Next Article in Journal
The Protein Composition Changed the Quality Characteristics of Plant-Based Meat Analogues Produced by a Single-Screw Extruder: Four Main Soybean Varieties in China as Representatives
Next Article in Special Issue
Consumer Attitudes towards Food Preservation Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Green Extraction Technology of Polyphenols from Food By-Products
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tasting More Than Just Food: Effect of Aesthetic Appeal of Plate Patterns on Food Perception
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/foods11081110
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Determinants of Choice and Wine Consumption Behaviour: A Comparative Analysis between Two Counties of Romania

by
Anca Monica Brata
1,
Daniel I. Chiciudean
2,
Vlad Dumitru Brata
3,
Dorin Popa
1,
Gabriela O. Chiciudean
2,* and
Iulia C. Muresan
2
1
Faculty of Environmental Protection, University of Oradea, 410048 Oradea, Romania
2
Department of Economic Sciences, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Faculty of Medicine, “Iuliu Hatieganu” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 400000 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(8), 1110; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11081110
Submission received: 2 March 2022 / Revised: 8 April 2022 / Accepted: 11 April 2022 / Published: 13 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumer Behavior and Food Choice—Volume II)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wine, one of the world’s oldest and most popular beverages, has a distinct variety matching a diverse base of consumers worldwide. The study was conducted in two counties of Romania in order to identify consumers’ perception towards wine consumption, as well as the driving factors behind wine consumption and the decision process of choosing a certain type of wine. Thus, four factors were identified through principal component analysis: intrinsic cues and consumers’ experience, extrinsic cues and origin, notoriety and the label and package of the wine, correlating them with the socio-demographic characteristics of our respondents. It might be concluded that the intrinsic cues and consumer experience ranked highest among the priorities of the participants between 35 and 45 years old when choosing a certain type of wine. Additionally, notoriety was more valued by people with higher income, and people with experience in the domain inclined to pay more for a bottle of wine.

1. Introduction

Wine is a popular and long-established alcoholic beverage that has been consumed for hundreds of years [1], with moderate consumption being associated with significant health benefits [1,2,3,4,5], whereas excessive alcohol consumption is considered a major risk factor for various diseases [6,7,8]. Nonetheless, data regarding the recommended dose for a healthy life remain equivocal [9], making the product somehow controversial [10]. Numerous research undertaken on this topic [11], the elements influencing wine purchasing being explored by many experts, demonstrate its growing popularity as a product category, as well as in its consumption behaviour [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. The most frequently identified factors refer to the wines’ geographical origin [10,12,13,14,16], the content of alcohol [10,17] or its notoriety, reflected in the number of distinctions received [10], but also the type of grapes, year and origin of harvest [17]. Moreover, it has been previously observed that the individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics often influence the type of wine purchased and consumed with regards to age, gender and mostly income [18,19,20,21,22]. In Romania, wine studies are primarily concerned with consumer behaviour and information sources at the time of purchase [12,13,14], not taking into consideration the factors influencing the consumers’ decision to purchase. Furthermore, the Romanian research has mainly focused either on the intrinsic attributes (sensory characteristics) [23] or the extrinsic ones (brand, notoriety, price, packaging, etc.) [12,23], which is similar to the findings of Mueller et al. in Australia, without considering them as a whole when referring to the complex product that is wine [24].
Aside from the importance for academics, the determinants of impact at the point of purchase are equally crucial for wine producers who must develop new market tactics to promote consumption [15] and consequently adjust their supply according to the consumers’ preferences [18,19,20,21]. Among the European countries, Romania ranks seventh, after Russia, in terms of wine production, with 3.6 million hectolitres in 2020 [22]. The wine production improved in terms of both quality and quantity [25], with 40 new wine producers having just recently entered the wine market [25]. Nevertheless, when it comes to wine consumption, the situation is very different; in 2020, the amount of wine consumed per capita was 21.1 L, down from 23.4 L in 2019 [26], confirming that Romanian consumers do not have a wine culture such as other European countries such as France [27], Italy [28], Spain [29] or Portugal [30]. The most consumed alcoholic beverage in Romania remains beer with 87.8 L per capita in 2020 [26].
The present study aimed to determine the consumers’ perception towards wine consumption by identifying the factors influencing the consumption, for better understanding the characteristics of the wine consumers and the attributes that they are seeking when deciding to purchase wine, as well as to help the Romanian stakeholders involved in the wine area of production and commercialization to improve their marketing strategies according to the market’s needs and contribute to an increase in domestic consumption.

2. Literature Review

Wine has been regarded as one of the oldest products created by humans and further transformed into the popular beverage of today [1]. It is nowadays considered a combination of art and science, integrating elements such as creativity and technology [31] in order to provide the variety matching its diverse base of consumers worldwide [32]. Research has recently showed a promising direction in the field of emotions sparked by wine consumption, Ferrarini et al. developing a list of 16 Italian adjectives that could describe various emotions triggered by wine tasting [33].
From a cultural standpoint, wine is traditionally connected with Southern Europe, while beer is associated with Northern Europe [34]. Silva et al., analysed consumers’ behaviour in two different European countries in terms of preferred type of purchased alcohol—Portugal and the Netherlands [34]. Thus, there is a significant distinction between the quantity of wine and beer consumed in both countries, assessing the motivations and factors influencing the decision of choosing one of the two. Although wine consumption in Portugal has decreased over the years, with beer growing more popular, it still remains the most consumed alcoholic beverage in the country [34]. In both Portugal and the Netherlands, wine is more likely consumed in domestic settings, whether at home or over at family or friends, with Portuguese consumers also choosing wine more frequently in restaurants, when compared to their Dutch correspondents [34]. Additionally, wine is regarded as complementary to certain foods and is strongly associated with special occasions, while beer is viewed as a more “informal” beverage. Differences between the consumption pattern in Southern and Northern European countries also occur due to the importance that certain populations provide to various meals of the day. To this matter, Portuguese were more likely to consume wine at lunch, dinner and at the weekends, while, for the Dutch, alcohol intake during the weekdays and the quantity of alcohol consumed with meals were significantly lower, most of them resorting to drinking during the weekends [34].
Nevertheless, choosing and purchasing a certain type of wine is more thorough, with many factors depending not only on the product, but on the consumer as well. Studies conducted in this domain have managed to create several consumer profiles and identify the factors they mostly rely on when purchasing wine. The so-called “extrinsic characteristics” of the wine consist of the first things consumers come into contact with when purchasing a wine: price, label, prizes and awards, volume, country of origin, alcohol percentage and various store promotions [35]. However, consumers with a developed wine culture and high incomes are more likely to rely on the intrinsic cues of the wine, such as taste, colour, flavours, smell and the varieties of grapes used, [36,37,38,39]. This component is also strongly associated with previous experiences, whether the customer has tasted that certain type of wine before, recommendations from other consumers, or simply the customer’s psychological association of an event with that said wine [10,40,41,42,43]. The amount to which each one of these variables influences the process of wine purchasing depends on many factors, such as the customer’s country and wine tradition, the involvement of the consumers, income, education level and, of course, personal preferences. However, traditional wine consuming countries differ from newly emerging countries in the field of wine culture, with Western and Southern Europeans mostly relying on the intrinsic characteristics of the wine [36], while consumers from China and Russia are more interested in extrinsic cues: the medals earned, price, country of origin, landscape certification, etc. [16].
Ferreira et al., concluded that, for a proper evaluation of wine quality, consumers need knowledge and experience [35]. Thus, based on these dimensions, two types of consumers emerged: least knowledgeable and very knowledgeable [35]. The first segment evaluates the wine quality based on attributes such as brand, food pairing, alcohol content and wine image, while the second segment appreciates its quality based on region, grape variety and alcohol content. Italian consumers were grouped into four categories based on their characteristics and purchasing behaviour highlighting the importance of brand in the case of wine [35]. The “loyal group” comprises young consumers with a higher income, the “habitual group” consumes wine less frequently than all the other groups. The “variety seekers” are generally old and have high incomes while the “switchers” represent the largest group rather seeking diversity instead of a certain brand [35,36]. Wine is, indeed, a special product that is able even to improve one’s social image, so it has been stated that narcissistic people consume higher amounts of wine due to its social attractiveness compared to individuals with lower degree of narcissism [37].
Moreover, when it comes to wine industry and wine consumption, there are certain factors that need to be addressed by the producers regarding the type of consumer of their wines. Chaney analysed the decision making of UK consumers when it comes to wine purchase, revealing that little to no proper research by the customer is conducted prior to the purchase, the consumers reflecting more on the options they were to find in the store [44]. Further extensive research proved that, indeed, the aspect and attractiveness of the label plays a more important role in the purchase and consumption of wine [45,46,47,48,49]. Consumers are also more likely to choose a wine whose name has a certain degree of notoriety [42,49] or a wine which they have previously tried [10] or has been recommended by acquaintances [42,43]. Factors such as the geographical origin of the wine and type of grapes also play an important part when deciding over the type of wine one is going to pick out of a multitude of choices [42,50,51,52]. Studies have also shown that people that read about and are generally interested in wine culture tend to check for additional information when making the decision of choosing a certain type of wine, either reading about it at home or in the store [42,53]. Additionally, studies performed by Jaeger et al. in New Zealand and by Bărbulescu in Romania revealed that participants tended to assess the extent to which the wine they chose matched the food they were about to prepare or eat in restaurants, looking for the meal and wine to go well together [42,54]. Other factors and information people taking part in the study also considered when choosing their wine were the number of competitions or distinctions the said wine had previously received or whether the considered wine was on a promotional display in the store [42]. The average alcohol content of beverages in general and wine in particular is also frequently taken into account by consumers [42,55].
The amount of influence the previously mentioned factors have upon the consumer’s process of decision making is also strongly correlated to certain socio-demographic aspects. Age and gender play an important role and firmly influence wine taste of consumers [41,46]. A study by Barber et al. that analysed participants from the state of Connecticut revealed that females and people in the 30–40 years age group tend to analyse more thoroughly the aspects leading to the decision of purchasing a certain type of wine [39]. Another study performed by Saad in 2005 on participants from the USA also concluded that nearly half of the adult female population preferred wine over other alcoholic beverages [56].
Another important factor that considerably impacts the decision and choice of customers when it comes to wine is represented by the income they have [39,40,41]. Blaylock and Blisard analysed the wine consumption of US men, indicating that men tend to consume more wine if they are under 65 years of age, have a steady and high income and are also highly educated [40]. Moreover, the study revealed that male heavy wine drinkers were over 65 years of age, but also exercised regularly and had higher incomes [40]. Gunay and Baker analysed the preferences of Turkish wine consumers, establishing a correlation between income and education levels and factors influencing their decision of wine purchase, with higher education and income individuals orienting themselves towards quality superior wines, while people with lower incomes and education were more attracted by the low price of the product or various promotional displays [56].
Additionally, the extent to which consumers are interested in the wine industry and culture also influences the way they tend to choose and select certain types of wines and the quantity they buy [42,43,56]. Hussain et al. conducted a study with the aim of identifying the determinants of wine consumption of US customers [41]. The study identified significant correlations between the amount of wine consumed and the involvement of the consumers in wine industry and culture [41]. However, when it comes to the thought process and decision making regarding which wine to choose, research has shown an important distinction between consumers with different levels of involvement [56,57]. Barber et al. analysed the so-called method of purchasing a certain type of wine of participants from the state of Connecticut with different levels of involvement, revealing that consumers with lower involvement inclined more on external features of the wines, such as the front label, which provided information about the country of origin of the wine, type of grapes, or whether it was a vintage type [46]. Moreover, it was also revealed that novice enjoyers of wine were more price sensitive in comparison to people more involved with wine [46]. Thus, studies analysing consumers’ behaviour in relationship to wine consumption have concluded that people with an important wine culture and involvement are less likely to be influenced by the extrinsic cues of the product, relying more on the intrinsic characteristics of the wine [41,46,56].
Ferreira et al. consider that, for a proper evaluation of wine quality, consumers need knowledge and experience [35]. Thus, based on these dimensions, two types of consumers emerged: least knowledgeable and very knowledgeable [35]. The first segment evaluates the wine quality based on attributes such as brand, food pairing, alcohol content and wine image, while the second segment appreciates its quality based on region, grape variety and alcohol content. Italian consumers were grouped into four categories based on their characteristics and purchasing behaviour highlighting the importance of brand in the case of wine [35]. The “loyal group” comprises young consumers with a higher income, the “habitual group” consumes wine less frequently than all the other groups. The “variety seekers” are generally old and have high incomes, while the “switchers” represent the largest group, seeking rather diversity instead of a certain brand [35,36]. Wine is, indeed, a special product that is able even to improve one’s social image, so it has been stated that narcissistic people consume higher amounts of wine due to its social attractiveness compared to individuals with lower degree of narcissism [37].
Nonetheless, one of the most important aspects influencing both the wine consumer and producer is the country and region in which certain wine is marketed [39,40,41,42,43,57,58,59]. Research has shown that the previously mentioned factors are crucial and valid regardless of the location. However, certain differences and aspects are to be seen in correlation to specific areas and regions, considering the distinctive features of cultures around the globe. Another attribute that could increase the consumers’ preference for one type of wine or the other is sustainability, being reflected either in the production methods or in its local origin [60]. Gunay and Baker analysed the behaviour of Turkish wine consumers, revealing that red wines and wines with a higher alcohol content are preferred in this type of market, due to the other local beverages with a high content of alcohol [56]. St James and Christodoulidou conducted research on factors influencing wine consumption in South California, showing that many participants named the health benefits of wine as a reason for consuming wine [59]. With research being continuously improved and conducted in this field of interest, it has been revealed that moderate wine consumption can have a beneficial effect, helping reduce oxidative stress in the cardiocirculatory system and prevent a multitude of chronic diseases [58,59]. This could also influence people into settling for wine, to the detriment of other alcohol beverages.
When it comes to wine consumption in Romania, a study by Ladaru and Beciu revealed that most Romanian consumers participating in the study bought their wine from specialized stores, due to more information being available in this type of location [12]. Moreover, the study showed that the type of grapes, year and origin of harvest play an important role in the process of purchasing a certain type of wine [12]. Nevertheless, Bărbulescu analysed both the Romanian producers marketing their wines through restaurants and consumers buying a certain type of wine in the restaurants, concluding that the Romanian consumer tends to check multiple information sources online, before choosing a specific type of producer and wine [54].

3. Materials and Methods

The main objective of the research was to identify the consumers’ perception towards wine consumption. At the same time, it was considered necessary to identify the factors affecting the consumers’ wine consumption.

3.1. Research Methodology and Questionnaire Design

The research consisted of two main phases: (i) the first phase represented by the literature review in order to determine the factors influencing wine consumption and wine consumers behaviour trends; (ii) the second phase consisted of a survey among wine consumers from Cluj and Bihor counties of Romania. The survey was based on a questionnaire developed on previous research [61,62,63]. The first part of the questionnaire allowed the researchers to collect data about the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents, while the second part consisted of a set of 21 items, evaluated on a Likert-type scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means not important at all, while 5 means very important. At the same time, in this part, two questions related to price and consumption frequency were addressed as well. A pilot test on 10 respondents was conducted in order to check the reliability of the research instrument.

3.2. Sample Size and Data Collection

The study was based on a convenience sample of 285 wine consumers from Cluj and Bihor counties. The survey was based on a self-administrated survey during which each participant was informed about the aim of the survey and the processing of their personal data according to the principle laid down in the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union. A total number of 350 questionnaires were distributed, and 285 were validated in the end.
Out of the total number of respondents, 45.3% were female and 54.7% were male, providing a proper gender balance for the study. A total of 23.5% of the participants graduated high school, while 46% had a university degree and 30.5% a postgraduate degree. Regarding the age distribution, most of the respondents were over 35 years old, with almost a third (32.6%) being over 45 years old. The proportion of respondents belonging to the 18–25 and 25–35 years groups were similar (19.6% and 19.3%, respectively). When it comes to the place of residence, the participants were fairly distributed, with 49.5% reporting their place of residence in Bihor County, while 50.5% resided in Cluj County. Regarding the respondents’ income, most of them earned more than RON 2000 monthly, with 37.2% of them reporting salaries greater than RON 3000. On the other hand, 12.6% of the participants were making less than RON 1000 per month, and 22.5% earned between RON 1000 and 2000 monthly (Table 1).

3.3. Data Analysis

The data were analysed using SPSS 26.0 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The descriptive statistics was used to analyse the socio-demographic profile and the consumption frequency. The principal component analysis was used to reduce the dimensionality of the 21 items that evaluate the attributes that influence their wine consumption behaviour. The retained factors had an eigenvalue higher than 1. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated to test the internal consistency of the items. The value obtained was above 0.6, indicating a good internal consistency of the date. Furthermore, the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to assess any significant differences among the importance of the factors towards wine consumption behaviour and socio-demographic characteristics.
Principal factor analysis was conducted in order to assess the dimensionality of the 21 items. Barlett’s test of sphericity was significant (Chi-Square = 3384.530; p < 000) and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling was 0.867, indicating that the considered data were adequate for principal component analysis (PCA). Values of 0.6 or above for the KMO measurement indicates adequate data for PCA [64,65]. The PCA with varimax rotation of the 21 variables resulted in a four-component solution explaining 62.481% of the total variance. Factors with eigenvalues greater than one were selected. We used Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient in order to evaluate the internal consistency of each component, obtaining an overall value of 0.915. An acceptable reliability coefficient higher than 0.6 should be considered [66].

4. Results

4.1. Consumer Perception on Main Factors Influencing Wine Consumption

The four components resulted from the PCA, each with their corresponding variables were detailed in Table 2. The first component analysed intrinsic cues and consumers’ experience regarding wine consumption and explained 37.774% of the total variance, with a reliability coefficient of 0.897. It consisted of eight variables and had a mean of 3.88 and a SD of 0.379. Wine taste, flavour, smell and clarity were the most significant factors taken into account by respondents, while alcohol content was considered the least important aspect belonging to this component, with a mean of 3.2 and SD of 1.24. The respondents’ previous experiences with certain wines also had a significant impact on the decision of purchasing a certain type of wine, with a mean of 3.95 and SD of 1.198.
The second component was correlated with extrinsic cues and origin of the wine, explaining 10.841% of the total variance, with a reliability coefficient of 0.805, and a mean of 2.82 ± 0.539. It consisted of six variables, with respondents ranking the quality/price ratio (3.59 ± 1.328) higher than the low price of wine (2.55 ± 1.276) or existing promotions when purchasing a certain type of wine (2.49 ± 1.195). Even though the country of origin was an important factor taken into account by consumers (2.99 ± 1.213), respondents were more likely to choose a wine made in Romania (3.29 ± 1.310). Out of the variables belonging to the second component, the bottle volume was ranked as the least important one, with a mean of 1.98 ± 1.185.
The “Notoriety” component assessed the importance of five variables (vineyard, ecological certificate, awards, wine region and brand), representing 7.589% of the total variance, with a reliability coefficient of 0.813 and a mean of 3.1 ± 0.301. Vineyard represented the most significant factor taken into consideration by respondents (3.54 ± 1.142), followed by wine region (3.39 ± 1.147) and brand (3.2 ± 1.14), while the awards that a certain wine has received were perceived less important by participants (2.83 ± 1.273).
When it comes to label attractiveness and packing, these variables were comprised in the “Label and package” component, representing 6.278% of the total variance, with a reliability coefficient of 0.882, and a mean of 2.86 ± 0.0071. The package ranked higher than the attractiveness of the label, with a mean of 2.92 ± 1.218, comparing to a mean of 2.82 ± 1.173.

4.2. Socio-Demographical Factors Affecting the Consumer Behaviour of Wine

The relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and the four components resulted from the PCA were illustrated in Table 3. When it comes to gender differences regarding the decision process of choosing a certain type of wine, the only distinction was reported in the “Notoriety” component (p = 0.029), where men (3.33 ± 0.693) were more likely to take into consideration a more renown wine in comparison to women (2.98 ± 1.084).
Consumers’ behaviour also diverged depending on the age distribution, with people between 35 and 45 years old being the ones relying the most on the intrinsic cues of the wine and their previous experience (4.1 ± 0.799; p < 0.001). On the other hand, people from the youngest category (18–25 years old) took more into consideration the extrinsic cues and the origin of the wine (3.09 ± 0.685; p < 0.001). This fact could be closely correlated to the education level of the respondents, where participants who have only graduated high school also relied most on the extrinsic cues and the origin of the wine (3.126 ± 0.769; p < 0.001), potentially due to a lower number of people obtaining their university or postgraduate degree before the age of 25. When it comes to the notoriety or the label and package of the wine, no statistical differences were noted between the age groups (p > 0.05).
Additionally, wine consumption is strongly influenced by the consumers’ monthly income, our analysis depicting significant differences across all four components of PCA. People with higher incomes (over RON 3000 monthly) were more likely to choose a wine based on its notoriety, compared to participants from different income categories (3.38 ± 0.768; p < 0.05). People with incomes between RON 1000 and 2000 paid more attention to the label and package of the wine (3.16 ± 1.011; p < 0.05), while participants reporting incomes lower than RON 1000 per month made their decision by considering both the intrinsic cues of the wine and their previous experience (4.11 ± 0.525; p < 0.01) and extrinsic cues and wine’s origin (3.08 ± 0.728; p < 0.05).
When it comes to the price per bottle, participants were more likely to consider the intrinsic cues and their previous experiences as the most important factors for a type of wine costing more than RON 100 (4.12 ± 0.577; p < 0.001). Moreover, for the same price range of the wine bottle, notoriety was also a significant element considered by consumers (3.42 ± 0.576; p < 0.05).
Regarding the two counties in which the study was conducted, we reported no significant differences between respondents regarding the intrinsic cues of the wine, their previous experiences with it or the notoriety of the said wine. Nevertheless, participants from Bihor county were more likely to rely on the extrinsic cues and origin (2.80 ± 0.981; p < 0.05), while people from Cluj county focused more on the label and package than their neighbours (3.05 ± 1.048; p < 0.05).
Our analysis also assessed the relationship between consumption frequency and the four components of the PCA, concluding that differences between participants occurred regarding the intrinsic cues of the wine and their previous experiences, with respondents drinking wine once a month being the ones relying on this component more than other respondents (4.04 ± 0.432; p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

The results of the study, which aimed to determine the most important factors influencing wine consumption even during the decision-making process, highlight the fact that the Romanian consumers appreciate this type of alcoholic beverage mostly for its intrinsic cues, with “taste” being the most important, confirming previous studies [67,68,69]. In general, wine sampling is limited in stores [44], even if its impact on repurchase is consistent [70,71]. Even though taste is the most significant quality of evaluation, most wine purchases do not come with the opportunity to test the product before the purchase [72,73]. Moreover, tasting before purchasing a certain type of wine is considered important even if it refers to the same brand, provided the fact that taste could be different from one year to another [74]. Given the importance of taste within the process of wine’s purchase, producers and wine-sellers have the option to increase the sampling at the place of vending as a strategy to stimulate the purchase [72]. Previous findings show that most Romanian consumers bought their wine from specialized stores, due to more information being available in this type of location so the testing campaigns should be frequent in these locations [12]. Aside from taste, flavour, scent, and clarity are other significant quality characteristics for Romanian customers. Because clarity is the first quality feature that an expert inspects [75], producers should consider it when introducing new items on the market, with consumers also attentive to this quality attribute [76]. The alcohol content was evaluated as the least important intrinsic attribute, reinforcing previous studies [77,78,79,80,81]. In many circumstances, the consumer’s buying decision is influenced by previous experiences, such as a sense of loyalty to a brand or a happy memory linked with a specific variety of wine, due to the impossibility of tasting different wines at the moment of the purchase. Previous beverage or food experiences are undoubtedly significant for present consumption, according to the theory of evaluative conditioning, which claims that in the instance of wine, previous consumption will affect present choice for certain types of wine [82].
Apart from intrinsic cues, extrinsic characteristics are also key variables in influencing customer’s perceptions of wine, assisting the consumer in making a purchase decision, especially in the absence of tasting [83]. Additionally, as compared to other commercial items, wine has a lot more extrinsic cues that can influence a consumer’s perception and purchase choice. Extrinsic cues were the second most important component of influence for Romanian consumers; the respondents selecting the quality/price ratio as the most important factor of influence on wine, out of the six comprising factors, ranking it higher than the variable “low price of wine.” Price is also considered an important driving factor in the decision of purchasing and repurchasing, as well as liking a certain type of wine or desiring to taste one [84,85]. The frequent association between wines with low price-low quality and high price-high quality underlines the fact that the price/quality ratio is more important for consumers than the price itself [86,87]. Boncinelli et al. also observed the decline of price importance for consumers when choosing a certain type of wine [88]. The other variables such as “high bottle volume” or “existing promotions” are considered less important for the Romanian consumer and are deriving from the previously mentioned phenomenon. The variable “high bottle volume” is the least important variable from all the variables analysed. A cross sectional study revealed that consumers tend to associate the weight of the bottle to the quality and the price of the wine [89]: however, in the case of Romanian consumers, purchasing a higher quantity does not seem that important.
The country of origin was an important factor taken into account by Romanian wine consumers, although not as important as in other countries [90,91,92]. Chinese customers, for example, are strongly influenced by the country of origin [93]. When it comes to the Romanian respondents, a wine that is made in Romania will create a better impression; a fact explained by the relatively low quantity of imported wine (443.3 hL in 2020) on the Romanian market compared to the domestic utilisation (4294.8 hL) [26]. The results are very important for the Romanian producers, since the consumers prefer domestic wines, with wine sellers having to adjust their offerings to the demand for Romanian wines, instead of foreign ones.
Wine’s notoriety is also important for the Romanian consumers, the vineyard being the most significant factor taken into consideration by respondents out of the analysed variables in this category, followed by wine region and brand, further confirming the results obtained by previous Romanian research, which stated that the type of grapes, year and origin of harvest play an important role in the process of purchasing a certain type of wine [12]. The interesting fact is that the awards that a certain wine has received were perceived less important by participants. It was observed that the display of awards on wines is associated with scepticism among the consumers, even though it remains an effective marketing tool [94]. Herbst and Von Arnim assessed the importance of wine awards on the South African consumer, revealing that the high number of competitions has reduced the value of the awards [93]. The issue of wine awards is very complicated from the consumers’ perspective since there were observed to be two types of consumers: low-involvement consumers willing to pay a higher price for an awarded wine, and high involvement consumers, distrusting awards and being negatively influenced by this aspect [94]. Another study concluded by Monteiro et al. revealed that the consumers’ purchase intentions are positively influenced by the awarded bottles mainly for those wines that are meant to be consumed within a social environment [95].
For the Romanian consumer, vineyard is more important than brand due to a large number of famous vineyards across the country. Even if unfamiliar with the brand, consumers tend to take into account the vineyard origin more, in comparison to the brand. Nevertheless, it has been observed that, mainly in social media, brand is indeed less important [96].
The label attractiveness and packing are not very important for the Romanian consumers, unlike other studies indicating their impact in shaping the consumers preferences for certain types of wine [97]. It has been observed by Barrena et al. that the brand loses importance when it comes to label innovations such as thermo-sensitive and aroma labels for wine [38]. Thus, Romanian producers should rethink their label strategy and try to attract the Romanian consumers who are used to more typical labels, for obtaining a better share of the market.
The results indicate that there is a weak relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and the four components resulted from the PCA, with notable distinctions being found in the “Notoriety” component, confirming the results obtained by Forbes [98], according to which gender is not a useful variable for understanding the wine market. It appears that men tend to care more about the wine’s fame; a fact that could be explained by their better knowledge of the Romanian wine’s market than in the case of women.
The socio-demographic variable that strongly influences wine consumption is the consumers’ monthly income; the results showing that individuals with higher income are more likely to purchase a more notorious wine, while the individuals with medium incomes take into consideration, and rely more on, the label and package of the wine. The present results offered valuable information for the wine producers and sellers referring to the factors influencing the consumers’ decision of purchase, considering that previous research dealt with the consumer behaviour and information sources at the time of purchase [12,13,14].

6. Conclusions

This study analysed the factors affecting the Romanian consumer of wine within the context of a relatively low consumption per capita, despite Romania being among the most important ten European wine producers. Identifying the factors influencing consumption could help the producers improve their marketing strategies and obtain a better competitive advantage on the Romanian market.
The results show that the main factors affecting wine consumption among the investigated population are represented by intrinsic cues and consumer experience, extrinsic cues and origin, notoriety and label and package. The intrinsic cues and consumer experience ranked highest for both male and female between 35 and 45 years old. Among the intrinsic factors, taste is one of the most important with direct influence on the repurchase of the product. Still, the number of producers or retailers who offer wine tasting or samplings within stores is very limited; therefore, the consumer faces the situation of uncertainty related to the product and may perceive the purchase as having a certain degree of risk. By adopting the sampling strategy or the tasting campaigns, both retailers and producers could benefit from increased purchases. It has also been observed that the consumer’s buying decision is influenced by previous experiences (loyalty to a brand, or happy memory linked with a specific variety of wine) so the producers or the retailers should increase their marketing strategies in order to build strong brands so that the consumers could easily associate the brands’ name to a specific moment in their lives. Clarity is the first intrinsic attribute that is evaluated by a wine expert, so the actors involved in wine production and commercialization should take into account this specific feature whenever a new variety of wine is launched on the market.
The extrinsic cues and origin characteristics are more important for younger consumers with lower income. The notoriety is most appreciated by consumers with higher monthly incomes. It was noticed that the consumers are willing to pay more for a bottle of wine as their experience in the domain increases. It has been noticed that for Romanian consumers wine labels are not important at the purchase moment, but innovative labels could represent a changing element in building new marketing strategies and obtaining a better advantage in the competitive market.
The results reveal important aspects related to wine consumption in Romania, offering valuable information for future marketing campaigns, taking into consideration the new trends related to on-line marketing.
The main contributions of this paper refer to valuable and useful information for the stakeholders involved in the process of wine production and selling, by offering important data that could help them build the proper marketing strategies that could help increase the sales volume, while creating a cultural identity for Romanian wine, which, until now, has failed to develop.
Limitations are linked to the convenient sample used during research, limited to two counties of Romania and the socio-demographic characteristics of the research area, which may influence the final results of the study and might be different from those that could be recorded nationally. Future research will approach all the counties from the North-West region of Romania in order to establish the main behavioural patterns of Romanian wine consumers and to identify the factors that affect their wine consumption, in order to offer proper information to the stakeholders involved in wine production and commercialization so that it will become the basis needed for building proper marketing strategies and to increase internal wine consumption, and, even more, to build a cultural identity for Romanian wine following other European countries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.O.C. and A.M.B.; methodology, I.C.M. and G.O.C.; software, I.C.M.; validation, D.P. and D.I.C.; formal analysis, I.C.M.; investigation, V.D.B., D.I.C. and D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.B., V.D.B. and G.O.C.; writing—review and editing, A.M.B. and G.O.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the fact that participation was voluntary and all data were anonymous.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Castaldo, L.; Narváez, A.; Izzo, L.; Graziani, G.; Gaspari, A.; Di Minno, G.; Ritieni, A. Red Wine Consumption and Cardiovascular Health. Molecules 2019, 24, 3626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Snopek, L.; Mlcek, J.; Sochorova, L.; Baron, M.; Hlavacova, I.; Jurikova, T.; Kizek, R.; Sedlackova, E.; Sochor, J. Contribution of Red Wine Consumption to Human Health Protection. Molecules 2018, 23, 1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Pavlidou, E.; Mantzorou, M.; Fasoulas, A.; Tryfonos, C.; Petridis, D.; Giaginis, C. Wine: An Aspiring Agent in Promoting Longevity and Preventing Chronic Diseases. Diseases 2018, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Fiore, M.; Alaimo, L.S.; Chkhartishvil, N. The amazing bond among wine consumption, health and hedonistic well-being. Br. Food J. 2019, 122, 2707–2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gambini, J.; Gimeno-Mallench, L.; Olaso-Gonzalez, G.; Mastaloudis, A.; Traber, M.G.; Monleón, D.; Borrás, C.; Viña, J. Moderate Red Wine Consumption Increases the Expression of Longevity-Associated Genes in Controlled Human Populations and Extends Lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Haseeb, S.; Alexander, B.; Santi, R.L.; Liprandi, A.S.; Baranchuk, A. What’s in wine? A clinician’s perspective. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2019, 29, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Reale, M.; Costantini, E.; Jagarlapoodi, S.; Khan, H.; Belwal, T.; Cichelli, A. Relationship of wine consumption with Alzheimer’s disease. Nutrients 2020, 12, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Gavurova, B.; Tarhanicova, M. Methods for estimating avoidable costs of excessive alcohol consumption. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Minzer, S.; Estruch, R.; Casas, R. Wine Intake in the Framework of a Mediterranean Diet and Chronic Non-Communicable Diseases: A Short Literature Review of the Last 5 Years. Molecules 2020, 25, 5045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deroover, K.; Siegrist, M.; Brain, K.; McIntyre, J.; Bucher, T. A scoping review on consumer behaviour related to wine and health. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 559–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lockshin, L.; Corsi, A.M. 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]
  12. Lădaru, G.R.; Beciu, S. Marketing research on wine consumers’ preferences in Romania. Mark. Res. 2014, 14, 127–130. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chivu-Draghia, C.; Antoce, A.O. Consumer preferences regarding sources of information and use of technology for wine selection-a survey of millennials and generation X sample in Romania. Sci. Pap. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2016, 16, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chivu-Draghia, C.; Antoce, A.O. Understanding consumer preferences for wine: A comparison between millennials and generation X. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural. Dev. 2016, 16, 75–84. [Google Scholar]
  15. Castellini, A.; Samoggia, A. Millennial consumers’ wine consumption and purchasing habits and attitude towards wine innovation. Wine Econ. Policy 2018, 7, 128–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gonçalves, T.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Pinto, L. Modelling consumer preferences heterogeneity in emerging wine markets: A latent class analysis. Appl. Econ. 2020, 52, 6136–6144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. 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]
  18. Kalazić, Z.; Šimić, M.L.; Horvat, J. Wine market segmentation in continental Croatia. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2010, 16, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bora, F.D.; Dina, I.; Iliescu, M.; Zaldea, G.; Guță, I.C. Quality evaluation of white and red wine varieties, from the main vineyards of Romania. Ann. Univ. Dunarea De Jos Galati Fascicle VI-Food Technol. 2018, 42, 40–60. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pomarici, E.; Lerro, M.; Chrysochou, P.; Vecchio, R.; Krystallis, A. One size does (obviously not) fit all: Using product attributes for wine market segmentation. Wine Econ. Policy 2017, 6, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/445651/leading-countries-wine-production-europe/ (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  22. Georgiana-Raluca, L.; Dan, B. The Competitiveness Constraints of Romanian Wine Sector and the EU-28 Agricultural Model. In Agrifood Economics and Sustainable Development in Contemporary Society; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 28–46. [Google Scholar]
  23. Milovan, A.; Ardelean, V.M.; Prada, S.I.; Sãžrbu, G.N. The Country Brand Image, The Country-of-Origin Image and the Romanian Wines Image. An Exploratory Approach. Ecoforum J. 2021. Available online: http://ecoforumjournal.ro/index.php/eco/article/viewFile/1302/780 (accessed on 17 August 2021).
  24. Mueller, S.; Osidacz, P.; Francis, L.; Lockshin, L. The relative importance of extrinsic and intrinsic wine attributes: Combining discrete choice and informed sensory consumer testing. In Proceedings of the Refereed Paper 5th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Auckland, NZ, USA, 8–10 February 2001. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mircea, F. New Marketing Tendencies in the Romanian Wine Industry. Stud. Bus. Econ. 2020, 15, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Available online: https://insse.ro/cms/ro/tags/consumul-de-bauturi (accessed on 9 February 2022).
  27. Picard, D.; Moreira, C.N.; Loloum, T. Wine magic: Consumer culture, tourism, and terroir. J. Anthropol. Res. 2018, 74, 526–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Asero, V.; Patti, S. From wine production to wine tourism experience: The case of Italy. Am. Assoc. Wine Econ. 2009, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. González, P.A.; Dans, E.P. The ‘terroirist’ social movement: The reawakening of wine culture in Spain. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 61, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Charzyński, P.; Łyszkiewicz, A.; Musiał, M. Portugal as a culinary and wine tourism destination. Geogr. Tour. 2017, 5, 87–102. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bisson, L.; Waterhouse, A.; Ebeler, S.; Walker, M.A.; Lapsley, J.T. The present and future of the international wine industry. Nature 2002, 418, 696–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bianco, A.D.; Boatto, V.; Caracciolo, F. Cultural convergences in world wine consumption. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Agrar. 2013, 45, 219–231. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ferrarini, C.; Carbogin, C.; Casarotti, E.M.; Nicolis, E.; Nencini, A.; Meneghini, A.M. The emotional response to wine consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 720–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Silva, A.P.; Jager, G.; Van Zyl, H.; Voss, H.P.; Pintado, M.; Hogg, T.; De Graaf, C. Cheers, proost, saúde: Cultural, contextual and psychological factors of wine and beer consumption in Portugal and in the Netherlands. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 1340–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ferreira, C.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Pinto, L.M.C. How does self-reported knowledge influence the effect of extrinsic cues on wine choice? A qualitative approach. J. Wine Res. 2022, 33, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Caracciolo, F.; Furno, M.; D’Amico, M.; Califano, G.; Di Vita, G. Variety seek-ing behavior in the wine domain: A consumers segmentation using big data. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 97, 104481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lunardo, R.; Jaud, D.A.; Corsi, A.M. The narcissistic wine consumer: How social attractiveness associated with wine prompts narcissists to engage in wine consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 88, 104107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barrena, R.; García, T.; Pindado, E. The structure of consumer decision-making and sensory innovations in wine labeling. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 19, e0111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Barber, N.; Almanza, B.A.; Donovan, J.R. Motivational factors of gender, income and age on selecting a bottle of wine. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2006, 18, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Blaylock, J.R.; Blisard, W.N. Wine consumption by US men. Appl. Econ. 1993, 25, 645–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hussain, M.; Cholette, S.; Castaldi, R. Determinants of wine consumption of US consumers: An econometric analysis. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2007, 19, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Jaeger, S.R.; Danaher, P.J.; Brodie, R.J. Wine purchase decisions and consumption behaviours: Insights from a probability sample drawn in Auckland, New Zealand. Food Qual. Prefer. 2009, 20, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wansinsk, B.; Cordua, G.; Blair, E.; Payne, C.; Geiger, S. Wine promotions in restaurants. Do beverage sales contribute or cannibalize? Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm. Q. 2006, 47, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chaney, I.M. External search effort for wine. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2000, 12, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Atkin, T.; Nowak, L.; Garcia, R. Women wine consumers: Information search and retailing implication. Int. J. WineBusiness Res. 2007, 19, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Barber, N.; Ismail, J.; Dodd, T. Purchase attributes of wine consumers with low involvement. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2007, 14, 69–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rocchi, B.; Stefani, G. Consumer’s perception of wine packaging: A case study. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2005, 18, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Seghieri, C.; Casini, L.; Torrisi, F. The wine consumer’s behaviour in selected stores of Italian major retailing chains. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2007, 19, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sherman, S.; Tuten, T. Message on a bottle: The wine label’s influence. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Orth, U.R.; Wolf-McGarry, M.; Dodd, T.H. Dimensions of wine region equity and their impact on consumer preferences. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2005, 14, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Balestrini, P.; Gamble, P. Country-of-origin effects on Chinese wine consumers. Br. Food J. 2006, 108, 396–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lockshin, L.; Hall, J. Consumer purchasing behaviour for wine: What we know and where we are going. In Proceedings of the International Wine Marketing Colloquium, Adelaide, Australia, 26–27 July 2003. [Google Scholar]
  53. Unwin, T. Hedonic price index and the qualities of wine. J. Wine Res. 1999, 10, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bărbulescu, O. The factors that influence the romanian consumers’ decision to buy wine. Bull. Transilv. Univ. Brasov Econ. Sci. Ser. V 2018, 11, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lockshin, L.; Rhodus, W. The effect of price and oak flavor on perceived wine quality. Int. J. Wine Mark. 1993, 25, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gunay, N.G.; Baker, M.J. The factors influencing consumers’ behaviour on wine consumption in the Turkish wine market. EuroMed J. Bus. 2011, 6, 3324–3341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Saad, L. Wine Gains Momentum as Americans’ Favorite Adult Beverage. Gallup Poll Surv. 2005, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  58. Santos, R.C.; Blanco, C.M.; Fernandez, G.A. Segmenting wine consumers according to their involvement with appellations of origin. Brand Manag. 2006, 13, 300–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. St. James, M.; Christodoulidou, N. Factors influencing wine consumption in Southern California consumers. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 36–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Schäufele, I.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lee, K.; Zhao, J.; Ko, J.Y. Exploring the Korean wine market. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2005, 29, 20–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hertzberg, A.; Malorgio, G. Wine demand in Italy: An analysis of consumer preferences. New Medit Mediterr. J. Econ. Agric. Environ. = Rev. Méditerranéenne Dʹeconomie Agric. Environ. 2008, 7, 40. [Google Scholar]
  63. Nacka, M.; Popova, K.; Elenov, R. Influence of extrinsic factors on consumers’choice at segmented wine events. Екoнoмика Пoљoпривреде 2019, 66, 1127–1142. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R.; Tatham, R. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  65. Tabachinick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd ed.; Harper & Row: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  66. Burgess, S.M.; Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. Marketing renaissance: How to research in emerging markets advances marketing science and practice. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2006, 23, 337–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. MacDonald, J.; Saliba, A.; Bruwer, J. Wine choice and drivers of consumption explored in relation to generational cohorts and methodology. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rahman, I.; Reynolds, D. Wine: Intrinsic attributes and consumers’ drinking frequency, experience, and involvement. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 44, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Madureira, T.C.F.F.; de Sousa Nunes, F.J.S. Relevant attributes of Portuguese wines: Matching regions and consumer’s involvement level. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2013, 25, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oomen, R. The role of tasting in the purchasing process. In BIO Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2015; Volume 5, p. 03010. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mueller, S.; Osidacz, P.; Francis, I.L.; Lockshin, L. Combining discrete choice and informed sensory testing in a two-stage process: Can it predict wine market share? Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 741–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fabbris, L.; Piscitelli, A. Wine preferences based on intrinsic attributes: A tasting experiment in Alto Adige/Südtirol province. Stat. Inf. Syst. Policy Eval. 2021, 127, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  73. Anchor, J.R.; Lacinová, T. Czech wine consumers: Maturing with age? Econ. Manag. 2015, 1, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lick, E.; König, B.; Kpossa, M.R.; Buller, V. Sensory expectations generated by colours of red wine labels. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 37, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Croijmans, I.; Speed, L.J.; Arshamian, A.; Majid, A. Expertise shapes multimodal imagery for wine. Cogn. Sci. 2020, 44, e12842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ma, T.Z.; Gong, P.F.; Lu, R.R.; Zhang, B.; Morata, A.; Han, S.Y. Effect of different clarification treatments on the volatile composition and aromatic attributes of ‘Italian Riesling’ icewine. Molecules 2020, 25, 2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pentz, C.; Forrester, A. The importance of wine attributes in an emerging wine-producing country. South Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2020, 51, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bernabéu, R.; Díaz, M.; Olivas, R.; Olmeda, M. Consumer preferences for wine applying best-worst scaling: A Spanish case study. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 1228–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Elliot, E.; Barth, J. Wine label design and personality preferences of millennials. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2012, 21, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. da Conceição Trindade-Carlos, H.; Chamorro-Mera, A.; García-Gallego, J.M. What Portuguese consumers care about when buying wine. How important is the design of the bottle? Ciência Técnica Vitivinícola 2021, 34, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lategan, B.W.; Pentz, C.D.; du Preez, R. Importance of wine attributes: A South African Generation Y perspective. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 1536–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Melo, L.; Evans, G.; Le Pollès, N.; Delahunty, C.; Cox, D.N. Predicting wine consumption based on previous’ drinking history’and associated behaviours. J. Food Res. 2012, 1, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Yang, J.; Lee, J. Current Research Related to Wine Sensory Perception Since 2010. Beverages 2020, 6, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mueller, S.; Lockshin, L.; Saltman, Y.; Blanford, J. Message on a bottle: The relative influence of wine back label information on wine choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Robertson, J.; Ferreira, C.; Botha, E. The influence of product knowledge on the relative importance of extrinsic product attributes of wine. J. Wine Res. 2018, 29, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Oczkowski, E.; Doucouliagos, H. Wine prices and quality ratings: A meta-regression analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 97, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, Q.J.; Spence, C. Wine complexity: An empirical investigation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 238–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Boncinelli, F.; Contini, C.; Gerini, F.; Romano, C.; Scozzafava, G.; Casini, L. The Role of Context Definition in Choice Experiments: A Methodological Proposal Based on Customized Scenarios. Wine Econ. Policy 2020, 9, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Spence, C. The weight of the bottle as a possible extrinsic cue with which to estimate the price (and quality) of the wine? Observed correlations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Foroudi, P.; Cuomo, M.T.; Rossi, M.; Festa, G. Country-of-origin effect and millennials’ wine preferences—A comparative experiment. Br. Food J. 2019, 122, 2425–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Janssen, M.; Schäufele, I.; Zander, K. Target groups for organic wine: The importance of segmentation analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hu, L.; Baldin, A. The country of origin effect: A hedonic price analysis of the Chinese wine market. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 1264–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Herbst, F.J.; Von Arnim, C. The role and influence of wine awards as perceived by the South African wine consumers. Acta Commer. 2009, 9, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Neuninger, R.; Mather, D.; Duncan, T. Consumer’s scepticism of wine awards: A study of consumers’ use of wine awards. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 35, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Monteiro, P.; Guerreiro, J.; Loureiro, S.M.C. Understanding the role of visual attention on wines’ purchase intention: An eye-tracking study. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2020, 32, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Martinho, V.J.P.D. Contributions from literature for understanding wine marketing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chamorro, A.; García-Gallego, J.M.; da Conceição Trindade-Carlos, H. Study on the importance of wine bottle design on consumer choices. Br. Food J. 2020, 123, 577–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Forbes, S.L. The influence of gender on wine purchasing and consumption: An exploratory study across four nations. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2012, 24, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents.
Table 1. Socio-Demographic Profile of the Respondents.
Characteristics (n = 285)Variables%
GenderFemale45.3
Male54.7
EducationHigh school23.5
University degree46
Postgraduate degree30.5
Age18–25 years19.6
25–35 years19.3
35–45 years28.4
>45 years32.6
ResidenceBihor County49.5
Cluj County50.5
Monthly incomeRON < 1000 12.6
RON 1000–2000 22.5
RON 2000–300027.7
RON > 3000 37.2
Table
Table 2. Principal component analysis on wine consumption.
Table 2. Principal component analysis on wine consumption.
EigenvalueVariance %FactorItemFactor LoadingMeanSD
7.93237.774Intrinsic cues and consumers’ experience
α = 0.897
mean = 3.88 ± 0.379		Smell0.8164.061.033
Clarity0.7803.981.107
Taste0.7764.451.001
Colour0.7663.781.140
Variety/Varieties used0.6683.561.210
Flavour0.6634.121.121
Alcohol content0.6493.201.240
Previous experiences0.5393.951.198
2.27710.841Extrinsic cues and origin
α = 0.805
mean = 2.82 ± 0.539		High bottle volume0.7921.981.185
Low price0.7872.551.276
Promotions0.7132.491.195
Price/Quality ratio0.5893.591.328
Country of origin0.5052.991.213
Made in Romania0.4793.291.310
1.5947.589Notoriety
α = 0.813
mean = 3.17 ± 0.301		Vineyard0.7263.541.142
Ecological certificate0.6982.921.269
Awards0.6692.831.273
Wine region0.5863.391.147
Brand0.5853.201.140
1.3186.278Label and package
α = 0.882
mean = 2.86 ± 0.071 		Label attractiveness0.8712.821.173
Packing0.8532.921.218
Total variance %62.481, α = 0.915
Table
Table 3. Relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics and PCA-resulted components.
Table 3. Relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics and PCA-resulted components.
CharacteristicsVariablesIntrinsic Cues and Consumers’ ExperienceExtrinsic Cues and OriginNotorietyLabel and Package
GenderMale4.04 (0.509)2.82 (0.749)3.33 (0.693)2.85 (1.037)
Female3.73 (1.132)2.61 (1.049)2.98 (1.084)2.88 (1.236)
p-value 0.1780.2400.029 *0.754
Age18–253.97 (0.588)3.09 (0.685)3.26 (0.600)2.845 (0.775)
25–353.47 (0.1248)2.22 (1.097)2.75 (1.168)3.00 (1.362)
35–454.10 (0.799)2.69 (0.772)3.25 (0.907)2.80 (1.182)
>453.96 (0.644)2.86 (0.847)3.31 (0.795)2.84 (1.109)
p-value 0.000 ***0.000 ***0.1200.393
EducationHigh school3.99 (0.530)3.126 (0.769)3.205 (0.647)3.05 (0.893)
University degree3.96 (0.608)2.73 (0.777)3.22 (0.785)2.79 (1.103)
Postgraduate degree3.74 (1.281)2.42 (1.047)3.07 (1.204)2.82 (1.313)
p-value 0.8060.000 ***0.8990.451
Monthly income per personRON < 1000 4.11 (0.525)3.08 (0.728)3.22 (0.63)3.04 (0.859)
RON 1000–2000 3.74 (0.846)2.71 (0.962)3.03 (0.937)3.16 (1.011)
RON 2000–3000 3.69 (1.135)2.53 (1.003)2.98 (1.091)2.69 (1.225)
RON > 3000 4.08 (0.655)2.76 (0.806)3.38 (0.768)2.75 (1.17)
p-value 0.003 **0.048 *0.018 *0.05 *
CountyBihor3.80 (1.081)2.80 (0.981)3.17 (1.041)2.68 (1.181)
Cluj4.00 (0.558)2.65 (0.813)3.16 (0.75)3.05 (1.048)
p-value 0.8580.020 *0.1240.023 *
Price/750 mL bottleRON < 12 4.01 (0.414)3.47 (0.711)3.26 (0.684)3.53 (0.595)
RON 12–50 3.86 (0.772)2.93 (0.807)3.22 (0.851)2.75 (1.060)
RON 50–100 3.9 (1.107)2.31 (0.917)2.99 (1.060)2.94 (1.107)
RON > 100 4.12 (0.577)2.21 (0.801)3.42 (0.576)3.05 (0.863)
p-value 0.000 ***0.2510.037 *0.104
Consumption frequencyDaily3.81 (0.653)3.76 (0.023)4.08 (0.692)2.50 (0.500)
2–3 per week3.50 (1.632)3.20 (1.367)2.87 (1.389)2.50 (1.193)
Once per week3.45 (1.564)2.62 (1.213)2.87 (1.342)2.61 (1.297)
2–3 per month3.95 (0.757)2.71 (0.894)3.13 (0.912)2.79 (1.130)
One a month4.04 (0.432)2.64 (0.723)3.22 (0.666)3.04 (0.939)
More rarely3.99 (0.542)2.76 (0.802)3.30 (0.714)2.97 (1.162)
p-value 0.039 *0.3430.4840.887
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 ()—standard deviation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brata, A.M.; Chiciudean, D.I.; Brata, V.D.; Popa, D.; Chiciudean, G.O.; Muresan, I.C. Determinants of Choice and Wine Consumption Behaviour: A Comparative Analysis between Two Counties of Romania. Foods 2022, 11, 1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11081110

AMA Style

Brata AM, Chiciudean DI, Brata VD, Popa D, Chiciudean GO, Muresan IC. Determinants of Choice and Wine Consumption Behaviour: A Comparative Analysis between Two Counties of Romania. Foods. 2022; 11(8):1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11081110

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brata, Anca Monica, Daniel I. Chiciudean, Vlad Dumitru Brata, Dorin Popa, Gabriela O. Chiciudean, and Iulia C. Muresan. 2022. "Determinants of Choice and Wine Consumption Behaviour: A Comparative Analysis between Two Counties of Romania" Foods 11, no. 8: 1110. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11081110

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop