The Korean Journal of Culinary Research Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 121 135 (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). :, 019-415-1205, 4151205@hanmail.net, 94-6
122 15 2 (2009),, 40 20, 30,,,. ( 2006)., 2002 2006, 88.4% 243,000, 2006 2011 47.3%. 2002 2011 3, 346,000, 4,613. (2006 83.2% ), (,, ) ( 2008. 1. 26).,. 2006, 3 1,100, 2002 132.1%. Vinexpo/IWSR, 2006 2011 46.6% 4 5,600 ( 2008. 1. 26).,.,,,,, (bar).... Gil & Sanchez(1997),,.. Morey et al.(2002),,,, (award) 5. (2004), Brand,,,, Vintage,,,,,,,,,,,,, 23. (2006),.,,,,,,, 21. (2006). ( / ),,,,,,,,
123,,,,,,. (2006).,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..,,,,,..,, ( 2006)..,., (Positive Disconfirmation) (Negative Disconfirmation). ( 2003).. ( 2003). Czepiel et al.(1974), Engel & Blackwell(1982). Tse & Wilton(1988), Miller (1997)., ( ) ( 2008; 1998). (2006),,.
124 15 2 (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,. 2008 12 1 31 26, 20,. 300 277, 23 254. SPSS 12.0, Cronbach's α,, ANOVA,.. Table 1. 254 137 (53.9%), 117 (46.1%). 20 89 (35%), 30 108 (42.5%), 40 44 (17.3%), 50 12 (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%). 2,000 77 (30.3%), 2,000 2,500 40 (15.7%), 2,500 3,000 46 (18.1%), 3,000 3,500 42 (16.5%), 3,500 4,000 23 (9.1%), 4,000 26 (10.2%). Table 2
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 137 53.9 Female 117 46.1 20 29 89 35.0 30 39 108 42.5 40 49 44 17.3 50 59 12 4.7 60 1 0.4 Single 138 54.3 Married 116 45.7 High school 28 11.0 College degree 58 22.8 University degree 122 48.0 Graduate school 46 18.1 Student 32 12.6 Salaried person 76 29.9 Goverment employee 25 9.8 Profession 44 17.3 People in wine industry 35 13.8 Housewife 17 6.7 Self-business 16 6.3 Others 9 3.5 <20,000,000 77 30.3 20,000,000 24,900,000 40 15.7 25,000,000 29,900,000 46 18.1 30,000,000 34,900,000 42 16.5 35,000,000 39,900,000 23 9.1 40,000,000 26 10.2. 254 99 (39.0%), 49 (19.3%), 42 (16.5%), 21 (8.3%). 1 2 99 (39.0%), 1 28 (22.8%), 3 4 50 (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 99 39.0 Chile 49 19.3 Italy 42 16.5 Spain 21 8.3 Germany 17 6.7 USA 12 4.7 Australia 9 3.5 Others 5 2 1 58 22.8 1~2 99 39.0 3~4 50 19.7 5~6 24 9.4 7 23 9.1 Discount store 63 24.8 Wine store 75 29.5 Liquor store 47 18.5 Department store 31 12.2 Convenience store 12 4.7 Others 26 10.2 1 9 3.5 1 3 109 42.9 3 5 101 39.8 5 10 30 11.8 10 5 2 Home 103 40.6 Wine bar 62 24.4 Hotel restaurant 8 3.1 Fine dine restaurant 45 17.7 Family restaurant 28 11.0 Others 8 3.1 Friends/Lover 107 42.1 Family 85 33.5 Coworkers 31 12.2 By oneself 16 6.3 Buisiness partners 9 3.5 Wine club members 6 2.4
126 15 2 (2009) <Table 2> Continued Classification Item Frequency Percentage Information source Family, friend, coworkers 89 35.0 TV, newspaper, magazine 52 20.5 People in wine industry 39 25.4 Past experience 26 10.2 Web site related to wine 24 9.4 Wine expos 15 5.9 Others 9 3.5 109 (42.9%), 3 5 101 (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 3. 23 Cronbach's α 0.897. 23. <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 0.778 0.742 0.699 0.640 0.636 0.574 0.495 30.994 (7.129) 0.846 2 Wine information Recommendation by shop employees Recommendation by sommeliers Display in shop Wine magazine ratings International award Past experience 0.725 0.697 0.632 0.627 0.588 0.537 8.877 (2.042) 0.788 3 Effect on health Alcohol volume Types of wine Color of wine 0.776 0.727 0.627 0.615 7.031 (1.617) 0.757 4 Product characteristics Taste of wine Price Aroma of wine 0.765 0.631 0.612 5.831 (1.341) 0.653 5 Outside environment Taste of people accompanied Wine&Food matching Information source 0.682 0.675 0.443 5.368 (1.235) 0.596
127 (Eigen value) 1, ±0.40., KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin) 0.855, Battlet χ 2 2,295.928 p 0.000. 58.100 58.1%., 5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Table 4. 3 Cronbach's α 0.798., 3. 1.0, 0.4. KMO(Kaiser-Meyer- Oklin) 0.691, Battlet χ 2 245.519 p 0.000. 71.460 71.46%.. 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 0.878 0.854 0.802 71.460 (2.144) 0.798
128 15 2 (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* 2 3.29±0.761 3.38±0.657 3.30±0.635 3.21±0.558 3.18±0.668 3.14±0.474 3.31±0.584 2.83±1.00 0.591 Wine information 3 4 Product characteristics 5 Outside environment 3.53±0.827 3.55±0.616 3.55±0.821 3.50±0.586 3.10±0.888 2.94±0.747 3.45±0.735 3.30±1.09 1.250 4.20±0.548 4.20±0.633 4.06±0.711 3.96±0.725 4.11±0.591 3.81±0.765 4.00±0.515 4.13±0.802 1.217 3.70±0.575 3.54±0.750 3.42±0.633 3.49±0.842 3.36±0.688 3.48±0.529 3.69±0.572 3.40±0.924 1.186 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±0.694 3.57±0.651 3.50±0.575 3.60±0.764 3.90±0.607 1.674 3.17±0.756 3.33±0.623 3.33±0.524 3.28±0.831 3.35±0.839 0.570 3.49±0.782 3.58±0.725 3.39±0.777 3.17±0.805 3.45±0.852 1.594 4.13±0.558 4.10±0.568 4.08±0.620 4.09±0.738 4.26±0.673 0.397 3.52±0.579 3.62±0.631 3.54±0.718 3.69±0.597 3.81±0.723 1.063 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).,,,,.
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±0.802 3.64±0.600 4.02±0.613 4.27±0.615 Note: Mean±SD. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. a>b: Duncan Multiple Post Hoc Test. Discount store (N=63) 3.45±0.550 3.08±0.600 3.42±0.634 3.96±0.594 Buying place for wine Liquor store (N=47) 3.52±0.610 3.26±0.641 3.41±0.771 4.21±0.623 Wine store (N=75) 3.64±0.630 3.36±0.734 3.48±0.765 4.17±0.598 Convenience store (N=12) 3.35±0.946 3.44±0.841 3.39±0.950 4.22±0.538 Others (N=26) 3.53±0.609 3.15±0.607 3.08±0.897 3.92±0.510 F 2.785* 3.472** 4.949*** 2.287* 3.75±0.632 3.55±0.613 3.46±0.600 3.76±0.640 3.44±0.769 3.44±0.679 2.253 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±0.629 2.77±1.155 1 ex.<3 (N=109) 3.48±0.561 3.14±0.633 3.37±0.711 Wine buying prices 3 ex.<5 (N=101) 3.68±0.650 3.43±0.618 3.60±0.760 5 ex.<10 (N=30) 3.81±0.722 3.45±0.852 3.56±0.803 10 ex. (N=5) 4.02±0.649 3.66±0.754 3.75±0.500 F 7.726*** 4.915** 3.432** 3.92±0.464 4.00±0.563 4.17±0.652 4.38±0.472 4.26±0.683 3.184* 3.11±0.897 (c) Note: Mean±SD. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. a>b>c: Duncan Multiple Post Hoc Test. 3.52±0.605 (bc) 3.69±0.637 3.66±0.666 4.13±0.182 3.228*
130 15 2 (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±0.880 3.63±0.618 3.48±0.684 3.71±0.614 3.50±0.683 3.52±0.511 1.024 3.35±0.613 3.39±0.609 3.37±0.571 3.36±0.762 3.18±0.691 3.16±0.590 0.965 3.46±0.890 3.39±0.784 3.61±0.629 3.51±0.805 3.49±0.774 2.90±0.667 1.211 3.83±0.942 4.13±0.543 4.04±0.613 4.16±0.590 3.75±0.571 4.12±0.868 1.219 3.79±0.501 3.66±0.572 3.60±0.581 3.67±0.580 3.55±0.697 3.25±1.035 0.936 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±0.820 3.62±0.705 3.63±0.548 3.41±0.776 3.73±0.694 3.52±0.346 1.342 2.76±0.574 Note: Mean±SD. *p<0.01. a>b>c: Duncan Multiple Post Hoc Test. 3.31±0.683 3.27±0.660 3.56±0.704 3.38±0.623 3.27±0.512 F 3.157* 3.23±1.014 3.62±0.752 3.45±0.680 3.49±0.835 3.22±0.955 2.87±0.996 1.889 4.00±0.632 4.19±0.582 4.09±0.594 4.09±0.684 4.14±0.555 4.05±0.646 0.447 3.54±0.182 3.63±0.074 3.61±0.059 3.59±0.113 3.62±0.187 3.22±0.253 0.513
131 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, ) (F=3.157, p<0.05).,. Table 11 (one-way ANOVA)., 5 (,,,, ).,. 5, Table 12. R 2 0.218, <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±0.615 3.49±0.730 3.39±0.722 3.86±0.621 3.61±0.589 3.86±0.592 3.71±0.731 1.892 3.24±0.658 3.21±0.607 3.37±0.797 3.44±0.626 3.29±0.731 3.53±0.614 3.14±0.929 0.812 3.58±0.764 3.49±0.647 3.53±0.942 3.47±0.607 3.23±0.815 3.38±0.784 3.38±1.104 1.035 4 4.03±0.590 Product characteristics 4.26±0.657 4.23±0.623 4.19±0.636 4.00±0.532 4.13±0.588 4.11±0.408 1.235 5 Outside environment Note: Mean±SD. 3.62±0.589 3.64±0.745 3.43±0.697 3.75±0.549 3.59±0.636 3.53±0.764 3.48±0.474 0.640 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 0.266 3.588 0.000 0.573 1.746 Wine information 0.013 0.188 0.851 0.649 1.541 0.195 2.801 0.005 0.652 1.533 Product characteristics 0.024 0.368 0.713 0.712 1.405 Outside environment 0.079 1.151 0.251 0.674 1.483 R 2 =0.218 Adjusted R 2 =0.202 F=13.805 p=0.000
132 15 2 (2009) p 0.000, F 13.805. 0.1, 0.573 0.712 1, VIF 10, 1.405 1.746. 5 (p=0.000, t=3.588), (p=0.005, t=2.801) p<0.05. Beta (+),,.,,,,,,,,..., 53.9%, 46.1%, 30 42.5%, 20 35%. 29.9%, 17.3%, 13.8%, 12.6%. (54.3%), ( ) 48%, 22.8%. 2,000 30.3%, 2,500 3,000 18.1%, 3,000 3,500 16.5%., / 39%, 19.3%, 16.5%,,, FTA( ).,. 1 2 39%, 1 22.8%, 3 4 19.7%. 1 4 1 22.8%. 29.5%, 24.8%, 18.5%,. 1 1 3 42.9%, 3 5 39.8%. 40.6%, 24.4%, 17.7%, /,.,,, 35%, 25.4%,, 9.4%,.,,,,,,,.
133,,,,.,,,,,,. (2006),,,,,,,,.,,.,. (2006),,,,,.,, (+).,,,. (2006),,,..,,,,,..,,.,..,,,.., 20 30 40 50.,.
134 15 2 (2009). (well-being).,,.,. 2008 12 1 31. SPSS 12.0,,,,..,,,,,,.,,. 1. (2007).. 16(1):155-172. 2. (2008).. 11(1):223-246. 3. (2006).. 9(1):51-67. 4. (2004).. 3(2):341-356. 5. (2008).. Tourism Research 26(3): 19-34. 6. (2006).. 8(4):252-263. 7. (2006).., 29-30,. 8. (2007).., 37-39,. 9.. (2008). 2011, 1 26. 10. (2003).., 293,. 11. (2006).. 20(3):289-300. 12. (2006).. 12(4):97-115. 13. (1998). 21 :., 57-68. 14. (2006).. 12(2):88-105. 15. (2006).
135., 1-2, 30,. 16. (2006). - -. 31, 20-35. 17. (2006).. 4:69-86. 18. Czepiel JA Rosenberg LJ Aker-ele Adebayo (1974). Perspectives on consumer satisfation. AMA E-ducators' Proceedings Chicago 79-123, 169. 19. Engel JF Blackwell RD (1982). Consumer Behavier, New York: Holt, Rinegart, and Winston, 501. 20. Gil JM Sanchez M (1997). Consumer preference for wine attributes: A conjoint approach. BritIsh Food Journal 99(1):3-11. 21. Groves R Charters S Reynols C (2000). Imbibing, inscribing, intergrating and imparting : A taxonomy of wine consumption practices. Journal of Wine Research 11(3):209-222. 22. 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, 72-91. 23. 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): 41-64. 24. Tse DK Wilton PC (1988). Model of consumer satisfation formation: An extension. Journal of Marketing Research 25(May):204-212. 2009 1 29 2009 3 10 1 2009 3 31 2 2009 4 7 3 2009 4 20