Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2226247

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

235

International Journal of WineBusiness ResearchVol. 21 No. 3, 2009

pp. 235-257# Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1751-1062DOI 10.1108/17511060910985962

The hedonic nature of winetourism consumption: an

experiential viewJohan Bruwer and Karin Alant

School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide,Adelaide, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to use the experiential view of consumption to betterunderstand the nature of the motivations of the wine tourist in a congested wine region environment.It also aims to determine the impact of travel antecedents such as the perceived characteristics of thewine region, information sources utilised, and previous knowledge of the region and its products onthe destination decision-making process and ultimately the visitation motivations.Design/methodology/approach – Information is obtained from a random sample of 304respondents from 12 wineries representing all size groups situated on the Paarl Wine Route(PWR) in South Africa. Data are collected through the use of a self-administered, highly structuredquestionnaire, self-completed by respondents at each of the winery cellar door venues.Findings – The most important characteristic of the entire winescape is the region’s scenic beauty.Other high impact characteristics are the friendly people and their hospitality, overall ambience andthe diversity of wine estates. These factors point to hedonic behaviour in a highly social context andprimarily a search for enjoyment/pleasure, mainly by first-time visitors. The dynamic of first-timeand repeat visitation plays a key role in visitors’ wine tourism behaviour. The decision to engage inwine tourism is generally impulsive, even spurious, the visit duration short and the motivationsguiding the visitors’ behaviour predominantly hedonic in nature.Research limitations/implications – The impact of the natural landscape underlines the premisethat an experiential research approach can yield valuable insights and sheds new light on the factthat a memorable experience for a wine tourist does not only evolve inside the winery’s cellar door. Inthe process it exposits what could be unique selling points for marketing differently positioned wineregions.Originality/value – This study is of value to academic researchers, travel and accommodationproviders and wine industry practitioners alike as it highlights important aspects of wine tourismbehaviour with regard to the actual (underlying) motivations that drive them to visit cellar doors in awine region.

Keywords Wines, Winemaking, Tourism development, South Africa, Consumer behaviour

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionWine is recognised as a lifestyle beverage and the wine consumer’s relationshiptherewith is based on an acquired, not an innate need as in the cases of food and shelter.Wine consumption itself can be regarded as a hedonic experience for some people – asensual and pleasurable activity aimed at personal enjoyment (whether a basic winedrinker or a connoisseur) within the context of a myriad of potential social experiences.The activity of wine tourism is an extension of this rather complex relationshipbetween wineries, wine region and the visitor-consumer. Engagement by people inwine tourism would therefore seem a logical search for a better acquaintance with theproduct, but also for an experience based on the memories of previous goodexperiences and an ongoing indulgence in the wine product. When viewed from thisperspective, the behaviour of the wine tourist takes on a different dimension from thetraditional information processing model or rational problem-solving view (Hall et al.,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1062.htm

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2226247

IJWBR21,3

236

2000). During the 1980s, the ‘‘experiential view’’ that recognises the significance of thehedonic nature of purchases of many goods and services emerged in consumer researchstudies (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Lofman, 1991). The very nature of winetourism principally involves the indulging of the senses in the wine product itself andits immediate aesthetic surroundings and therefore an experiential view of theconsumption of wine tourism seems justified. Not surprising, the experiential approachto research study in wine tourism has been advocated (Dodd and Gustafson, 1997) butthe evolvement of this approach in this field is still in its infancy stage. It has howeverbeen noted that wine region imagery has shifted from an emphasis on wine productionand related activities to more aesthetic and experiential aspects (Williams, 2001a). Theimagery shifted from an overriding landscape theme of neatly cultivated vineyards setwithin wine regions with unspoilt natural scenery to a stronger emphasis on thenatural scenery, cultural and leisure-rural features of the wine regions (Williams,2001b).

Whereas the need for more consumer-based research is expressed in the literature(Getz and Brown, 2006; Hall et al., 2000), there is more specifically, a need to betterunderstand the characteristics and motives of wine tourists (Charters and Ali-Knight,2002). Some research has therefore directly linked wine tourism to wine consumerbehaviour (Bruwer and Reilly, 2006) because an important outcome of the tourismexperience can, among other things, be a greater consumer affinity with the wineproduct. Ultimately wine producers want to improve brand awareness and wine tourismand cellar door wine sales can therefore by default play a definite role in achieving thisgoal (Brown and Getz, 2005). This study has as its main premise that wine tourists arepredominantly wine consumers looking for pleasurable (Pan et al., 2008) and holidayingexperiences to fulfil needs that are linked to more holistic leisure and holiday activitiesand not necessarily only to the wine consumption aspect itself. This total experienceoccurs in the context of what is known as the winescape (Nowak and Newton, 2006).

The setting of wine tourism is therefore an important factor in the consumption ofwine tourism. That is, the rural countryside where agriculture is normally practised,vineyard landscape, cellar doors and facilities, and so on, in other words the‘‘winescape’’ (Hall et al., 2000). The winescape makes it possible for wine tourists toindulge in hedonic experiences in sometimes aesthetically pleasing environments, ofboth a natural and physical nature.

The geographical area within which this research study is based, is a wine routelocated within a well-known wine-producing area, namely the Paarl Wine District, inthe Western Cape Province of South Africa. It falls within the Coastal Region, one ofonly five wine regions in South Africa, so demarcated in terms of the ‘‘Wine of Origin’’classification scheme (Du Plessis, ed. 2006).

2. Study area and interaction with wine tourismMore than 200 winery cellar doors are located in the larger so-called Cape Winelandsarea, which is a highly wine-concentrated geographical area comprising the adjoiningwine regions of Stellenbosch, Franschhoek and Paarl (Cape Town and Western CapeTourism Guide, 2008). Close to 75 per cent of all wine estates are within a drivingdistance of only 45-50 min from the CBD of Cape Town (Bruwer, 2003), as is indeed thestudy area known as the Paarl Wine Route (herein referred to as PWR).

The PWR is the third oldest wine route in the country (Paarl Tourism Association,2008) and the first developments date back to around 1688 when the French Huguenotssettled there (Weston, 2003). The wine route takes its name from the main town in the

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

237

area, called Paarl, situated beneath the second largest granite outcrop in the world(Paarl Tourism Association, 2008). The PWR is considered one of the top three wineroutes in South Africa (Bruwer, 2003) and is recognised for a variety of wine stylesincluding all six noble grape varieties (Stephan, ed. 2006). The area was responsible for11 per cent of the total South African wine grape production in 2007 (South AfricanWine Industry Information and Systems, 2008).

The broader Paarl Valley area encompasses natural phenomena such as threesignificant mountain ranges, namely Simonsberg, Hawequa and Paardeberg as well asthe Berg River (Stephan, ed. 2006). This provides the area with a richness of naturalscenic beauty. It is also not a rural area per se in the sense that it is not remoteagricultural land. On the contrary, the land is mostly cultivated and the town of Paarlhas a population of around 108,000 people (Statistics South Africa, 2007). The PaarlValley area has a well-developed infrastructure of well-signposted roads and alandscape dotted with cultural/historical features, nature reserves and wine estates,many with a significant historic origin (Paarl Tourism Association, 2008).

The wineries and their cellar doors are spread throughout the PWR and offervarious attractions to visitors ranging from centuries-old historical architecture, food-paired wine tastings, restaurants and coffee shops, self-catering accommodation, musicevenings, other products like cheese, olive oil, as well as art experiences, glass blowingand bronze casting (Paarl Vintners, 2008).

3. Literature frameworkThe wine tourist is a person with needs to relate to both wine and the location (wineregion) where wine is produced. In a broader context wine tourism may be linked toother lifestyle activities and to travel per se. The very question ‘‘who is the winetourist?’’ has yet to be definitively answered. Research has brought some salient factorsand differences to light based on demographics, destination analysis and so forth (Ali-Knight and Carlsen, 2003; Bruwer, 2002; Charters and Ali-Knight, 2002; Getz andBrown, 2006; Hall et al., 2000), but no cohesive theory of wine tourist behaviour has yetbeen postulated. The wine tourist market has not been conclusively segmented interms of socio-demographic profile, psychographics or lifestyle either.

The ‘‘problem’’ lies therein that tourists are not a generic group of people (Pearce,2005) and wine tourist behaviour can vary in different regions and cultures and evenfrom one winery cellar door to the next as Hall et al. (2000) point out. Because suchdiversity of behaviour exists, it would indeed be a challenge yet illuminating tounderstand the individual wine tourism experience. For wine producers to fully benefitfrom wine tourism, they need to develop a broader understanding of all extrinsic andintrinsic aspects impacting on the behaviour of visitors.

This study adopted the experiential view of wine tourism advocated by Dodd andGustafson (1997). In the process it provided some theoretical and conceptualdevelopment of winescape, wine tourism consumption and experience and relatedhedonic behaviour. These aspects are further discussed and developed in what followsin terms of the published literature thereon.

3.1 The winescape in wine tourismDestination image analysis has been a topic of much interest among tourismresearchers (Pike, 2002). Notwithstanding this, the actual impact of the naturalenvironment on wine tourists has not received much attention in research although itis noted by visitors as a factor that impacts on their experience (Bruwer, 2003;

IJWBR21,3

238

Carmichael, 2005). In order to understand why people visit wine regions it is importantto determine the key attributes of the wine tourism experience. In doing so, it is alsonecessary to examine the natural environment, namely the winescape, in which thisexperience takes place.

Peters (1997, p. 4) albeit somewhat vaguely, refers to the winescape as ‘‘theattributes of a grape wine region.’’ In a more specific version it was asserted that thewinescape is characterised by three main elements, namely the presence of vineyards,winemaking activity and the wineries where the wine is made and stored (Telfer, 2000)(and sold at their cellar doors). Another acronym is to refer to it as ‘‘wine tourismterroir’’ (Hall et al., 2000, p. 4). Douglas et al. (2001, p. 313) felt that ‘‘wine tourism isinfluenced by the physical, social and cultural dimensions of the winescape and itscomponents.’’ Clearly then the landscape itself forms part of the winescape in relationto wine tourism. Landscape can be viewed as having an inherent physical quality(Lothian, 1999). According to Nohl (2001) during the aesthetic experience of landscape,there are four levels of aesthetic cognition: the perceptual (senses are involved, viewing,hearing or smelling), expressive (feelings and emotions associated with), symptomatic(object signs are symptomatic of something else) and symbolic (ideas and imaginationscreated in the viewers mind). Therefore, a tourist’s ‘‘sense of place’’ would be bothphysical and aesthetic in nature (Charters, 2006).

The vineyard landscape is utilised as ‘‘terroir’’ by some wine producers aimed atforging a relationship in the consumer’s mind with wine production and a sense of place(Johnson and Bruwer, 2007). However, the seductive impact of the physical geographicelements on wine tourists has not yet been researched. How important is the aestheticperception of the natural physical aspects of the region to wine tourists then?

3.2 Motivations of wine touristsThe demand for wine tourism is based on ‘‘the motivations, perceptions, previousexperiences and expectations of the wine tourist’’ (Hall et al., 2000, p. 6). The factorsunderpinning these motivations are complex due to the convoluted nature of the wineconsumer-tourist relationship. However, a gap in the knowledge base exists in thatlittle is known about the motivational forces that drive wine tourists to consumption(Ravenscroft and van Westering, 2001). Theory pertaining to motivational tourismbehaviour may shed light on some of the broader underlying motivations of winetourists (Goossens, 2000). He goes further to say that the ‘‘emotional and experientialaspects of consumption play an important role in consumer choice behaviour’’ (p. 209).

Motivation is described as a ‘‘need-induced tension’’ (Schiffman et al., 2008, p. 94) thatpropels a consumer to do something about relieving the tension (Goossens, 2000). Theconsumer will therefore not buy something or be propelled to action leading to someform of consumption unless this state of need-induced tension does not arise. Severalresearchers have confirmed that the primary driver motivations of wine tourists areconsidered to be ‘‘to taste and to buy wine’’ (Alant and Bruwer, 2004; Bruwer, 2003;Charters and Ali Knight, 2002; Hall et al., 2000). There are also secondary motivationssuch as socialising, learning about wine, being entertained, travelling in a rural setting,scenery, relaxation, having a day out and so forth that round off the experience(Carmichael, 2005; Carlsen, 2004; Dodd, 1995; Getz and Brown, 2006; Hall et al., 2000).Due to the rural setting in which wine tourism mostly occurs, it is plausible that theenvironmental arousal could be at the root of the motives of wine tourists to satisfy theirneeds. The fact that not all wine tourists are necessarily wine drinkers and therefore havewine-related motivations should also be kept in mind (Douglas et al., 2001).

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

239

The intense social context of wine tourism behaviour has been confirmed in studiesshowing that people who engage in this activity tend to be almost always accompaniedby others (Bruwer, 2003; Carmichael, 2005; Hall et al., 2000). Although demographicsand psychographics, as well as the destination have been recognised as playing a rolein behaviour (Bruwer, 2003; Charters and Ali Knight, 2002; Hall et al., 2000) amotivational framework for cellar door research covering three dimensions highlightsthe interrelatedness of several aspects (Alant and Bruwer, 2004):

(1) The visitor profile (who is the person in terms of demographic, psychographicand lifestyle-related information, etc).

(2) The wine region profile (where the destination is located and what it has tooffer, tourism development stage, etc).

(3) The visit dynamic (whether it is a first-time or repeat visitor).

The interrelatedness of these factors provides simultaneously an individualisticpicture of who is doing what, why and how, as well as a coherent practical picture of allfactors at play. It was found that motivations relating to relaxation and time withfamily and friends may be more attributable to the main and secondary destinations,as would be the demographic profile, prior travel experience, the trip profile, activitieslike cultural tourism, likes, environmental quality and service quality satisfaction(McKercher and Wong, 2004). The relevance for wine tourism would be that theexcursion into the winescape may be part of a more comprehensive travel plan.Furthermore, motivations such as discovery and exploration are in the realm of thefirst-time or repeat visitor dimension. A further enhancement of the ‘‘visit dynamic’’would be to expand it into the first-time and repeat visitation dimension in relation tomain and secondary destinations as suggested by McKercher and Wong (2004).

3.3 First-time and repeat visitationThe phenomenon of a high incidence of first-time or repeat visitation in wine tourismcould in some instances be attributed to the spatial relationship (or lack thereof) of theregion with a big source market, as well as through product-related experiences (Dodd,1999). A high incidence of repeat visitation in wine tourism has been confirmed indiverse recent studies in Canada (Carmichael, 2005), Israel (Jaffe and Pasternak, 2004)and Australia (Bruwer, 2002). Some reasons for this are related to previous positiveexperience, product affinity and brand loyalty (Mitchell and Hall, 2004).

A more structured look at this phenomenon in tourism theory (Gitelson andCrompton, 1984) may explain some of the individualistic behaviours that manifest inwine tourism, for example the number of wineries chosen to visit and the sometimesimpulsive changing of the travel itinerary. A wine region as a destination choice wouldgenerally have several winery destinations to choose from and at each of these somesimilar and different experiences may be had. These in turn, impact on the incidence offirst-time and repeat visitation.

The opportunity that the cellar door visitation aspect of wine tourism offers to wineproducers to introduce their business and its products to first-time visitors and toreinforce the relationship with repeat visitors is somewhat unique from a marketingand brand bonding viewpoint (Mitchell and Orwig, 2002). Although first impressionscould be lasting and hence the importance of the first-time winery cellar door visitorcannot be overstressed, the repeat visitor is also very important to the winery as he/sheis on average more likely to already be buying the winery’s products at the retail level

IJWBR21,3

240

(Bruwer, 2002, 2004). The first-time and repeat winery visitor dynamic is thereforefurther explored in this study.

3.4 Experiential perspective of wine tourismIt has been found that consumer needs are inherently bi-dimensional in the form ofutilitarian and hedonic components (Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Bigne et al., 2008) and thatthese components are not mutually exclusive. Consumer behaviour researchers beganto recognise the significance of the hedonic nature of the purchases of many goods andservices in the 1980s (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982; Lofman, 1991) and as a result the‘‘experiential view’’ of consumption emerged. In stark contrast to the rational ‘‘problem-solving approach’’ the ‘‘experiential view’’ recognised ‘‘the special nature of productsand services that have a hedonic component, such as wine, leisure activities andpleasure travel’’ (Hall et al., 2000, p. 129). When purchasing these products consumerdecision-making is not always based on rational problem-solving, rather ‘‘decisions areoften the results of ‘primary process thinking’: fun, amusement, fantasy, arousal,sensory stimulation’’ (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982, p. 135). Among others, researchon leisure activities within which wine tourism falls, may therefore benefit from thisbroadened view of consumption.

Hedonism is one of ten human value types (Schiffman et al., 2008). In essence thehedonism value type involves pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself.Hirschman and Holbrook (1982, p. 92) noted that hedonic consumption includes ‘‘thosefacets of consumer behaviour that relate to the multi-sensory, fantasy and emotiveaspects of one’s experience with products.’’ The relationship between hedonicconsumption and sensory attributes was also confirmed by Crowley et al. (1992).Therefore in the broad sense, hedonic goods provide more experiential consumption,fun, pleasure and excitement than utilitarian goods (Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). Agood example thereof is a wine tourism product in the form of a wine festival heldwithin the ambit of a wine region (Gursoy et al., 2006).

The connection between the hedonic view and wine tourism seems a logical one.For example, ‘‘in the hedonic consumption view, the high interest and involvementgenerated by aesthetic products is strongly emphasized’’ (Spangenberg et al., 1997,p. 236). A strong link between involvement and hedonic consumption of the winetourism product is thus implied (Brown and Getz, 2005; Getz and Brown, 2006; Grossand Brown, 2006). Therefore, high levels of involvement should logically be associatedwith high levels of hedonic response. This study aimed to identify and categorise thehedonic responses of winery visitors.

Dodd and Bigotte (1997) alluded to the fact that the experience of the wine tourismtrip is the major component and that the ‘‘products’’ involved are of lesser importance.In the experiential perspective, the consumption experience is spread over a period oftime that can be divided into four major stages (Arnould et al., 2002):

(1) pre-consumption experience (searching and planning);

(2) purchase experience (choice and encounter with the environment);

(3) core consumption experience (sensation); and

(4) remembered/nostalgia experience (reliving the past experience).

All four (generic) stages are directly relevant to wine tourism and to this study, forexample pre-consumption (search process for information and sources), purchase(choice of winery cellar door to visit and encountering the setting itself), core

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

241

consumption (sensation mainly hedonic in nature) and nostalgia (photographs andmemorabilia to re-live the experience actually and from memory).

People will search for information to inform themselves about a wine tourismdestination albeit to reduce some form of perceived risk and/or to aid in their decision-making (Brown and Getz, 2005; Sparks, 2007). Word-of-mouth communication iswidely regarded as the most important source of information for wine tourists as hasbeen confirmed by studies in Australia and New Zealand (Bruwer and Reilly, 2006;Mitchell and Hall, 2004). This process of information gathering can manifest itself notonly in the pre-visit period, but also while the wine tourist is busy with the experience,for example a recommendation from a fellow wine tourist at a cellar door will also havean effect on relating experiences to the pre-visit behaviour of others (Bruwer and Reilly,2006; Mitchell and Hall, 2004).

The actual visit (purchase of the wine tourism product) experience at the cellar dooris crucial for creating a positive link between the wine tourist and the wine product.Cellar door experiences could entail more activities than just trying to sell wine, sincethere is no direct competition from other wineries at this specific wine tourismdestination (Ali-Knight and Carlsen, 2003; Bruwer, 2002; Mitchell and Hall, 2004). Mostwine tourism research has been conducted on-site at cellar doors focusing on thecharacteristics of wine tourists and the quality of their cellar door visit experience. Fewstudies have focused on the total experience aspect and what that involves, in otherwords, what reasons other than the obvious ‘‘to taste and buy wine’’ actually motivatedthem to visit. This study aims to explore this facet in more detail.

The core consumption experience of wine tourism provides a sensation that differsfrom person to person because of differences in their personalities. Sensation seeking isa personality construct that involves the willingness to take physical and social risksin order to obtain novel and complex sensation (Zuckerman, 1979 in Galloway et al.,2008). Sensation seeking involves both novelty seeking and intensity seeking.Sensation seeking may therefore be related to various characteristics of the behaviourof wine tourists at wineries (Mitchell and Hall, 2001). Galloway et al. (2008, p. 953)suggest that sensation seeking and involvement may be linked and that ‘‘sensationseeking may actually cause involvement, which causes the attitude or behaviour inquestion.’’

Whereas the psychological construct ‘‘involvement’’ has been linked to wine tourism(Charters and Pettigrew, 2006; Galloway et al., 2008; Sparks, 2007), wine tourists havealso been categorised in terms of psychographic variables. At the broadest level, adistinction has been made between the ‘‘specialist wine tourist’’ and the ‘‘generalistwine tourist’’ (Carlsen et al., 1998; Johnson, 1998; Williams and Dossa, 2003). While thespecialist wine tourist’s primary motivation for visiting a wine region is wine-related,the generalist wine tourist visits for primarily other reasons. This study used thisbroad distinction between the wine tourists to infer relationships with their behaviourat the wineries’ cellar doors in the PWR.

Consumer behaviour pointers given by Pine and Gilmour (1998) have the view thatall consumer experiences are taking place in one person’s mind and are therefore verypersonal and no two people would have the same experience. It is also recognised thatthe tourism experience is not limited to a particular site or attraction and that severalelements of the wider experience of a region will impact on the on-site experience (Hall,1996; Johnson, 1998).

While cellar door owners and staff logically aim to please their customers, theunderstanding of how to create exceptional experiences at cellar doors may be the way

IJWBR21,3

242

to differentiate their product from another. Exploratory ideas by Ali-Knight andCarlsen (2003, p. 7) indicate that wine should be regarded as an experience in termsof experiential marketing and that wineries should stage ‘‘extraordinary’’ experiencestriggered by ‘‘unusual events and characterised by high levels of emotional intensityand experience (that is, the extraordinary experience is a personal/unique andmemorable/enduring one).’’ If the experience is remembered, perhaps even invokingfeelings of nostalgia, there is a good chance that those wine tourists who haveexperienced it may influence other wine drinkers and non-wine drinkers in a varietyof ways.

3.5 Wine tourism setting and types of activitiesThe activity of visiting winery cellar doors by tourists in a wine region is the essenceof wine tourism. The winery cellar door is the unique consumption setting of winetourism (Gill et al., 2007). By virtue of its nature, the cellar door is also a tourismdestination or place, and ‘‘places are the venues for tourism experiences’’ (Snepengeret al., 2007, p. 310). Roberts and Sparks (2006) point out that winery visitors reportedthat the setting attracted them and enhanced their experiences. Core destination appealincludes features such as ‘‘attractive scenery, pleasant climate, moderately pricedaccommodation, easy to obtain information, well-signposted wine trails, and a varietyof things to see and do’’ (Getz and Brown, 2006, p. 155).

A research survey conducted by the Cape Town Routes Unlimited (2008), the officialdestination marketers for Cape Town and the Western Cape Province, revealed that ofall the visitors to the Western Cape Province 51 per cent visited the nearby wine routesof the Cape Winelands[1] which includes the PWR.

. The main reasons for visiting the Cape Winelands area was overwhelminglyleisure/holiday (72 per cent) as well as visiting friends and relatives (17 per cent)and business (3 per cent).

. The majority of visitors (73 per cent) stayed overnight in the area and thereforethe study population is well aligned with long-distance wine tourists, an aspectidentified by Brown and Getz (2005) and Getz and Brown (2006) for furtherresearch.

. The top 6 of a total of 16 activities engaged in by visitors to the area were: scenicdrives (65 per cent), shopping (63 per cent), visiting nature attractions (56 per cent),visiting beaches (52 per cent), whale watching (42 per cent) and wine tasting(40 per cent). Their quest for hedonic experiencing is already evident from this.

One of the tenets of this study is that wine tourism involves more than just visitingwineries and vineyards but is instead the culmination of a number of uniqueexperiences that include the surrounding environment, ambience, atmosphere, regionalculture and local wine and food. This study focuses on the hedonic elements of theseunique experiences and highlights their importance to wineries to enable them toincorporate these in their marketing strategies.

3.5.1 Literature knowledge gaps. While much of the consumer research into winetourism is based on the elementary aspects of consumer behaviour, the experientialview has received far less attention to date from researchers. The actual impact of thenatural environment on wine tourists has not received much attention in research andhence their aesthetic perception of the natural physical aspects of a wine regionwarrants further investigation. Exploring differences in the visitor dynamic between

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

243

first-time and repeat visitors to a wine area from this perspective will provide furtherinsights.

Little is known about the motivational forces that actually drive wine tourists toconsumption and this study therefore aims to provide further insights into this aspect.

Hall et al. (2000, p. 129) attributed the dearth of experiential research on winetourists to the fact that ‘‘little or no baseline information exists.’’ Before theoreticalfoundations can be developed with some confidence, ‘‘baseline’’ research on this topic istherefore very much needed.

Although what happens inside the winery cellar door is very important, the greaterlocation (winescape) and setting can be an equally important element in the totalcontext of the business of wine tourism. Understanding what awareness wine touristshave of their physical environment and how it affects their behaviour can therefore beutilised as a unique selling point. This study of visitors to the PWR therefore shedsnew light on the hedonic nature of motives and experience, as well as the impact of theso-called ‘‘winescape’’ in this regard.

4. Research study objectivesThe study had three main objectives:

(1) To provide baseline information and a deepened understanding of themotivations of the wine tourist to visit cellar doors in the congested wine regionenvironment.

(2) To identify the geo-demographic characteristics of wine tourists and highlightaspects thereof of the long-distance wine tourist in the process.

(3) To provide an understanding of the nature of wine tourism’s (travel)antecedents such as the perceived characteristics of the wine region,information sources utilised and previous knowledge of the region and itsproducts on the destination decision-making process.

Knowledge of these factors would assist winery cellar doors with acting on the salientfactors of visitors’ motivations to enhance the experience and thus make a memorableimpression on the visitor. This will in turn relate to post-visit brand awareness andgenerate future sales in the off- and on-premise retail trade.

In order to operationalise the study, the following research questions wereformulated:

RQ1. What are the visitation dynamics of first-time and repeat wine tourists towinery cellar doors in terms of their geo-demographics and other factors?

RQ2. What is the nature of the main antecedents pertaining to the wine tourism(travel) aspects of winery cellar door visitors?

RQ3. What are the motivational reasons for cellar door visitation by the winetourists?

RQ4. What are the consumption (buying) outcomes of wine tourists at the cellar doorsand what is the extent of their pre-visit relationship with the winery’s products?

RQ5. What is the predominant nature of the perceived regional characteristics of awine region from the viewpoint of its wine tourists?

The overall aim of this baseline study is to provide perspectives and some guidelinesregarding the nature and importance of the hedonic nature of the wine tourism

IJWBR21,3

244

experience and not to test hypotheses to build theoretical frameworks. What follows,provide these insights upon which further (confirmatory) research can thereafter bebased.

5. Research methodologyThe total number of foreign visitors who visited South Africa during 2007 was 9.1million. The Western Cape is the number one destination among foreign visitors toSouth Africa and received 1.8 million visitors during 2007 (South African TourismBoard, 2008) plus a further 3 million domestic tourists. It is the major touristdestination in South Africa wherein attractions like the Cape Winelands, Garden Route,Table Mountain, Cape Point, Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens (the latter three all fallwithin the Cape Town metropolis) have great appeal for tourists (Cornelissen, 2005).From this, it is evident that the population contain a large proportion of long-distancewine tourists thus underpinning an objective of this study.

A sample of 14 wineries from the 32 voluntary members of the Paarl VintnersAssociation took part in the research study. The 14 (wineries) cellar doors on the PWRare of differing production sizes ranging from 7,460 to 2,000,000 9-l case production peryear and well-established, ranging in age from 5 to 200 years (Du Plessis, 2006).

Data collection took place by means of a self-administered survey questionnairecompleted by respondents at each of the cellar doors. The survey was conducted at atime of year (September to December) considered high season for tourists in theWestern Cape due to the very sunny spring and early summer weather. Brown andGetz (2005) warned that ‘‘most studies of wine tourists draw from winery visitorsrather than wine consumers in general’’. This study addressed the ‘‘problem’’ in that 91per cent of the respondents were wine drinkers in actual fact.

The purpose-designed, highly structured questionnaire used in the survey was set outto capture both quantitative and qualitative data regarding wine tourists’ demographics,consumption behaviour at the cellar doors, information sources used, perceived regionalcharacteristics and the motivations of their visitation. Staff at cellar doors recruitedrespondents among all visitors according to a prescribed method to ensure completerandomness. A total number or 304 responses were collected at the 14 cellar doors.

The data were entered and manipulated in the SSPS 15.0 statistical softwareprogramme and information compared and extracted due to the nature of the datacollected.

In order to determine why visitors wanted to be at a specific cellar door, arandomised list of salient factors gleaned from previous cellar door studies (Bruwer,2002) were compiled and presented as a research question. Some refer to direct actionswhich can be undertaken, for example: to taste wine, to buy wine, eat at the wineryrestaurant, go on a winery tour and meet the winemaker, while other factors are moreexperiential such as to learn more about wine, to socialise with others, to experience theatmosphere and to entertain oneself and others. Some of the direct action factors, forexample restaurant and food availability, and picnic and barbeque facilities could notbe achieved at all wineries.

In the subsections that follow, the research results are exposited, inferences madeand specific findings highlighted. No sophisticated statistical analysis was generallyattempted as the research conducted was essentially a baseline research study withoutrequiring research hypotheses to be set. As previously stated, the sample of wineriesthat participated in the study has an acceptable degree of fit with and proportionalityto the universum of wineries.

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

245

6. Research resultsSeveral studies (Alant and Bruwer, 2004; Bruwer, 2002, 2004; Bruwer and Reilly, 2006)have pointed to the differences between first-time and repeat visitors to a tourismdestination whether a bounded area space such as a wine region or a specific attractionwithin the area such as a winery cellar door. In the exposition of the research resultsthat follows, the first-time and repeat visitor typology is used to illustrate thesedifferences from mainly a hedonic-based experience-seeking perspective. A two-independent sample test was therefore first conducted to test for independencebetween these two wine tourism visitor types to the PWR (see Table I).

The results of the Mann-Whitney U test in Table I show a significant differencebetween first-time and repeat visitors (z ¼ �3.243 at 0.01 level) and therefore thesamples groups of the two visitor types are independent of each other and theexposition of the results that follows in accordance is justified.

6.1 Long-distance, first-time and repeat visitation phenomenaThe results in Table II indicate that the PWR has an incidence of 36 per cent of overseasand 64 per cent domestic visitors. Getz and Brown (2006) typify long-distance winetourists as people who do not live near a wine region. For example, the samplepopulation used by Getz and Brown (2006) had to negotiate a 9-h journey by car or a1-h flight to the nearest wine region. In the South African context, a research studypinpointed the cut-off distance point from their homes in which case wine tourists willhave to overnight before and/or after visiting a wine region at 180-200 km one-way(Bruwer, 1990). When visiting a wine region these wine tourists invariably have tospend one or more nights away from their permanent home and are by definition long-distance wine tourists. In the case of the PWR, the overseas visitors (36 per cent) clearlyfit this definition, while all the domestic visitors from outside the Western CapeProvince (19.5 per cent) also do. Added to that a further 8.5 per cent of the wine tourists

Table II.Winery cellar door

visitor groupings

Visitation dynamic n % Origin country n %

First-time visitors 124 40.8 Domestic 38 31.9Overseas 81 68.1

100.0Repeat visitors 180 59.2 Domestic 149 80.5

Overseas 24 13.0Not indicated 12 6.5

Total 304 100.0 304 100.0

Table I.Two independent

sample test (First-timevs repeat visitors)

Purpose of visit toPWR

Mann-Whitney U 7,201.500Wilcoxon W 14,951.500Z �3.243Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001

Note: Grouping variable: PWR visited before or first-time

IJWBR21,3

246

from the Western Cape Province who fit the definition and one finds that 64 per cent ofall the visitors to the PWR are long-distance wine tourists. This fact has importantimplications for wineries within the region as it indicates how wide their ‘‘circle ofinfluence’’ is in terms of forming enduring relationships with consumers from afar. Italso provides credence to the need for close collaboration with all the intra- and inter-regional wine tourism stakeholders involved.

Table II further shows that the PWR has a relatively high incidence of repeatvisitation of 59 per cent compared to 41 per cent first-time visitors. The 10 per cent ofvisitors who live within the PWR are by default regarded as repeat visitors in thisstudy. A relatively high proportion (40 per cent) of the repeat visitor component is long-distance visitors to the region which signifies that an established relationship with thewineries and/or their brands exist to some extent. As can be expected, repeat visitorsoverall originate mostly from the domestic market (81 per cent). The high incidence offirst-time visitors from the overseas market is congruent with the large number offoreign visitors to the area.

6.2 Demographics of wine touristsTable III shows an almost equal split between male and female visitors, which is notsurprising in view of the study’s premise that the people were mainly out on socialpleasure-seeking experiences. There are varying ‘‘classifications’’ in terms of which agecohorts a split of the wine market between younger and mature wine drinkers include.Bruwer (2004) split the market between 18-34 years old and 35 years and older and thisstudy has adopted this useful classification. From Table III it is clear that the youngerage segment’s representation is considerable. In the case of the younger than 35 yearold group in particular, it should be remembered that their interaction with the regionaland winery brand so early in their wine drinking lifecycle could lead to the forming ofrelationships with these brands for the rest of their life (Bruwer, 2004). Despite theiryoung age, high percentages of visitors in the 18-34 year age group are first-timevisitors. As said, this augers well for the future of wineries within the PWR andreinforces the fact that wine tourism can be a powerful direct marketing vehicle.

The long-distance wine tourist component is slightly weighted towards older males.The younger age group component of the long-distance wine tourist groupnevertheless represents a sizeable 38 per cent. The wine tourists can therefore beattracted from afar.

6.3 Main travel antecedentsThe social context of wine tourism is clearly illustrated in the high incidence of visitorstravelling in groups of between two and four people in size and in the fact that the

Table III.Winery cellar doorvisitors’ demographics

Total study First-time Repeat Long-distance(%) (%) (%) (%)

GenderMale 50.3 53.2 51.0 55.6Female 49.7 46.8 49.0 44.4

Age group18-34 years old 46.0 44.7 41.3 37.735 years and older 54.0 55.3 58.7 62.3

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

247

travel partners are spouse/partner and/or friends and/or family and therefore in closerelationships with them (Table IV). The travel party group sizes vary consistentlynarrowly between a mean of 3.47 and 3.51 persons for each of the total sample, first-time and repeat visitor subgroups. A high 77 per cent of all visitors were accompaniedby their spouse/partner and/or family and/or friends on the visit to the wine region.This further underlines the social nature of the wine tourism excursion.

The length of the decision-making timeline could be an indicator of the hedonicnature of the wine tourism experience. Table V shows the time period within whichwine tourists reported they made the final decision to visit the PWR. The resultsclearly reflect the unplanned nature of travelling to and visiting the wine tourismdestinations within the PWR.

It is almost as if the decision by tourists to visit the wine region and hence becomewine tourists was a spurious one and part of the overall experience of visiting thelarger Western Cape area for other reasons, mainly holidaying. Overall 40 per cent ofthe visitors decided within the 24-h period before the visit took place to embark on thevisit, while a high 65 per cent decided within only one week thereof. Although thereappears to be an element of spurious behaviour and perhaps also an indication that thedecision was a low involvement one, this requires further research.

Word-of-mouth has been previously identified as the most important source ofinformation used by wine tourists prior to their visit to a winery cellar door (Bruwerand Reilly, 2006). The results of this study show a similar outcome. Both visitorgroupings make extensive use of the word-of-mouth source to the extent of first-time(42 per cent) and repeat visitors (48 per cent). Repeat visitors also logically rely heavilyon their previous (positive) experiences (72 per cent).

6.4 Main purpose of the visit to the wine regionRespondents could select one answer from a list (Table VI) that had been compiled fromsalient factors indicated by respondents in previous wine tourism studies (for example,Alant and Bruwer, 2004) to indicate the main purpose of their visit to the wine region.

Table V.When the final decision

was made to visitthe wine region

Total study (%) First-time (%) Repeat (%)

As I/we were passing by 12.6 13.9 11.8During the last 24 h 27.7 26.8 28.7During the last week 24.5 26.8 23.0During the last month 12.3 11.4 12.9During the last 3 months 6.3 5.7 6.7During the last 6 months 6.3 8.1 5.1During the last 7-12 months 8.3 5.7 9.6More than 12 months ago 2.0 1.6 2.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table IV.Winery cellar door

visitors’ travel party sizeand relationships

Total study First-time Repeat

Partner/relative/close friend to visitor (%) 76.9 72.6 79.9Not in a close relationship with visitor (%) 23.1 27.4 20.1Number of people in party (mean) 3.47 3.51 3.45

IJWBR21,3

248

The strong focus on ‘‘wine tourism’’ and ‘‘holiday’’ as the main purpose of the visit isquite apparent for both first-time and repeat visitors in Table VI. In composite form, itaccounted for at least 76 per cent of the responses in the total study, 67 per cent in thecase of repeat visitors and a very high 89 per cent in the case of first-time visitors. Infact, the result of the Mann-Whitney U-test shows a z value ¼ �3.463 with asignificance level of p ¼ 0.001. Hence there is a significant difference in the pursuit ofwine tourism and holiday as the main purpose for their visit to the region and whetherthe respondents were first-time or repeat visitors. First-time visitors, in particular, hada far higher incidence of holidaying as the main purpose for their visit, which meansthat wine tourism was not at the top of their agenda and therefore seemingly anactivity which augmented their holiday. This is another possible indicator of themhaving a hedonic orientation towards wine tourism. Repeat visitors, on the other hand,have a higher incidence of wine tourism as the main purpose for their visit to the regionwhich underlines the fact that their previous experience was in all likelihood enjoyableand memorable.

6.5 Motivational reasons for visiting winery cellar doorsThe underlying reasons for visiting the winery cellar door further point to the morespecific individual motivations of the visitors to the region. Respondents were given alist of random-placed reasons to choose from and had to indicate the specific rank orderof those that applied to them. Table VII shows only the frequency incidence for eachreason with the ranked order top 5 number in brackets.

As could be expected, tasting and buying wine are the main reasons for visiting awinery cellar door and arguably the core attraction in the context of wine tourism fromthe viewpoint of the wineries. There is also a high incidence of information seeking andthe pursuit of finding unique wines. At the cursory level, at least from a motivational

Table VI.Main purpose of thevisit to the wine region

Total study First-time Repeatn % n % n %

Wine tourism 121 39.9 42 33.9 79 43.8Holiday 107 35.2 67 54.1 40 22.2Recreation (sport or hobby) 20 6.6 4 3.2 16 8.9Business/conference 17 5.6 2 1.6 15 8.3Visit friends or relatives 17 5.6 4 3.2 13 7.2Just passing through 8 2.6 2 1.6 6 3.3Holiday and wine tourism 3 1.0 1 0.8 2 1.1Wedding 3 1.0 1 0.8 2 1.1Holiday and recreation 2 0.7 – – 2 1.1Business and holiday 1 0.3 – – 1 0.6Holiday and visit friends and relatives 1 0.3 – – 1 0.6Wine tourism and recreation 1 0.3 – – 1 0.6Wedding anniversary 1 0.3 – – 1 0.6Business and wine tourism 1 0.3 – – 1 0.6Organise a party 1 0.3 1 0.8 – –

Total 304 100.0 124 100.0 180 100.0Mann-Whitney U-test z-value ¼ �3.463 asymp. sig. (2-tailed)

¼ 0.001

Note: Grouping variable for U test: purpose of visit to region ¼ wine tourism and/or holiday

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

249

viewpoint, it appears that the visitors to the PWR are mainly ‘‘specialist wine tourists’’(Carlsen et al., 1998; Johnson, 1998; Williams and Dossa, 2003) as the highest rankedmotivational reasons were mostly wine-related. However, this begs the questionwhether such a distinction can be made on motivational reasons only, on actualmeasurable wine-related behaviour or both.

From an experiential viewpoint on the other hand, these activities including onessuch as ‘‘indulging in the atmosphere’’ are mainly of a pleasure-seeking, self-gratifying(hedonic) nature. If this means that the visitors are at the same time also ‘‘generalistwine tourists’’ then Johnson’s (1998) distinction between the two types is germane.

The differences in the reasons why first-time and repeat visitors visit varyconsiderably in terms of where the focus is. First-time visitors exhibit a far higher needfor receiving information than repeat visitors. Repeat visitors already know the regionand wine products and hence expressed a higher need for buying wine and this in turnis an indication that their risk perception was lower. First-time visitors intended toreduce perceived risk by tasting wine before buying to a greater extent than repeatvisitors. Furthermore, the experiencing of the atmosphere is also more important tofirst-time visitors. The lower intention of first-time visitors to buy wine could perhapsalso be attributed to the fact that this group (which included a high percentage ofoverseas visitors) may either not have had space to take wine with them during theirtravels and/or airline travel restrictions regarding liquids curbed their buying.

6.6 Wine buying behaviour of visitors at cellar doorsThe wine buying outcomes in Table VIII, however, reflect a different pattern from themotivational reasons discussed earlier. If motivational reasons alone are not sufficientfor segmenting the market into specialist and generalist wine tourists, then theincidence of them actually buying wine at a cellar door during their visit, certainly is.Overall 47 per cent of the visitors bought an average of nine bottles of wine at anaverage price of ZAR 37.40 per bottle. Just over half of the repeat visitors bought wineand spent considerably less per bottle of wine than the 43 per cent of first-time visitors

Table VII.Motivational reasons

for visiting the winerycellar door

Total study (%) First-time (%) Repeat (%)

Taste wine 51.0 (1) 61.3 (1) 43.9 (2)Buy wine 41.4 (2) 37.1 (4) 44.4 (1)Learn more about wine 35.5 (3) 50.0 (2) 25.6 (4)Experience the atmosphere 33.2 (4) 40.3 (3) 28.3 (3)Find a unique wine 24.7 (5) 24.2 25.0 (5)Have a day out 23.0 28.2 (5) 19.4Rural setting 19.4 24.2 16.1Entertain myself and/or others 17.8 25.8 12.2Go on a winery tour 17.4 25.0 12.2Socialise with others 15.5 16.9 14.4Find information 12.5 16.9 9.4Purchase this winery’s merchandise 12.5 13.7 11.7Eat at winery’s restaurant 9.5 13.7 6.7Meet the winemaker 9.5 10.5 8.9Have BBQ or picnic 7.2 8.1 6.7Other reason for visit 0.7 0.8 0.6

Note: Ranking indicated in parentheses

IJWBR21,3

250

who bought wine. Most importantly though, the first-time visitors bought considerablyless, but at the same time far more expensive wine. It appears that the first-timevisitors utilise tasting wine at the cellar door as a risk-reduction strategy (RRS) beforebuying it. Perhaps this is the ultimate indulgence, spending money on expensive,super-premium wine, that either subconsciously or consciously they had wanted to try,but would not take the risk to buy in a retail store or restaurant without having firstexperienced the product first-hand. Further research can provide the answer in termsof this all-important indicator whether the cellar door has a multiplier effect of anysignificance on future retail sales after a visit by a wine tourist.

Whereas the first-time visitors appear to have engaged in RRS by virtue of the factthat they bought less but more expensive wine, another RRS is also evident in theresults contained in Table VIII, this time utilised by the repeat visitors. Almost 33 percent of all the visitors to the PWR’s cellar doors had prior first-hand experience of thewines of the winery they visited in that they had actually bought it in either the off-and/or on-premise trade during the 12-month period that preceded their visit. Repeatvisitors had exactly double the incidence of this close connection with the winery’swines than did first-timers. Hence repeat visitors used ‘‘buying a familiar brand’’ as aRRS.

6.7 Wine regional characteristicsWhereas Table VII showed the importance of ambient factors such as the rural settingof the cellar door and its atmosphere, Table IX provides an overview of the mainregional brand characteristics of the PWR, also known as the regional imagery.

The scenic location of the PWR within its mountainous enclave makes it a dramaticnature experience for visitors. The visitors indicated the impact this has to the degreeof 68 per cent which is far higher than even that of the wine at ‘‘only’’ 38 per cent. It isinsightful that concomitant with the hedonic nature of the visitation context, ‘‘peopleand hospitality’’ rate high (personal attention to visitor’s needs), as well as otheraspects that would affect the experience more closely like the ‘‘ambience’’ and the wineestates and cellar doors themselves for beauty, diversity and so on. The landscape itselfand ultimately the winescape, therefore, ‘‘seduced’’ the visitor into engaging in a totalexperience of a highly hedonic nature.

Finally, Table X provides an exposition of five main regional (brand) imagecategories that respondents identified, namely:

(1) scenery setting references;

(2) wine product references;

(3) people and hospitality references;

Table VIII.Wine buying outcomesof visitors at winerycellar doors

Total study First-time RepeatBought wine Yes No Yes No Yes No

Cellar door (%) 47.1 52.9 43.3 56.7 50.7 49.3Retail store or restaurant prior (%) 32.8 67.2 21.0 79.0 42.4 57.6Number of bottles (mean) 9.19 – 5.06 – 11.96 –Total amount spent on wine R343.73 – R316.36 – R368.50 –Price paid per bottle R37.40 – R62.52 – R30.81 –

Note: Exchange rate at 15 October 2007: $US 1.00 ¼ ZAR 6.55

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

251

(4) ambience of the region references; and

(5) wineries and wine estates mentioned for diversity, history, appearance, etc.

The impact of the natural scenery and landscape is rated very high by both the first-time and repeat visitors. Even the repetitive behaviourists, the repeat visitors to thesame cellar doors, rate the scenery as a characteristic more times than (by implication)the wine from the cellar door they love to visit. This gives further credence to the broadconclusion that wine tourists seek hedonic experiences which they largely find withinthe context of the region’s winescape.

A baseline study was executed to establish whether the experiential view of winetourism consumption behaviour can yield insightful and useful research results.Specific research questions were formulated to operationalise the research. It wasfound that the experiential approach not only provided a different angle to what hasmainly been descriptive information in the past, but also a richness of insights, mainlypointing to the strength of hedonic motivations and pursuits by wine tourists whenthey visit cellar doors in a region. These facts are very important for the wine industryto embrace and from which to develop profitable wine tourism business strategies.

7. Conclusions, implications and recommendations7.1 ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that the adoption of the experiential view to wine tourismresearch yields a richness of perspectives that could eventually prove to be useful inboth conceptual and theory-building research in this field.

Table IX.Paarl wine route’s

regional characteristics

Description of regional characteristic n %

1 Scenery and landscape, views, mountains 171 67.62 Positive references to wine quality, value, price, etc 97 38.33 People and hospitality great 45 17.84 Ambience in region, tranquillity, clean, not touristy, romantic 41 16.25 Wineries/wine estates mentioned for variety, diversity, etc 31 12.36 Vineyards 29 11.57 Historical/cultural observations, interesting places 24 9.58 Climate and weather positive reference 17 6.79 Wine tours /wine tourism well organised 11 4.310 Restaurant and food quality, diversity reference 10 4.011 Fame attached to region and old and historic wineries 8 3.212 Accessibility of region and wineries/Stellenbosch & Cape Town 7 2.813 Other products from the region, for example brandy, cheese 6 2.414 Interaction descriptors: educational, entrepreneurial 4 1.6

Table X.Paarl Wine Route’s

regional characteristiccategories pervisitor group

Description of regional characteristicTotal

study (%)First-time

(%)Repeat

(%)

1 Scenery and landscape, views, mountains 67.6 72.8 64.62 Positive references to wine quality, value, price, etc 38.3 28.3 44.13 People and hospitality great 17.8 15.2 19.34 Ambience in region, tranquillity, clean, not touristy, romantic 16.2 13.0 18.05 Wineries/wine estates mentioned for variety, diversity, etc 12.3 14.2 11.2

IJWBR21,3

252

Wine tourism should largely be viewed as a part of or enhancement of a holidayexperience. While it is true that visitors to wine regions have the aim to taste wine andeven to buy wine, the secondary experiences and motivators for such experiences arecrucial to understanding what primarily motivates a person to visit a wine region and awinery cellar door. Without more emphasis on these antecedent factors, wine tourismas an industry may suffer negative consequences.

Cape Town is already a high stimulation tourism destination heavily cluttered withattractions and adjacent to it are the Paarl, Stellenbosch and Franschhoek Wine Routesbordering on one another and forming a homogenous ‘‘wine experiences place’’,densely populated with wineries and cellar doors. This resulted in both visitor first-time and repeat visitor groupings hunting for short intensive hedonic experiences,hence the short decision-making time frame and the short duration of their visit to thewine region.

There are clear differences in the visitation dynamics between first-time and repeatvisitors to a wine region and for that matter long-distance visitors, for example in themain purpose why they visit a wine region. Repeat visitors tend to be more in pursuitof the wine tourism experience, while first-time visitors view it as an enhancement oftheir holiday experience which is their main purpose as tourists. Both first-time andrepeat visitors, but first-timers in particular, exhibit clear hedonic pleasure-seekingneeds expression and actions in their actual wine tourism consumption behaviour. RRSwere evident in the behaviour of the wine tourists, the nature thereof again differingbetween first-time and repeat visitors. Indications of spurious behaviour in so far asthe decision-making process to engage in and consume the wine tourism product werealso evident while the social context of their experience appeared to be of the utmostimportance. Their needs for stimulation and instant gratification through engaging ina total experience, mainly of a hedonic nature, were strong.

7.2 Managerial implicationsThe main implication of this study’s findings for wine regions and individual winerycellar doors lies in the more effective marketing of the winescape elements, specificallythose related to the natural landscape as a brand element. People living in a wine tourismarea may over time ostensibly become inured to the value of the aesthetic landscapeperception and hence not perceive it to be an important aspect of the visitors’ overallexperience. Wineries should strive to present promotional messages that are balanced inso far as the emphasis on the core wine tourism product elements such as wine tastingand/or buying and the hedonic experience elements are concerned.

A deepened understanding of the winery visitation dynamic and the intention andability to market their wine region, winery cellar door and its products in the mostoptimal way to wine tourists is of the utmost importance for wineries to be successfulthrough the direct wine marketing mode that wine tourism represents. To attractrepeat visitors the focus of the marketing efforts should be strongly wine-related whilein the case of first-time visitors the elements of the natural environment should beemphasised and the hedonic nature thereof stressed. At the first opportunity tointerface with a wine tourist at a cellar door the winery owner and staff, it is thereforevitally important to establish whether the person is a first-time or repeat visitor.

7.3 LimitationsA limitation of this study is that it did not measure what constituted the ‘‘optimal’’visitor experience. Once this is known, wine regions could utilise it as a marketing

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

253

element from the viewpoint that it enhances the complete experience of the winetourist. Wine tourism research with a focus on the visitor’s particular needs and how tomatch the cellar door’s resources to those needs is therefore recommended.

Data collection occurred in one wine region in a single country and research in otherwine tourism environments should be conducted to expand this knowledge base andfor comparative purposes.

The research was almost exclusively conducted on wine drinkers who visited cellardoors on a wine route in a wine region and this is a limitation in the sense that similarinformation on non-wine drinkers who also visited the region was not obtained to ahigher degree.

7.4 Recommendations for further researchA proper understanding of the symbiosis of the various tourist experiences will assistwine tourism marketers with maximising the visitation experience for both the winetourist and their service providers (cellar door owners and staff, accommodationproviders, restaurants and other stakeholders).

The personality construct of sensation seeking has received little attention in winetourism research studies to date with the exception of the work of Galloway et al. (2008)and Galloway and Lopez (1999) and should be further examined. Research on therelationship between involvement and sensation seeking is needed to determinewhether sensation seeking causes involvement and what the relationship is betweeninvolvement and types of wine tourism behaviour.

Further work on the segmentation of the wine tourist market is needed. Even at thevery broadest of levels, it was not clear how to make a distinction between ‘‘specialist’’and ‘‘generalist’’ wine tourists. The question that needs to be answered is whether sucha distinction should be made on motivational reasons only, on actual measurable wine-related behaviour or both.

More consumer research on both perceived and preferred wine region imagery isneeded to permit proper wine region positioning.

Finally, it needs to be established to what extent a winery cellar door visit acts as amultiplier of the winery’s future wine sales in the retail trade and what wine tourismfactors the strength of this multiplier effect are contingent upon.

Note

1. ‘‘Cape Winelands’’ are not described in this case, but all the municipal areas within theWestern Cape were included and by implication therefore all the Wine Routes previouslymentioned would have been included.

References

Alant, K. and Bruwer, J. (2004), ‘‘Wine tourism behaviour in the context of a motivationalframework for wine regions and cellar doors’’, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 27-37.

Ali-Knight, J. and Carlsen, J. (2003), ‘‘An exploration of the use of ‘extraordinary’ experiences inwine tourism’’, in Lockshin, L. and Rungie, C. (Eds), Proceedings of the InternationalColloquium in Wine Marketing, Wine Marketing Group, University of South Australia,Adelaide.

Arnould, E., Price, L. and Zinkhan, G. (2002), Consumers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Batra, R. and Ahtola, O.T. (1990), ‘‘Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumerattitudes’’, Marketing Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 159-70.

IJWBR21,3

254

Bigne, F.E., Mattila, A.S. and Andreu, L. (2008), ‘‘The impact of experiential consumptioncognitions and emotions on behavioural intentions’’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 22No. 4, pp. 303-15.

Brown, G. and Getz, D. (2005), ‘‘Linking wine preferences to the choice of wine tourismdestinations’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 266-76.

Bruwer, J. (1990), The Potential of Agricultural Tourism. South African Tourism Board(SATOUR), Research Report, Pretoria, June.

Bruwer, J. (2002), ‘‘The importance and role of the winery cellar door in the Australian wineindustry: some perspectives’’, The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower andWinemaker, No. 463, August, pp. 96-99.

Bruwer, J. (2003), ‘‘South African wine routes: some perspectives on the wine tourism industry’sstructural dimensions and wine tourism product’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,pp. 423-35.

Bruwer, J. (2004), ‘‘The love affair of Generation-X consumers with the winery cellar door’’,The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker, No. 491, December, pp. 19-24.

Bruwer, J. and Reilly, M. (2006), ‘‘The power of word-of-mouth communication as an informationsource for winery cellar door visitors’’, Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal,Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 43-52.

Cape Town and Western Cape Tourism Guide (2008), available at: www.tourismcapetown.co.za/za/guide (accessed 22 March 2008).

Cape Town Routes Unlimited (2008), Western Cape Tourism Barometer, Vol. 2 No. 3, available at:www.tourismcapetown.co.za/index.php?tstats (accessed 22 December 2008).

Carlsen, J. (2004), ‘‘A review of global wine tourism research’’, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 15No. 1, pp. 5-13.

Carlsen, J., Dowling, R. and Cowan, E. (1998), ‘‘Wine tourism marketing issues in Australia’’,International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 23-32.

Carmichael, B.A. (2005), ‘‘Understanding the wine tourism experience for winery visitors in theNiagara Region, Ontario, Canada’’, Tourism Geographies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 185-204.

Charters, S. (2006), ‘‘Aesthetic products and aesthetic consumption: a review’’, Consumption,Markets and Culture, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 235-55.

Charters, S. and Ali-Knight, J. (2002), ‘‘Who is the wine tourist?’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 23No. 1, pp. 311-19.

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.

Cornelissen, S. (2005), ‘‘Tourism impact, distribution and development: the spatial structure oftourism in the Western Cape of South Africa’’, Development Southern Africa, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 163-85.

Crowley, A.E., Spangenberg, E.R. and Hughes, K.R. (1992), ‘‘Measuring the hedonic andutilitarian dimensions of attitudes toward product categories’’, Marketing Letters, Vol. 3No. 3, pp. 239-49.

Dhar, R. and Wertenbroch, K. (2000), ‘‘Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods’’,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 60-71.

Dodd, T.H. (1995), ‘‘Opportunities and pitfalls in a developing wine industry’’, InternationalJournal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 5-16.

Dodd, T.H. (1999), ‘‘Attracting repeat customers to wineries’’, International Journal of WineMarketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 18-27.

Dodd, T.H. and Bigotte, V. (1997), ‘‘Perceptual differences among visitor groups to wineries’’,Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 46-51.

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

255

Dodd, T.H. and Gustafson, A.W. (1997), ‘‘Product, environmental, and service attributes thatinfluence consumer attitudes and purchases at wineries’’, Journal of Food ProductsMarketing, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 41-59.

Douglas, N., Douglas, N. and Derrett, R. (2001), Special Interest Tourism: Context and Cases, JohnWiley & Sons, Brisbane and Melbourne, p. 475.

Du Plessis, C. (Ed.) (2006), South Africa: A Wine Industry Directory 2006/7, 8th ed., WinelandPublications, Suider-Paarl.

Galloway, G. and Lopez, K. (1999), ‘‘Sensation seeking and attitudes to aspects of national parks:a preliminary empirical investigation’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 665-71.

Galloway, G., Mitchell, R., Getz, D., Crouch, G. and Ong, B. (2008), ‘‘Sensation seeking and theprediction of attitudes and behaviours of wine tourists’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 29No. 5, pp. 950-66.

Getz, D. and Brown, G. (2006), ‘‘Critical success factors for wine tourism regions: a demandanalysis’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 146-58.

Gill, D., Byslma, B. and Ouschan, R. (2007), ‘‘Customer perceived value in a cellar door visit:the impact on behavioural intentions’’, International Journal of Wine Business Research,Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 257-75.

Gitelson, R.J. and Crompton, J.L. (1984), ‘‘Insights into the repeat vacation phenomena’’, Annals ofTourism Research, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 199-217.

Goossens, C. (2000), ‘‘Tourism information and pleasure motivation’’, Annals of TourismResearch, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 301-21.

Gross, M.J. and Brown, G. (2006), ‘‘Tourism experiences in a lifestyle destination setting: the roles ofinvolvement and place attachment’’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 696-700.

Gursoy, D., Spangenberg, E.R. and Rutherford, D.G. (2006), ‘‘The hedonic and utilitariandimensions of attendees’ attitudes towards festivals’’, Journal of Hospitality and TourismResearch, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 279-94.

Hall, C.M. (1996), ‘‘Wine tourism in New Zealand’’, in Higham, J.E.S. (Ed.), Proceedings of theTourism Down Under II: A Research Conference, University of Otago, Dunedin, pp. 109-19.

Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and Macionis, N. (2000), Wine Tourism around the World,Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), ‘‘Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methodsand propositions’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 92-101.

Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), ‘‘The experiential aspects of consumption: consumerfantasies, feelings, and fun’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 132-40.

Jaffe, E. and Pasternak, H. (2004), ‘‘Developing wine trails as a tourist attraction in Israel’’,International Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 237-49.

Johnson, G.R. (1998), ‘‘Wine tourism in New Zealand: a national survey of wineries 1997’’,unpublished Diploma in Tourism dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin.

Johnson, R. and Bruwer, J. (2007), ‘‘Regional brand image and perceived wine quality: the consumerperspective’’, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 276-97.

Lofman, B. (1991), ‘‘Elements of experiential consumption: an exploratory study’’, Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 729-35.

Lothian, A. (1999), ‘‘Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent inthe landscape or in the eye of the beholder?’’, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 44 No. 4,pp. 177-98.

McKercher, B. and Wong, D.Y.Y. (2004), ‘‘Understanding tourism behaviour: examining thecombined effects of prior visitation history and destination status’’, Journal of TravelResearch, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 171-9.

IJWBR21,3

256

Mitchell, M.A. and Orwig, R.A. (2002), ‘‘Consumer experience tourism and brand bonding’’,Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 30-41.

Mitchell, R. and Hall, C.M. (2001), ‘‘Wine at home: self-ascribed wine knowledge and the winebehaviour of New Zealand visitors’’, Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal,Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 115-22.

Mitchell, R. and Hall, C.M. (2004), ‘‘The post-visit consumer behaviour in New Zealand of wineryvisitors’’, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 39-49.

Nohl, W. (2001), ‘‘Sustainable landscape use and aesthetic perception – preliminary reflections onfuture landscape aesthetics’’, Landscape and Urban Planning, Vol. 54 Nos 1/4, pp. 223-37.

Nowak, L.I. and Newton, S.K. (2006), ‘‘Using the tasting room experience to create loyalcustomers’’, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 157-65.

Paarl Tourism Association (2008), available at: www.paarlonline.com (accessed 22 March 2008).

Paarl Vintners (2008), available at: www.paarlwine.co.za/Winery.asp?PRODUCERID¼1113(accessed 22 March 2008).

Pan, F.-C., Su, S.-J. and Chiang, C.-C. (2008), ‘‘Dual attractiveness of winery: atmospheric cues onpurchasing’’, International Journal of Wine Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 96-110.

Pearce, P.L. (2005), Tourist Behaviour – Themes and Conceptual Schemes, Channel ViewPublications, Clevedon.

Peters, G.L. (1997), American Winescapes: The Cultural Landscapes of America’s Wine Country,Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Pike, S. (2002), ‘‘Destination image analysis – a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000’’, TourismManagement, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 541-9.

Pine, B.J. and Gilmour, J.H. (1998), ‘‘Welcome to the experience economy’’, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 97-105.

Ravenscroft, N. and van Westering, J. (2001), ‘‘Wine tourism, culture and the everyday:a theoretical note’’, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 149-62.

Roberts, L. and Sparks, B. (2006), ‘‘Enhancing the wine tourism experience: the customers’viewpoint’’, in Carlsen, J. and Charters, S. (Eds), Global Wine Tourism: Research,Management & Marketing, CAB International, Cambridge, pp. 47-55.

Schiffman, L.G., Bednall, D., O’Cass, A., Paladino, A., Ward, S. and Kanuk, L.L. (2008), ConsumerBehaviour, 4th ed., Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest, pp. 1-664.

Snepenger, D., Snepenger, M., Dalbey, M. and Wessol, A. (2007), ‘‘Meanings and consumptioncharacteristics of places at a tourism destination’’, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 45 No. 3,pp. 310-21.

South African Tourism Board (2008), Annual Tourism Report 2007, available at: www.southafrica.net/satourism/research/viewResearchDocument.cfm?ResearchDocumentID¼408 (accessed22 March 2008).

South African Wine Industry Information and Systems (2008), South African Wine IndustryStatistics: 2007/8, Paarl, p. 33.

Spangenberg, E.R., Voss, K.E. and Crowley, A.E. (1997), ‘‘Measuring the hedonic and utilitariandimensions of attitude: a generally applicable scale’’, Advances in Consumer Research,Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 235-41.

Sparks, B. (2007), ‘‘Planning a wine tourism vacation? Factors that help to predict touristbehavioural intentions’’, Tourism Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 1180-92.

Statistics South Africa (2007), Census 2006: Primary Tables Western Cape, Report No. 03-02-13,Pretoria.

Stephan, H. (Ed.) (2006), The Essential Guide to South African Wines, Cheviot Publishing, GreenPoint.

Hedonic natureof wine tourism

consumption

257

Telfer, D.J. (2000), ‘‘Tastes of Niagara: building alliances between tourism and agriculture’’,Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 71-88.

Weston, R. (2003), ‘‘Wine tourism as the marketing of place’’, Proceedings of the Academy ofMarketing Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 35-41.

Williams, P. (2001a), ‘‘Positioning wine tourism destinations: an image analysis’’, InternationalJournal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 42-59.

Williams, P. (2001b), ‘‘The evolving images of wine tourism destinations’’, Tourism RecreationResearch, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 3-10.

Williams, P. and Dossa, K. (2003), ‘‘Non-resident wine tourist markets: implications for BritishColumbia’s emerging wine tourism industry’’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,Vol. 14 Nos 3/4, pp. 1-34.

Corresponding authorJohan Bruwer can be contacted at: johan.bruwer@adelaide.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints