The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 15, No. 2, pp (2009) 121 1) 1), A Study on Wine Selection Attributes by Wine Use Behavior - Focu

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 15, No. 2, pp (2009) 121 1) 1), A Study on Wine Selection Attributes by Wine Use Behavior - Focu"

서하 궁
2 years ago
Views:

1 The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 15, No. 2, pp (2009) 121 1) 1), A Study on Wine Selection Attributes by Wine Use Behavior - Focused on Wine Retail Shop Customers - Hyeon-Mo Jeon 1), Mi-Young Park Dept. of Food Service Management, Graduate School of Sejong University 1) Dept. of Food Service Management, Kyunggi University Abstract The pattern of liquor consumers started to change as the well-being trend and great interest in health have risen for the last few years. In particular, consumption of wine is gradually increasing with the findings revealing that drinking proper amount of wine is good for preventing various adult diseases such as sclerosis of the arteries, heart disease and aging. Accordingly, this study aims at understanding the importance of wine buyers choice attributes when buying and drinking wine in order to contribute to satisfying customers, popularizing wine and expanding its base. From December 1 to 31 in 2008, it made a survey on natives and weekly settled population living in Seoul area who had bought wine at a wine retail shop with literature and positive researches. It made an application of SPSS 12.0 to analyze the importance of wine buyers choice attribution based on the demographical characteristics and use behavior with such analysis methods as the frequency analysis, the factor analysis, the reliability test, ANOVA and multiple regression. The results are summarized as follows. First, it showed that there are significant differences between buying and drinking wine by producing countries, buying places, prices, companions except for the number of drinking times, drinking places, and information sources. Second, it showed that wine buyers choice attributes such as brand characteristics and effects on health have a positive effect on customer satisfaction. Key words : wine, wine buyer, wine selection attributes, use behavior, customer satisfaction, wine retail shop.., ( 2008). ( 2007). :, , @hanmail.net, 94-6

2 (2009),, 40 20, 30,,,. ( 2006)., , 88.4% 243,000, % , 346,000, 4,613. ( % ), (,, ) ( ).,. 2006, 3 1,100, %. Vinexpo/IWSR, % 4 5,600 ( ).,.,,,,, (bar).... Gil & Sanchez(1997),,.. Morey et al.(2002),,,, (award) 5. (2004), Brand,,,, Vintage,,,,,,,,,,,,, 23. (2006),.,,,,,,, 21. (2006). ( / ),,,,,,,,

3 123,,,,,,. (2006).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,,,..,, ( 2006)..,., (Positive Disconfirmation) (Negative Disconfirmation). ( 2003).. ( 2003). Czepiel et al.(1974), Engel & Blackwell(1982). Tse & Wilton(1988), Miller (1997)., ( ) ( 2008; 1998). (2006),,.

4 (2009). (,,,, ). Groves et al.(2000), (2004), (2006), (2006), (2007),,,,,, 7. Gil & Sanchez(1997), Morey et al.(2002), (2004), (2006), (2006), (2006), (2006) 23. (2007),,. Likert 5, , 20, , SPSS 12.0, Cronbach's α,, ANOVA,.. Table (53.9%), 117 (46.1%) (35%), (42.5%), (17.3%), (4.7), 60 1 (0.4%), 138 (54.3%), 116 (45.7%). 28 (11%), 58 (22.8%), 122 (48%), 46 (18.1%), 32 (12.6%), 76 (29.9%), 25 (9.8%), 44 (17.3%), 35 (13.8%), 16 (6.3%), 17 (6.7%), 9 (3.5%). 2, (30.3%), 2,000 2, (15.7%), 2,500 3, (18.1%), 3,000 3, (16.5%), 3,500 4, (9.1%), 4, (10.2%). Table 2

5 125 <Table 1> Results of the frequency analysis on the demographic characteristics Classification Item Frequency Percentage Sex Age Marital status Education level Occupation Annual salary (won) Male Female Single Married High school College degree University degree Graduate school Student Salaried person Goverment employee Profession People in wine industry Housewife Self-business Others <20,000, ,000,000 24,900, ,000,000 29,900, ,000,000 34,900, ,000,000 39,900, ,000, (39.0%), 49 (19.3%), 42 (16.5%), 21 (8.3%) (39.0%), 1 28 (22.8%), (19.7%). 75 (19.5%), 63 (23.8%), 47 (28.5%), 1 3 <Table 2> Results of the frequency analysis on use behavior Classification Item Frequency Percentage Producing country Monthly frequency of drinking (unit: times) Buying place Buying price (unit: 10,000) Drinking place Drinking companion France Chile Italy Spain Germany USA Australia Others ~ ~ ~ Discount store Wine store Liquor store Department store Convenience store Others Home Wine bar Hotel restaurant Fine dine restaurant Family restaurant Others Friends/Lover Family Coworkers By oneself Buisiness partners Wine club members 6 2.4

6 (2009) <Table 2> Continued Classification Item Frequency Percentage Information source Family, friend, coworkers TV, newspaper, magazine People in wine industry Past experience Web site related to wine Wine expos Others (42.9%), (39.8%). 103 (40.6%), 62 (24.4%), 45 (17.7%), / 107 (42.1%), 85 (33.5%), 31 (12.2%), 16 (6.3%).,, 89 (35.0%), TV 52 (20.5%), 39 (25.4%), 26 (10.2%). Table Cronbach's α <Table 3> Results of the factor analysis and the reliability analysis on wine selection attributes Attributes loadings Variance (Eigen value) Cronbach's α 1 Brand characteristics Winery Grape varieties Wine classification Producing country Loyalty to wine Vintage Design of bottle (7.129) Wine information Recommendation by shop employees Recommendation by sommeliers Display in shop Wine magazine ratings International award Past experience (2.042) Effect on health Alcohol volume Types of wine Color of wine (1.617) Product characteristics Taste of wine Price Aroma of wine (1.341) Outside environment Taste of people accompanied Wine&Food matching Information source (1.235) 0.596

7 127 (Eigen value) 1, ±0.40., KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin) 0.855, Battlet χ 2 2, p %., 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Table 4. 3 Cronbach's α , , 0.4. KMO(Kaiser-Meyer- Oklin) 0.691, Battlet χ p %.. Table 5 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, ) (F=2.670, p<0.05).,. Table 6 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, )., <Table 4> Results of the factor analysis and the reliability analysis on guest satisfaction Attributes loadings Variance (Eigen value) Cronbach's α Guest satisfaction Willingness to revisit Degree of satisfaction in general Willingness to recommend to others (2.144) 0.798

8 (2009) <Table 5> Differences in wine selection attributes by preferred wine producing countries 1 Brand characteristics France (N=99) 3.75±0.643 Italy (N=42) 3.47±0.650 Spain (N=21) 3.53±0.736 Preferred wine producing country Germany (N=17) 3.10±0.548 USA (N=12) 3.52±0.654 Australia (N=9) 3.44±0.667 Chile (N=49) 3.56±0.601 Others (N=5) 3.54±0.810 F 2.670* ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± Wine information 3 4 Product characteristics 5 Outside environment 3.53± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± Note: Mean±SD, * p<0.05, a>b: Duncan Multiple Post Hoc Test. <Table 6> Differences in wine selection attributes by monthly frequency of drinking 1 Brand characteristics 2 Wine information 3 4 Product characteristics 5 Outside environment Note: Mean±SD. <1 (N=58) 1 2 (N=99) Monthly frequency of drinking 3 4 (N=50) 5 6 (N=24) 7 (N=23) 3.53± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± F. Table 7 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, ) (F=2.785, p<0.05), (F=3.472, p<0.05), (F=4.949, p<0.05), (F=2.287, p<0.05).,,,,.

9 129 <Table 7> Differences in wine selection attributes by buying places 1 Brand characteristics 2 Wine information 3 4 Product characteristics 5 Outside environment Department store (N=31) 3.93± ± ± ±0.615 Note: Mean±SD. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p< a>b: Duncan Multiple Post Hoc Test. Discount store (N=63) 3.45± ± ± ±0.594 Buying place for wine Liquor store (N=47) 3.52± ± ± ±0.623 Wine store (N=75) 3.64± ± ± ±0.598 Convenience store (N=12) 3.35± ± ± ±0.538 Others (N=26) 3.53± ± ± ±0.510 F 2.785* 3.472** 4.949*** 2.287* 3.75± ± ± ± ± ± Table 8 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (F=7.726, p<0.05), (F=4.915, p<0.05), (F=3.432, p<0.05), (F=3.184, p<0.05), (F=3.228, p< 0.05).,,,,,. <Table 8> Differences in wine selection attributes by wine prices 1 Brand characteristics 2 Wine information 3 4 Product characteristics 5 Outside environment ex.<1 (N=9) 2.68±0.734 (c) 2.75± ± ex.<3 (N=109) 3.48± ± ±0.711 Wine buying prices 3 ex.<5 (N=101) 3.68± ± ± ex.<10 (N=30) 3.81± ± ± ex. (N=5) 4.02± ± ±0.500 F 7.726*** 4.915** 3.432** 3.92± ± ± ± ± * 3.11±0.897 (c) Note: Mean±SD. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p< a>b>c: Duncan Multiple Post Hoc Test. 3.52±0.605 (bc) 3.69± ± ± *

10 (2009) Table 9 (one -way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, ).,. Table 10 <Table 9> Differences in wine selection attributes by places for drinking wine 1 Brand characteristics 2 Wine information 3 4 Product characteristics 5 Outside environment Note: Mean±SD. Hotel restaurant (N=8) Fine dine restaurant (N=45) Place for drinking wine Family restaurant (N=28) Wine bar (N=62) Home (N=103) Others (N=8) 3.66± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± F <Table 10> Differences in wine selection attributes by wine drinking companions 1 Brand characteristics 2 Wine information 3 4 Product characteristics 5 Outside environment By oneself (N=16) Family (N=85) Wine drinking companion Friends /Lover (N=107) Coworkers (N=31) Buisiness partner (N=9) Wine club member (N=6) 3.29± ± ± ± ± ± ±0.574 Note: Mean±SD. *p<0.01. a>b>c: Duncan Multiple Post Hoc Test. 3.31± ± ± ± ±0.512 F 3.157* 3.23± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±

11 131 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, ) (F=3.157, p<0.05).,. Table 11 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, ).,. 5, Table 12. R , <Table 11> Differences of wine selection attributes by information sources on wine 1 Brand characteristics 2 Wine information 3 Family, etc. (N=89) TV, etc. (N=52) Information source on wine Past experienc (N=26) Web site (N=24) People in wine industry (N=39) Wine Expos (N=15) Others (N=9) 3.54± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±0.590 Product characteristics 4.26± ± ± ± ± ± Outside environment Note: Mean±SD. 3.62± ± ± ± ± ± ± F <Table 12> Results of the regression analysis on wine selection attributes for customer satisfaction Independent variable Dependent variable β t-value p-value Tolerance VIF Brand characteristics Wine information Product characteristics Outside environment R 2 =0.218 Adjusted R 2 =0.202 F= p=0.000

12 (2009) p 0.000, F , , VIF 10, (p=0.000, t=3.588), (p=0.005, t=2.801) p<0.05. Beta (+),,.,,,,,,,,..., 53.9%, 46.1%, %, 20 35%. 29.9%, 17.3%, 13.8%, 12.6%. (54.3%), ( ) 48%, 22.8%. 2, %, 2,500 3, %, 3,000 3, %., / 39%, 19.3%, 16.5%,,, FTA( )., %, %, % %. 29.5%, 24.8%, 18.5%, %, %. 40.6%, 24.4%, 17.7%, /,.,,, 35%, 25.4%,, 9.4%,.,,,,,,,.

13 133,,,,.,,,,,,. (2006),,,,,,,,.,,.,. (2006),,,,,.,, (+).,,,. (2006),,,..,,,,,..,,.,..,,,.., ,.

14 (2009). (well-being).,,., SPSS 12.0,,,,..,,,,,,.,,. 1. (2007).. 16(1): (2008).. 11(1): (2006).. 9(1): (2004).. 3(2): (2008).. Tourism Research 26(3): (2006).. 8(4): (2006).., 29-30,. 8. (2007).., 37-39,. 9.. (2008). 2011, (2003).., 293,. 11. (2006).. 20(3): (2006).. 12(4): (1998). 21 :., (2006).. 12(2): (2006).

15 135., 1-2, 30,. 16. (2006) , (2006).. 4: Czepiel JA Rosenberg LJ Aker-ele Adebayo (1974). Perspectives on consumer satisfation. AMA E-ducators' Proceedings Chicago , Engel JF Blackwell RD (1982). Consumer Behavier, New York: Holt, Rinegart, and Winston, Gil JM Sanchez M (1997). Consumer preference for wine attributes: A conjoint approach. BritIsh Food Journal 99(1): Groves R Charters S Reynols C (2000). Imbibing, inscribing, intergrating and imparting : A taxonomy of wine consumption practices. Journal of Wine Research 11(3): Miller JA (1997). Studying Satisfaction, Modifying Models, Elicitig Expectation, Posing problems, and Marketing Meaningful Measurements. Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, ed. H. Keith Hunt, Cambridge, Mass: Marketing Science Institute, Morey RC Spark BA Wilkins HC (2002). Purchase situation modelling in wine selection: An evaluation of factors in an Australian context. International Journal of Wine Marketing 14(1): Tse DK Wilton PC (1988). Model of consumer satisfation formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing Research 25(May):

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 라이프스타일은 개인 생활에 있어 심리적 문화적 사회적 모든 측면의 생활방식과 차이 전체를 말한다. 이러한 라이프스 타일은 사람의 내재된 가치관이나 욕구, 행동 변화를 파악하여 소비행동과 심리를 추측할 수 있고, 개인의

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 라이프스타일은 개인 생활에 있어 심리적 문화적 사회적 모든 측면의 생활방식과 차이 전체를 말한다. 이러한 라이프스 타일은 사람의 내재된 가치관이나 욕구, 행동 변화를 파악하여 소비행동과 심리를 추측할 수 있고, 개인의 RESEARCH ARTICLE Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 한국 중년 여성의 라이프스타일이 메이크업 추구이미지와 화장품 구매행동에 미치는 영향 주영주 1 *, 이순희 2 1 서경대학교대학원미용예술학과, 2 신성대학교 미용예술계열 The Effects of The Life Style for Korean Middle Aged Women on