine prices: Objective vs. sensory characteristics. J. Wine Econ. 2006, 1, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Veale, R.; Quester, P. Do consumer expectations match experience? Predicting the influence of price and country of origin on perceptions of product quality. Int. Bus. Rev. 2009, 18, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culbert, J.; Verdonk, N.; Ristic, R.; Olarte Mantilla, S.; Lane, M.; Pearce, K.; Cozzolino, D.; Wilkinson, K. Understanding consumer preferences for Australian sparkling wine vs. French Champagne. Beverages 2016, 2, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viot, C. Subjective knowledge, product attributes and consideration set: A wine application. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2012, 24, 219–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Frequency | Percentage (%) | |||||||||
All Consumers | No Frills | Aspirants | Enthusiasts | ||||||
(n = 1027) | (n = 441) | (n = 486) | (n = 100) | ||||||
Gender | Male | 482 | 46.9 | 154 | 34.9 | 266 | 54.7 | 62 | 62.0 |
Female | 545 | 53.1 | 287 | 65.1 | 220 | 45.3 | 38 | 38.0 | |
Age | 18–24 | 53 | 5.2 | 18 | 4.1 | 25 | 5.1 | 10 | 10.0 |
25–34 | 307 | 29.9 | 122 | 27.7 | 131 | 27.0 | 54 | 54.0 | |
35–44 | 208 | 20.3 | 88 | 20.0 | 105 | 21.6 | 15 | 15.0 | |
45–54 | 181 | 17.6 | 77 | 17.5 | 91 | 18.7 | 13 | 13.0 | |
55–64 | 170 | 16.6 | 90 | 20.4 | 75 | 15.4 | 5 | 5.0 | |
65+ | 108 | 10.5 | 46 | 10.4 | 59 | 12.1 | 3 | 3.0 | |
Household income (AUD) | <50,000 | 256 | 24.9 | 126 | 28.6 | 107 | 22.0 | 23 | 23.0 |
50,000–100,000 | 417 | 40.6 | 176 | 39.9 | 199 | 40.9 | 42 | 42.0 | |
100,001–150,000 | 232 | 22.6 | 92 | 20.9 | 115 | 23.7 | 25 | 25.0 | |
>150,000 | 122 | 11.9 | 47 | 10.7 | 65 | 13.4 | 10 | 10.0 | |
Education | High school | 236 | 23.0 | 132 | 29.9 | 88 | 18.1 | 16 | 16.0 |
Trade | 298 | 29.0 | 141 | 32.0 | 139 | 28.6 | 18 | 18.0 | |
Undergraduate | 271 | 26.4 | 109 | 24.7 | 132 | 27.2 | 30 | 30.0 | |
Postgraduate | 222 | 21.6 | 59 | 13.4 | 127 | 26.1 | 36 | 36.0 | |
Sparkling wine consumption | Once per month | 471 | 45.9 | 256 | 58.1 | 197 | 40.5 | 18 | 18.0 |
Once every 2 weeks | 259 | 25.2 | 96 | 21.8 | 143 | 29.4 | 20 | 20.0 | |
Once per week | 204 | 19.9 | 62 | 14.1 | 107 | 22.0 | 35 | 35.0 | |
More than twice per week | 93 | 9.1 | 27 | 6.1 | 39 | 8.0 | 27 | 27.0 | |
Chi-Square Test | Marascuilo Procedure | ||||||||
All Segments | No Frills vs. Aspirants | No Frills vs. Enthusiasts | Aspirants vs. Enthusiast | ||||||
Sparkling wine consumption | Once per month | <0.0001 * | Significant | Significant | Significant | ||||
Once every 2 weeks | 0.012 * | Significant | Not Significant | Not Significant | |||||
Once per week | <0.0001 * | Significant | Significant | Significant | |||||
More than twice per week | <0.0001 * | Not Significant | Significant | Significant |
Minimum | Mean | Median | Maximum | |||||||||||||||||
All Segments (n = 1027) | No Frills (n = 441) | Aspirants (n = 486) | Enthusiasts (n = 100) | ||||||||||||||
Alcohol type | Wine | 0 | 52.3 | 50.0 | 100 | 0 | 52.2 | 50.0 | 100 | 2 | 54.3 | 50.0 | 100 | 7 | 43.1 | 40.0 | 100 |
Beer | 0 | 18.9 | 10.0 | 100 | 0 | 17.6 | 5.0 | 100 | 0 | 19.0 | 10.0 | 90 | 0 | 24.4 | 22.5 | 80 | |
Spirits | 0 | 16.1 | 10.0 | 95 | 0 | 16.4 | 10.0 | 95 | 0 | 16.0 | 10.0 | 95 | 0 | 15.0 | 10.0 | 60 | |
Cider | 0 | 8.9 | 1.0 | 90 | 0 | 10.1 | 0.0 | 90 | 0 | 7.2 | 0.0 | 70 | 0 | 11.6 | 10.0 | 50 | |
Other | 0 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 70 | 0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 45 | |
Wine type | Sparkling wine | 0 | 31.8 | 25.0 | 100 | 0 | 36.5 | 30.0 | 100 | 0 | 27.9 | 20.0 | 100 | 0 | 30.2 | 25.0 | 100 |
White | 0 | 27.7 | 20.0 | 100 | 0 | 30.6 | 25.0 | 100 | 0 | 26.5 | 20.0 | 90 | 0 | 21.0 | 20.0 | 90 | |
Rosé | 0 | 7.2 | 2.0 | 100 | 0 | 6.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 6.9 | 5.0 | 60 | 0 | 11.3 | 10.0 | 60 | |
Red | 0 | 25.5 | 20.0 | 100 | 0 | 19.5 | 10.0 | 100 | 0 | 31.3 | 30.0 | 100 | 0 | 23.7 | 20.0 | 100 | |
Dessert | 0 | 4.1 | 0.0 | 90 | 0 | 3.8 | 0.0 | 90 | 0 | 3.9 | 0.0 | 70 | 0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 20 | |
Fortified | 0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 90 | 0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 90 | 0 | 3.5 | 0.0 | 50 | 0 | 7.9 | 5.0 | 70 | |
Wine style | Champagne | 0 | 13.9 | 5.0 | 100 | 0 | 8.1 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 16.6 | 10.0 | 100 | 0 | 27.2 | 20.0 | 100 |
Sparkling white | 0 | 45.5 | 40.0 | 100 | 0 | 51.1 | 50.0 | 100 | 0 | 44.3 | 40.0 | 100 | 0 | 26.4 | 20.0 | 100 | |
Sparkling red | 0 | 10.7 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 8.4 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 12.4 | 5.0 | 100 | 0 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 100 | |
Sparkling rosé | 0 | 8.4 | 2.0 | 100 | 0 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 8.4 | 5.0 | 100 | 0 | 10.4 | 10.0 | 40 | |
Moscato | 0 | 17.3 | 5.0 | 100 | 0 | 21.5 | 5.0 | 100 | 0 | 13.8 | 5.0 | 100 | 0 | 15.7 | 10.0 | 100 | |
Prosecco | 0 | 4.2 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 100 | 0 | 4.6 | 0.0 | 90 | 0 | 8.3 | 10.0 | 40 | |
Mood Test Multiple Pairwise Comparison p value | |||||||||||||||||
All Segments | No Frills vs. Aspirants | No Frills vs. Enthusiasts | Aspirants vs. Enthusiasts | ||||||||||||||
Alcohol type | Wine | 0.001 * | 0.361 | 0.001 * | 0.000 * | ||||||||||||
Beer | <0.0001 * | 0.005 * | <0.0001 * | 0.000 * | |||||||||||||
Spirits | 0.239 | 0.260 | 0.120 | 0.375 | |||||||||||||
Cider | 0.002 * | 0.748 | 0.001 * | 0.000 * | |||||||||||||
Other | 0.000 * | 0.014 * | <0.0001 * | 0.013 * | |||||||||||||
Wine type | Sparkling wine | 0.002 * | 0.000 * | 0.134 | 0.256 | ||||||||||||
White | <0.0001 * | 0.071 | <0.0001 * | 0.000 * | |||||||||||||
Rosé | <0.0001 * | 0.000 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | |||||||||||||
Red | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | 0.000 * | 0.002 * | |||||||||||||
Dessert | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | 0.003 * | |||||||||||||
Fortified | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | 0.05 * | |||||||||||||
Wine style | Champagne | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Sparkling white | <0.0001 * | 0.002 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | |||||||||||||
Sparkling red | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | 0.065 | |||||||||||||
Sparkling rosé | 0.000 * | 0.004 * | 0.001 * | 0.025 * | |||||||||||||
Moscato | <0.0001 * | 0.103 | 0.001 * | <0.0001 * | |||||||||||||
Prosecco | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * |
Word or Brand | Frequency | Weighted Percentage (%) | |||||||||||||||||
Champagne | Sparkling White | Sparkling Red | |||||||||||||||
expensive | 224 | 11.7 | Moet | 421 | 19.6 | bubbly | 237 | 11.9 | Yellow | 143 | 6.3 | red | 109 | 6.7 | none * | 80 | 6.9 |
bubbly | 137 | 7.1 | Chandon | 182 | 8.5 | refreshing | 209 | 9.0 | Jacobs | 123 | 5.5 | bubbly | 79 | 4.5 | Brown | 69 | 5.9 |
celebration | 88 | 4.6 | Dom | 117 | 5.4 | light | 122 | 4.3 | Creek | 121 | 5.4 | rich | 78 | 4.3 | Brothers | 58 | 5.0 |
quality | 60 | 3.1 | Mumm | 105 | 4.9 | fresh | 162 | 4.2 | Brown | 110 | 4.9 | none* | 69 | 4.2 | Creek | 30 | 2.6 |
French | 51 | 2.7 | Bollinger | 102 | 4.7 | fun | 62 | 3.3 | Yellowglen | 109 | 4.8 | sweet | 58 | 3.0 | Jacobs | 27 | 2.3 |
luxury | 51 | 2.4 | Veuve | 102 | 4.7 | celebration | 47 | 2.4 | Brothers | 94 | 4.2 | sparkling | 56 | 2.7 | Seppelt | 27 | 2.3 |
classy | 50 | 2.6 | Perignon | 98 | 4.6 | good | 46 | 2.3 | Chandon | 86 | 3.8 | strong | 42 | 2.5 | Penfolds | 26 | 2.2 |
special | 49 | 2.5 | Cliquot | 56 | 2.6 | crisp | 46 | 2.3 | Glen | 49 | 2.2 | dark | 39 | 2.3 | Yellowglen | 22 | 1.9 |
sparkling | 43 | 1.9 | Verve | 52 | 2.4 | fruity | 39 | 2.1 | Wolf | 42 | 1.9 | wine | 32 | 2.0 | n * | 20 | 1.7 |
dry | 38 | 2.0 | Krug | 39 | 1.8 | nice | 39 | 2.1 | Blass | 40 | 1.8 | heavy | 34 | 1.9 | nil * | 20 | 1.7 |
Sparkling Rosé | Moscato | Prosecco | |||||||||||||||
pink | 161 | 9.4 | Jacobs | 88 | 7.5 | sweet | 485 | 27.1 | Brown | 271 | 17.8 | none* | 130 | 9.0 | none * | 110 | 15.0 |
sweet | 153 | 7.6 | Creek | 85 | 7.2 | none * | 62 | 3.6 | Brothers | 239 | 15.7 | (don’t) know * | 116 | 7.9 | Brown | 64 | 8.7 |
light | 128 | 6.0 | none* | 79 | 6.7 | light | 74 | 3.3 | none * | 70 | 4.6 | Italian | 93 | 6.4 | Brothers | 54 | 7.4 |
bubbly | 85 | 4.7 | Brown | 61 | 5.2 | fruity | 43 | 2.5 | Gossips | 64 | 4.2 | dry | 79 | 5.5 | (don’t) know | 37 | 5.1 |
refreshing | 82 | 3.7 | Brothers | 53 | 4.5 | refreshing | 57 | 2.3 | Jacobs | 55 | 3.6 | sweet | 69 | 4.5 | nil * | 25 | 3.4 |
none* | 53 | 3.1 | Yellowglen | 37 | 3.1 | wine | 36 | 2.1 | Creek | 52 | 3.4 | nothing * | 56 | 3.9 | n * | 23 | 3.1 |
red | 50 | 2.9 | Mateus | 26 | 2.2 | (don’t) know * | 35 | 1.8 | Banrock | 48 | 3.2 | (not) sure * | 42 | 2.9 | (can’t) recall | 17 | 2.3 |
nice | 37 | 2.1 | (can’t) recall | 22 | 1.9 | bubbly | 31 | 1.7 | Station | 43 | 2.8 | wine | 38 | 2.6 | (not) sure * | 17 | 2.3 |
wine | 31 | 1.8 | Yellow | 22 | 1.9 | delicious | 31 | 1.7 | Bros | 29 | 1.9 | never* (tried) | 36 | 2.5 | na * | 15 | 2.1 |
(don’t) know * | 34 | 1.6 | nil | 21 | 1.8 | nice | 28 | 1.6 | Moscato | 25 | 1.6 | sparkling | 42 | 2.4 | (no) idea | 12 | 1.6 |
1st Percentage Quartile | Mean | Median | 3rd Percentage Quartile | ||||||||||||||||
All Segments(n = 1027) | No Frills (n = 441) | Aspirants (n = 486) | Enthusiasts (n = 100) | |||||||||||||
Champagne | 5.0 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 6.3 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 8.0 | 9.0 |
Sparkling white | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 9.0 |
Sparkling red | 4.0 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 5.1 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.9 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 8.0 |
Sparkling rosé | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.8 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 8.0 |
Moscato | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 6.1 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 5.7 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.8 | 7.0 | 9.0 |
Prosecco | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 |
Mood Test Multiple Pairwise Comparison p value | ||||||||||||||||
All Segments | No Frills vs. Aspirants | No Frills vs. Enthusiasts | Aspirants vs. Enthusiasts | |||||||||||||
Champagne | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Sparkling white | 0.035 * | 0.010 * | 0.645 | 0.657 | ||||||||||||
Sparkling red | <0.0001 * | 0.002 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Sparkling rosé | <0.0001 * | 0.049 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Moscato | <0.0001 * | 0.002 * | 0.050 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Prosecco | <0.0001 * | 0.015 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * |
Wine Type | Frequency | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
All Segments (n = 1027) | No Frills (n = 441) | Aspirants (n = 486) | Enthusiasts (n = 100) | |
Champagne | 64 | 44 | 19 | 1 |
Sparkling white | 10 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
Sparkling red | 38 | 25 | 10 | 3 |
Sparkling rosé | 36 | 26 | 8 | 2 |
Moscato | 68 | 38 | 25 | 5 |
Prosecco | 253 | 157 | 88 | 8 |
1st Quartile Percentage | Median | 3rd Quartile Percentage | ||||||||||||||||||
Champagne | Sparkling White | Sparkling Red | Sparkling Rosé | Moscato | Prosecco | |||||||||||||
All segments | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
Male | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 |
Female | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 |
<35 years | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 |
35–55 years | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.5 |
>55 years | 5.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
High school | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 7.5 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
Trade | 5.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
Undergraduate | 6.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 |
Postgraduate | 6.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 |
<50,000 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 |
50,000–100,000 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 |
100,001–150,000 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.5 |
>150,000 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 8.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 |
Mood Test Multiple Pairwise Comparison p value | ||||||||||||||||||
Champagne | Sparkling White | Sparkling Red | Sparkling Rosé | Moscato | Prosecco | |||||||||||||
Both genders | 0.129 | <0.0001 * | 0.053 | <0.0001 * | 0.000 * | 0.193 | ||||||||||||
All age groups | 0.024 * | <0.0001 * | 0.397 | 0.003 * | <0.0001 * | 0.000 * | ||||||||||||
<35 years vs. 35–55 years | 0.048 * | 0.038 * | 0.252 | 0.206 | <0.0001 * | 0.006 * | ||||||||||||
<35 years vs. >55 years | 0.467 | <0.0001 * | 0.232 | 0.001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
35–55 years vs. >55 years | 0.011 * | 0.003 * | 0.88 | 0.021 * | 0.045 * | 0.113 | ||||||||||||
All education levels | <0.0001* | 0.676 | 0.258 | 0.492 | 0.013 * | 0.001 * | ||||||||||||
High school vs. Trade | 0.118 | 0.969 | 0.692 | 0.76 | 0.786 | 0.747 | ||||||||||||
High school vs. Undergraduate | 0.003 * | 0.677 | 0.618 | 0.337 | 0.005 * | 0.298 | ||||||||||||
High school vs. Postgraduate | <0.0001 * | 0.283 | 0.207 | 0.698 | 0.379 | 0.001 * | ||||||||||||
Trade vs. Undergraduate | 0.142 | 0.687 | 0.906 | 0.183 | 0.004 * | 0.147 | ||||||||||||
Trade vs. Postgraduate | 0.000 * | 0.274 | 0.084 | 0.915 | 0.419 | 0.000 * | ||||||||||||
Undergraduate vs. Postgraduate | 0.018 * | 0.485 | 0.072 | 0.179 | 0.058 | 0.019 * | ||||||||||||
All income levels | <0.0001 * | 0.611 | 0.303 | 0.911 | 0.845 | 0.097 | ||||||||||||
50,000 vs. 50,000–100,000 | 0.053 | 0.273 | 0.067 | 0.931 | 0.759 | 0.124 | ||||||||||||
50,000 vs. 100,001–150,000 | 0.000 * | 0.633 | 0.228 | 0.839 | 0.831 | 0.553 | ||||||||||||
50,000 vs. >150,000 | <0.0001 * | 0.653 | 0.643 | 0.554 | 0.558 | 0.018 * | ||||||||||||
50,000–100,000 vs. 100,001–150,000 | 0.040 * | 0.259 | 0.661 | 0.755 | 0.949 | 0.381 | ||||||||||||
50,000–100,000 vs. >150,000 | 0.001 * | 0.718 | 0.355 | 0.482 | 0.382 | 0.19 | ||||||||||||
100,001–150,000 vs. >150,000 | 0.137 | 0.626 | 0.599 | 0.677 | 0.448 | 0.064 |
No Frills Median | Aspirants Median | Enthusiasts Median | ||||||||||||||||||
Champagne | Sparkling White | Sparkling Red | Sparkling Rosé | Moscato | Prosecco | |||||||||||||
Anniversary | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
At home with food | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
At home without food | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Birthday | 4.0 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Breakfast | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
By yourself | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
Christmas | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
During the week | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Funeral | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Girl’s/boy’s night out | 1.0 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Hot weather | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Melbourne Cup | 2.0 | 4.0 | 6.5 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
New Year | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 |
On the weekend | 2.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Pub/club | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 |
Restaurant/café | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Wedding | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Work drinks | 1.0 | 3.0 | 5.5 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 5.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
Mood Test P value | ||||||||||||||||||
Champagne | Sparkling White | Sparkling Red | Sparkling Rosé | Moscato | Prosecco | |||||||||||||
Anniversary | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
At home with food | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
At home without food | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Birthday | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Breakfast | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
By yourself | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Christmas | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
During the week | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Funeral | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Girl’s/boy’s night out | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Hot weather | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Melbourne Cup | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
New Year | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
On the weekend | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Pub/club | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Restaurant/café | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Wedding | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | ||||||||||||
Work drinks | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * |
Frequency | Percentage (%) | |||||||||||||
Champagne | Sparkling White | Sparkling Red | Sparkling Rosé | Moscato | Prosecco | ||||||||
All Segments | Never purchase | 133 | 13.0 | 45 | 4.2 | 401 | 39.0 | 345 | 33.6 | 389 | 37.9 | 631 | 61.4 |
<$15 | 95 | 9.3 | 304 | 28.4 | 204 | 19.9 | 274 | 26.7 | 266 | 25.9 | 134 | 13.0 | |
$15–$29 | 358 | 34.9 | 538 | 50.2 | 313 | 30.5 | 336 | 32.7 | 287 | 27.9 | 190 | 18.5 | |
$30–$49 | 243 | 23.7 | 119 | 11.1 | 86 | 8.4 | 60 | 5.8 | 67 | 6.5 | 57 | 5.6 | |
$50–$79 | 142 | 13.8 | 17 | 1.6 | 20 | 1.9 | 10 | 1.0 | 13 | 1.3 | 11 | 1.1 | |
>$80 | 56 | 5.5 | 4 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.2 | 5 | 0.5 | 3 | 0.3 | |
No Frills | Never purchase | 98 | 22.2 | 31 | 7.0 | 237 | 53.7 | 177 | 40.1 | 181 | 41.0 | 282 | 64.0 |
<$15 | 52 | 11.8 | 162 | 36.7 | 90 | 20.4 | 132 | 29.9 | 137 | 31.1 | 58 | 13.2 | |
$15–$29 | 164 | 37.2 | 222 | 50.3 | 102 | 23.1 | 119 | 27.0 | 109 | 24.7 | 72 | 16.3 | |
$30–$49 | 76 | 17.2 | 24 | 5.4 | 11 | 2.5 | 12 | 2.7 | 13 | 3.0 | 23 | 5.2 | |
$50–$79 | 35 | 7.9 | 2 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 6 | 1.4 | |
>$80 | 16 | 3.6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | |
Aspirants | Never purchase | 34 | 7.0 | 14 | 2.9 | 147 | 30.3 | 154 | 31.7 | 190 | 39.1 | 290 | 59.7 |
<$15 | 36 | 7.4 | 128 | 26.3 | 98 | 20.2 | 124 | 25.5 | 110 | 22.6 | 64 | 13.2 | |
$15–$29 | 159 | 32.7 | 271 | 55.8 | 180 | 37.0 | 180 | 37.0 | 153 | 31.5 | 99 | 20.4 | |
$30–$49 | 139 | 28.6 | 63 | 13.0 | 53 | 10.9 | 26 | 5.4 | 28 | 5.8 | 26 | 5.4 | |
$50–$79 | 89 | 18.3 | 9 | 1.9 | 8 | 1.7 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | 3 | 0.6 | |
>$80 | 29 | 6.0 | 1 | 0.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 2 | 0.4 | 3 | 0.6 | |
Enthusiasts | Never purchase | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 17 | 17.0 | 14 | 14.0 | 18 | 18.0 | 59 | 59.0 |
<$15 | 7 | 7.0 | 14 | 14.0 | 16 | 16.0 | 18 | 18.0 | 19 | 19.0 | 12 | 12.0 | |
$15–$29 | 35 | 35.0 | 45 | 45.0 | 31 | 31.0 | 37 | 37.0 | 25 | 25.0 | 19 | 19.0 | |
$30–$49 | 28 | 28.0 | 32 | 32.0 | 22 | 22.0 | 22 | 22.0 | 26 | 26.0 | 8 | 8.0 | |
$50–$79 | 18 | 18.0 | 6 | 6.0 | 11 | 11.0 | 8 | 8.0 | 9 | 9.0 | 2 | 2.0 | |
>$80 | 11 | 11.0 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 | 3.0 | 1 | 1.0 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 0.0 | |
Fisher Exact p-Value | |||||||||||||
Champagne | Sparkling White | Sparkling Red | Sparkling Rosé | Moscato | Prosecco | ||||||||
Price vs. Segment Association | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * | <0.0001 * |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Verdonk, N.; Ristic, R.; Culbert, J.; Pearce, K.; Wilkinson, K. Understanding Australian Wine Consumers’ Preferences for Different Sparkling Wine Styles. Beverages 2020, 6, 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages6010014
Verdonk N, Ristic R, Culbert J, Pearce K, Wilkinson K. Understanding Australian Wine Consumers’ Preferences for Different Sparkling Wine Styles. Beverages. 2020; 6(1):14. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages6010014
Chicago/Turabian StyleVerdonk, Naomi, Renata Ristic, Julie Culbert, Karma Pearce, and Kerry Wilkinson. 2020. "Understanding Australian Wine Consumers’ Preferences for Different Sparkling Wine Styles" Beverages 6, no. 1: 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages6010014