EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF REGIONAL BRAND EQUITY IN AN EMERGING WINE SECTOR Dr. Bonnie Canziani UNC Greensboro AAWE PADOVA 2017

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY EXPLORE: consumer-perceived regional brand equity in the context of an emerging wine region respondent intentions towards NC wine and winery visits influence of factors such as wine knowledge, as well as product/experience motives

rationale Support the economic development of the NC wine industry (10 wineries in 2000; close to 200 in 2017) Economic impact over $1.71 billion and supports approximately 8000 jobs Understand factors that influence regional reputation of new wine region Leverage the natural affinity between wine products and winery experiences

THEORETICAL BASES Consumer-based brand equity – opinions and evaluations Wine tourism – direct sales and visit motives Place branding – geographical region, origin, buying local Product knowledge – subjective knowledge measures Outcomes-- intentions to buy NC wine or visit NC wineries

Theoretical relationships

method 23 NC wineries provide setting for winery intercept study (117 in sampling frame provided by the state) Stratified across winery location, size in terms of annual case production, grape variety, American Viticulture Area (AVA), and types of on-site tourist services 658 usable surveys employed in the study (collected completed surveys/sample of 832 visitors represented an 81% response rate of visitors approached)

Demographic characteristics N = 658 Gender   Male 33% Female 67% Education High school or below 7% Some college or 2-year college degree 29% 4-year college degree or higher 64% Annual household income (USD $) Below $25,000 5% $25, 000 to$49,000 20% $50,000 plus 75% State of origin In-state 74% Out-of-state 26% Mean age 45.6/13.5

Validity and reliability   AVE Composite Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha Regional Wine Knowledge 0.842 0.941 Regional Brand Equity 0.683 0.896 Experience Motives 0.554 0.831 0.834 Product Motives 0.714 0.833 Intentions for Regional Wine 0.670 0.858 0.854

Notes: Critical t-values. **2.58 (P < 0.01). Hypotheses Beta T Value Decision H1 Regional Affiliation → Regional Wine Knowledge 0.195 4.544** Supported H2 Regional Affiliation → Regional Brand Equity 0.060 1.805 Not supported H3 Regional Wine Knowledge → Regional Brand Equity 0.361 9.785** H4 Regional Brand Equity → Experience Motives 0.321 6.294** H5 Regional Brand Equity → Product Motives 0.517 11.531** H6 Experience Motives → Intentions for Regional Wine 0.022 0.416 H7 Product Motives → Intentions for Regional Wine 0.631 12.221** Notes: Critical t-values. **2.58 (P < 0.01).

Conclusions As regional brand equity increases, so do purchase and experience motives for visiting wineries and indirectly, intentions to buy NC wine and visit NC wineries Product motives are still the greater draw, which is consistent with the literature in wine tourism, thus the role of experiences must be carefully analyzed against the operational costs of adding them to the market mix Wine knowledge as measured was limited to NC wine; it may be beneficial to examine how general wine expertise and ‘buy local’ attitude influence brand equity of new wine markets