Place-Based Marketing and Regional Branding

Place-based marketing and regional branding
strategy perspectives in the California wine

industry
Johan Bruwer
School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, Australia, and
Ray Johnson
Wine Entrepreneurship, Wine Business Institute, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore different levels of place-based marketing in the form of region of origin strategies used by wineries in
their branding efforts. The overall aim is to obtain insights into wine consumer dynamics such as product involvement level, consumption frequency and
differences between segments on the basis of gender and age from a regional branding perspective.
Design/methodology/approach Data collection took place by means of a highly-structured online survey of wine consumers across the USA. The
request to participate was directed to legal wine drinking age people of 21 years and older to 9,922 e-mail boxes that yielded a response rate of 5.7
percent, finally resulting in 570 usable surveys.
Findings Consumers used regional branding cues, information and images in their assessment and valuation of comparative wine labels. Almost
without exception, the addition of regional information on a wine label increased consumer confidence in the quality of the product.
Research limitations/implications Any follow-on work to the study should also include a broader sampling of consumer types throughout the USA
and comparisons made with the study to assess the validity of generalising the results here.
Practical implications Regional branding efforts should be targeted at high wine product involvement consumers rather than their low involvement
counterparts, as high involvement consumers are likely to be more influenced by brand-based cues.
Originality/value The paper is of value to academic readers, wine industry practitioners and regional trade and tourism associations and other
commercial entities that market their products with regional branding cues.
Keywords Brand image, Regional marketing, Wines
Paper type Research paper
Wine was one of the first products of agricultural origin to

develop a close and distinct relationship with its geographic
place of origin originally in European countries (Bernabeu
et al., 2008; Bruwer and House, 2003). Not surprising,
Thode and Maskulka (1998) in their seminal work on placebased marketing strategies, refer to wine as follows . . . .it
would be difficult to find an agricultural product more
frequently associated with place than fine wine (p. 382). In
the past the influence of a products place of origin on product
evaluation has mainly been studied from a country of origin
perspective (Thode and Maskulka, 1998), but this trend has
now evolved further to the region-of-origin context.
Today place-based (location) branding is a hot topic
particularly throughout the tourism world and it should be
recognised that every place has an image (Papadopoulos and
Heslop, 2002). Therefore many a location has embraced the
economic benefits in establishing a clear and compelling
brand proposition (Hall, 2003). At its broadest level, placebased marketing occurs in the form of country-of-origin
marketing efforts such as food and wine, both which have
become synonymous with a country like France (Frochot,
2003). However, Frochot (2003) feels that food and wine are
the most difficult to study since they are often provided by a
variety of local micro-private actors (p. 79) meaning that at
a regional level image creation is difficult and can even result
in convoluted brand messages.
It has been shown that country-of-origin (COO) image has
a significant positive effect on brand equity and the
An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Wine markets around the world are characterised by a
plethora of wine brands (Bruwer, 2004), to such an extent
that the consumer can be overwhelmed by the sheer
complexity of the buying situation this creates (Vrontis and
Papasolomou, 2007). Despite its high degree of
fragmentation, the wine industry is responding to this
situation by building strong brands with which the
consumer can identify and trust. The New World wine
countries, notably Australia and the USA, have been
particularly successful in building strong brands and the
increasing importance of region of origin as a branding
strategy for them has been documented (Tustin and
Lockshin, 2001).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing

27/1 (2010) 516
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363761011012903]
Place-based marketing and regional branding strategy perspectives
Johan Bruwer and Ray Johnson
Volume 27 Number 1 2010 5 16
dimensions of brand equity (Yasin et al., 2007). The

underpinning factor that motivates consumers to buy
domestic products is ethnocentrism (Bernabeu et al., 2008)
and this manifests itself in the positive effect that country-oforigin (COO) has in consumer wine choice (Keown and
Casey, 1995). Whereas many consumers use country-oforigin (COO) stereotyping to evaluate (wine) product quality
(Yasin et al., 2007), for example, French wine is the best,
the more involved wine consumers also use region-of-origin
brand indicators, such as Burgundy and Bordeaux. Less
involved consumers do not think much about the issues
associated with place-of-origin and they need to consider
them before making purchase decisions (Tootelian and
Segale, 2004; Barham, 2003).
durables. Often, there is a degree of hedonism linked to

high involvement products (Chaudhuri, 2000). Wine is an
experiential product (Kolyesnikova et al., 2008) and therefore
also fits the tenet of hedonistic motivation well.
Wine as a product category has a long history with research
studies using the involvement construct as a means of defining
consumers engagement with it dating back to the early 1980s
(Zaichkowsky, 1985) right through to quite recent times
(Santos et al., 2008). In between times there were seminal
studies linking it to the consumption situation itself (Quester
and Smart, 1998), retail customer segmentation (Lockshin
et al., 1997) and purchase intention (Hollebeek et al., 2007;
Lockshin et al., 2006).
The intensity of a consumers involvement is simply
referred to as either low or high although it is strictly
speaking a continuum. For example, Charters and Pettigrew
(2006) identify a group of medium-involvement wine
consumers in their study. However, it is the persistence of
this intensity of involvement that differentiates certain
product categories and types of consumers from one
another. The more enduring type of (high) involvement
persistence is usually accompanied by a large body of
knowledge about the product category acquired over time
(Schiffman et al., 2008, p. 206). The so-called wine
connoisseurs are highly likely to exhibit this characteristic
in their relationship with wine as a product category (Andrews
et al., 1990). In other words, consumers with a high level of
involvement with region-of-origin branded wine are likely to
consume more of this type of wine and place greater
importance on product information on the label (Santos et al.
2008). The accumulative effect of time and many purchase
occasions in turn relate to their level of wine product
knowledge.
The measures of consumer product class knowledge fall
into three categories, namely self-reported knowledge, what
product knowledge an individual has actually stored in
memory, and the amount of purchasing or consumption
experience with the particular product (Brucks, 1985). In our
study, we used self-described knowledge as a measure of the
consumers involvement with wine as a product.
The product quality aspect of wine is an all important
aspect in consumer behaviour dynamics. Quality is however, a
socially constructed yet ambiguous term (Warner, 2007).
Wine is the highly value-added end product of wine grapes
that forms one of the agricultural food product chains. It
should be recognised that the notion of quality is in itself
somewhat nebulous and imprecise (Lecocq and Visser, 2006;
Skuras and Vakrou, 2002). It was found that wine consumers
involvement levels have a substantial impact on how they view
wine quality (Charters and Pettigrew, 2006). Due to the
experiential nature of the wine product, consumers get most
of their quality cues from the extrinsic cues such as the
packaging and specifically from the label of the wine
(Gergaud and Livat, 2007; Warner, 2007; Barber et al.,
2006; Perrouty et al., 2006). That aside, the effect of the
extrinsic cue in the form of the sensory quality of wine has a
profound influence on the overall perceived quality (Masson
et al., 2008).
It should be recognised that regional and/or specialty
products like wine often share a collective reputation based
on aggregate quality and if the collective reputation of the
product is good, the designation will be a powerful tool to
signal quality (Winfree and McCluskey, 2005, p. 206).
2. Literature framework
Consumers search for information in their pre-purchase
search process for a product. Although the wine market is
widely regarded as a complex one for decision-making by
consumers, it has not escaped the growing importance of
product differentiation as a result of globalisation. Region-oforigin or place-based marketing is one the strategies of such
differentiation (van Ittersum et al., 2003).
The involvement concept has been increasingly used to
explain elements of the consumption process and it has been
widely agreed that there are high and low involvement
consumers, but also high and low involvement purchases of
products or services (Schiffman et al., 2008; Quester et al.,
2007; Schiffman and Kanuk, 2006; Kapferer and Laurent,
1993; Rothschild, 1984).
Wine is an information-intensive product (Watson et al.,
1999), one that has potential for high involvement (Bruwer
and Reilly, 2006; Bloch and Bruce, 1984) Wine is therefore a
product with which consumers can form a personal
connection and this is the nexus of the so-called
involvement theory of consumer learning (Schiffman et al.,
2008).
The research approaches used to explain the nature of
involvement in turn led to the premise that a consumers
involvement level is dependent on the degree of personal
relevance (Zaichkowsky, 1985, p. 342) that the specific
product has for the consumer. Products mean different things
to different people, but if the product is personally relevant to
consumers, they are more likely to become involved in
gathering information (knowledge) about the product and
with the product itself. Risk perception is one of the main
antecedents of involvement (Kapferer and Laurent, 1993) and
both involvement and risk are related to the degree of
information search (Chaudhuri, 2000). For example, a highly
wine-knowledgeable consumer will actively seek information
about aspects such as a wines vintage year or maturation
method (Schiffman et al., 2008; Gergaud and Livat, 2007).
Such a person regards wine as a high involvement product
category and this person is highly involved with the product in
terms of consumption behaviour.
Therefore in a nutshell, high involvement purchases are
very important to the consumer while low involvement
purchases are not very important (Schiffman and Kanuk,
2006). Low involvement products are generally frequently
purchased, widely distributed, low-priced consumer nondurables. On the other hand, all high involvement products
are not technologically complex, high-priced, consumer
6
Californias wine grape farmers have used the geographic

branding of their wine grapes as a key collective strategy for
several decades (Warner, 2007). Hence this studys focus on
place-based marketing and regional branding perspectives in
the context of several California wine regions.
As previously mentioned, the notion that place-based
marketing affects the way in which consumers respond to the
product is widely recognised and nowhere more so than with
wine (Orth et al., 2005). Consequently there is a trend
towards regional differentiation, reinforced by the protection
of geographic indications, for example American Viticultural
Areas (AVAs) (Schamel, 2006). This is at the same time
driven from the other end by the growing consumer need for
authenticity and traceable products. Thakor and Lavack
(2003) found on the other hand, that the place where the
product is actually made is not important, but where
consumers think it is made, is important. In terms of the
place-based marketing concept, three types of places have
been identified, namely actual, generic and fictional places
(Henchion and McIntyre, 2000). Because wine originates
from an actual place and it is obligatory, even legalistically
required, that it be denoted in descriptive format confirming a
registered name (for example American Viticultural Area
AVA), we therefore contend that in the case of wine products,
Thakor and Lavacks (2003) assertion is too broad a
generalisation. In the words of Dimara and Skuras
(2005). . .consumers are increasingly anxious to know
where products come from (p. 91). For example, the
origin (vineyard location) of the wine was rated second
highest (65 percent response) by consumers among items
most frequently sought by them on wine labels in a study
(Dimara and Skuras, 2005). A recent work by Goodman et al.
(2007) shows that the origin of wine ranked fourth in
importance among consumers in USA retail stores. Clearly
there appears to be a shift towards the increasing importance
of the (branded) origin of wine.
Finally, the strategy of place-based marketing in a regional
branding context, manifests itself clearly in the case of the
United States wine industrys efforts through the creation of
American Viticultural Areas (AVAs). The formation of these
AVAs has evolved in a piecemeal fashion throughout the USA
(Johnson and Bruwer, 2007). Unfortunately this has led to a
plethora of AVAs created over a relatively short period of time,
possibly leading to some consumer confusion and certainly to
fragmentation resulting in the possible dilution of place brand
images. The rationale for establishment of an AVA is really
quite as simple as the statement a key consideration for
granting an AVA is whether the name is known locally,
regionally or nationally (Kisliuk, 2008, p. 1). However, it
should be understood that while AVAs establish where the
grapes are sourced to make a wine, they do not offer any other
establishment of quality (Johnson and Bruwer, 2007, p. 165).
Therefore in the words of Henchion and McIntyre (2000,
p. 630). . .the development of territorial linkages must be
based on geographical sub-divisions of relevance to
consumers. We therefore explore this aspect through the
testing of two of our studys four hypotheses.
We based part of our research efforts on a study conducted
for the then Sonoma County Grape Growers Association that
sought to explore the equity of a larger wine region and its
inclusive sub-regions or appellations. The study found a
stronger awareness of the larger wine regional name Sonoma
than with the smaller appellations within its borders. It also
found that more consumers preferred a wine label with both a

small appellation and its over-arching region to labels that
only described the smaller appellation itself (Newman-SteinFriedman, 2004). To solicit these answers, consumers were
presented with four types of wine labels:
1 undesignated, simply varietal;
2 with Sonoma County added;
3 with AVA added and no Sonoma County; and
4 with both the AVA and Sonoma County added.
Approximately one-third of consumers preferred label
number 2, approximately one third preferred label number
4 and only 8 percent preferred label number 3. In essence
two-thirds of the respondents preferred some involvement of
the larger regional brand Sonoma on the label.
Most of the wine community in California has embraced
the French way of seeing appellations. In Burgundy for
example, a given producer works on a price-quality range
from AC Bourgogne being cheapest to Village appellations
and finally small Grand Cru place names as best and most
expensive. Frey (2006) reiterates this in the case of Sonoma
County, saying that the fatal flaw is the conditioning of people
to think that Sonoma County is somehow lower in quality and
value and Russian River Valley is higher.
The Newman-Stein-Friedman (2004) study did not answer
the following questions: How would consumers respond in
the absence of label number 1 and label number 2 above?
What would be their response if offered only choices 3 and 4?
In the absence of a county-only option, would almost twothirds of consumers prefer a label that conjoined a larger
regional identity with a smaller (sub)regional identity within
its borders? In the parlance of California wine, this would be a
county and an AVA within it.
In our study, wine labels were also chosen as the vehicle to
assess consumers expectations on potential wine quality. All
wineries, regardless of size or location, use labels to
communicate to consumers (Merrill, 2006). Labels were
therefore a natural follow-on to the work done in the
Newman-Stein-Friedman (2004) study. The gap in the
knowledge base investigated in the study on which this
paper is based, is a survey of consumer attitudes when offered
just those two choices: wines labelled with an AVA alone
compared to wines labelled with an AVA and the
corresponding region. This yielded wide reaching results
about the regional branding of wine and its impact on
different consumer types in their wine-buying decisions.
3. Research objectives, methodology and

hypotheses
This study is relevant to consumer behaviour associated with
wine purchases and attempts to influence those purchases
through place-based and more specifically, region of origin
branding. The overall aim was to obtain insights into wine
consumer dynamics such as product involvement level,
consumption frequency and differences between segments
on the basis of gender and age from a regional branding
perspective.
The main research objective sought to examine the regional
brand image of Sonoma and four of the appellations within
Sonoma and their impact on consumers quality perceptions
when included on wine labels. The four appellations within
7
Sonoma were Alexander Valley, Bennett Valley, Knights

Valley and Russian River Valley.
Some secondary research objectives evolved from this.
These were to:
.
Determine the impact of including the regional brand
along with a corresponding AVA on the same wine label as
compared to an alike label displaying the AVA alone.
.
Ascertain if it is possible to generalize the result of
combining regional brand and an AVA on the same wine
label. Does it consistently increase or decrease perceived
quality?
Alameda and Santa Barbara Counties and an appellation

from each were used in the study. The AVAs chosen were
Livermore Valley and Santa Maria Valley respectively.
In the Sierra Foothills, Amador County and the AVA
Fiddletown were included. Besides Sonoma in Californias
North Coast, Mendocino County and the corresponding
Anderson Valley AVA were also included.
The stratification of regions was necessary due to the
studys financial and time constraints and the fact that there
are more than 100 officially recognized appellations in
California alone and more than three dozen counties of
which they are a part.
This study was exploratory in nature and hence the nonprobability sample chosen attempted to provide deeper
insight through interviewing wine consumers in numbers
large enough for some statistical significance. The sample
population was wine consumers, both male and female, at the
legal drinking age of 21 years and older. The study was
limited to two groups of wine consumers who voluntarily
opted to receive one of two wine newsletters. Though the
subscribers receive the newsletters throughout the United
States, the vast majority reside in California. A link was
provided directly to the survey which was available online at a
site created on the SurveyMonkey web research platform. The
e-mail and request to participate was sent to 9,922 e-mail
boxes. The response rate was 5.7 percent resulting in 570
usable surveys and is in line with that of similar studies
(Bruwer and Wood, 2005). The results of the two consumer
groups were merged using SurveyMonkey software into one
group of respondents for further analysis using SPSS
software. The 570 participants in total provided an
acceptable level of accuracy and statistical significance for
the results.
To direct the research, the following hypotheses were tested:
A study of consumer preference with respect to quality

expectations created by wine labels has practical applications,
which would allow the use of four basic research design
options:
1 surveys;
2 experiments;
3 observation; and
4 secondary data.
Observation was not used as it does not provide all of the
information required for the results to be valid and reliable in
a study of this nature. Secondary information was procured to
examine the current level of knowledge on the subject and
outlined in the form of a literature review in the previous
section. As the study dealt with people and their opinions on
an array of issues relating to wine labels, an experimental
approach would not be considered appropriate either. The
quantitative data aside, some of the data sought was to be in a
descriptive format. The most effective way to gather the
required information was therefore by means of a survey. The
research design consisted of a practical application where the
primary data was gathered by a highly-structured online
survey. The use of an online questionnaire as the method of
communication with the respondent has three key issues that
needed addressing:
1 Degree of structure in the questionnaire. The questionnaire
was highly structured, designed to be easily understood
and completed in approximately five minutes. There were
only a few open-ended questions. The data sought was
mainly quantitative in nature, with some qualitative
elements. All demographic questions were placed
towards the end of the questionnaire.
2 Method of administration. The survey was conducted
entirely online using SurveyMonkey software. Participants
could access the survey by following a link in their
invitation to participate, accompanying the e-mail
newsletter received.
3 Degree of privacy. The questionnaire was designed so that
no identifying information had to be provided by the
respondent. Participants were guaranteed confidentiality
of their responses.
H1.
H2.
H3.
H4.
Consumers with high self-described knowledge levels

of wine as a product differ in terms of some
demographic factors, specifically gender.
The product involvement level of wine consumers
differs in terms of demographic factors, specifically
age.
The wine regional brand image, with its broader place
of origin scope, enhances the image of the appellations
within it and strengthens consumer confidence and
quality perception in the products that utilize these
images.
The brand images of appellations are not equal in
strength. Some are also held in higher consumer regard
than their corresponding wine regions.
4. Research assumptions and limitations

The participants in the survey cannot be considered
completely representative of American wine consumers. By
definition, it is therefore a self-selected sample. However, due
to the size of the sample analysed, the data is considered, in all
probability, to be strongly representative of at least highlyinvolved American wine consumers with some familiarity with
California wine. As with many other food and beverage
products, they are responsible for the vast majority of the
consumption of wine in the country. With the above
limitations, there is obviously room for further study with
other groups.
Surveys were analysed and correlations drawn between the

response to quality expectations and subgroups of
participants. SurveyMonkey Filter Software was used to
collect and initially analyse the raw data. From there the data
was transferred and analysed more completely using SPSS
16.0 Software. Regional rankings were compared and
analysed to uncover associations the consumers have with
them.
To disguise the Sonoma focus of the study, other selected
California regions were also included. In the Central Coast,
8
5. Research results and discussion
Table II Respondent demographics and wine consumption frequency
Self-described wine knowledge level

Approximately 85 percent of the respondents are selfdescribed as being at least somewhat knowledgeable about
wine, demonstrating a confidence that might be particular to
the large group of Northern California participants or the
degree to which the sample group is heavily involved and
interested in wine. In order to test the first hypothesis Table I
shows the Pearson tests correlation and non-correlation
coefficients with various demographic factors.
Only the demographic factors of gender and origin show a
correlation in the Pearson test, albeit negative with selfdescribed wine knowledge. Gender is significant at the 0.01
level while origin is significant at the 0.05 level. 87 percent of
the male group indicated that they are at least somewhat
knowledgeable about wine, while in the case of the females
this was 83 percent. With California responsible for close to
90 percent of the United States wine production one can
reasonably expect high knowledge levels with this regional
subgroup which accounted for 75 percent of the total sample
and hence the negative correlation (significant at 0.05 level).
The first hypothesis that wine consumers with high selfdescribed product knowledge levels differ significantly in
terms of some demographics is confirmed as this was found to
be the case with gender while also being slightly weighted
more towards males.
Wine consumption frequency

Pearson
Sig.
% coefficient (two-tailed) n
Gender
Male
Female
Wine product involvement level

The relevance and usefulness of involvement for segmenting
and/or explaining wine consumer behaviour dynamics have
been established in previous research (Aurefeille et al., 2002).
Furthermore, there is evidence that region-of-origin is more
important for wine consumers who are high in product
involvement (Hollebeek et al., 2007). Wine product
involvement level can be measured through a combination
of various factors.
Wine consumption frequency. Table II provides an overview of
the demographic characteristics of the respondents. It shows
that slightly more females responded than males. This is
broadly in line with the most recent survey that showed that
American core wine consumers split into a 54 percent female
and 46 percent male gender grouping (Wine Market Council,
2008). Core wine drinkers consume wine at least once per
week by definition. More than 85 percent of the group is
between the ages of 35 and 65 years and they are welleducated, with more than 80 percent of the cohort achieving a
Gender
Age
Educational status
Household income
Occupation
Origin
Self-described wine knowledge

Pearson coefficient Sig. (two-tailed)
2 0.208 * *
0.034
0.015
2 0.045
2 0.100
2 0.090 *
0.000
0.448
0.740
0.346
0.073
0.049
Age group
21-24 years
25-28 years
29-34 years
35-40 years
41-45 years
46-54 years
55-65 years
65 1 years
1.4
4.3
8.8
18.7
11.9
25.5
25.1
4.3
Educational status
High school
Associates degree
Other degree or certification
Bachelors degree
Some graduate studies
Masters degree
Doctorate degree
Other
4.3
7.9
5.0
35.5
13.0
26.7
6.6
1.0
Household income (before taxes)

< $25,000
$25,001 to $50,000
$50,001 to $75,000
$75,001 to $100,000
$100,001 to $150,000
$150,001 to $200,000
$200,000 1
Confidential
0.874
480
20.191 *
0.000
484
0.011
0.814
480
20.143 *
0.003
436
1.1
5.1
11.8
15.4
20.2
13.3
10.2
22.9
Note: * Significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed)
minimum of a bachelors degree in post-secondary education.

The average two-year median annual household income level
in the USA is $46,071 while for California it is $51,312 (US
Census Bureau, 2006). Household incomes were therefore
significantly above these medians with 71 percent of the
respondents earning over $50,000 per year. The vast majority
of 75 percent of respondents were from California, while most
of the Californians were from the San Francisco Bay Area (86
percent).
The wine consumption frequency of the respondents was
used as a factor to test for correlations with the different
demographic factors using a two-tailed Pearson correlation
test. It was found that negative correlations exist between
both age and household income against wine consumption
frequency, in both cases significant at the 0.01 level. For
gender and educational status no correlation could be found.
Wine volume consumption. Respondents wine volume
consumption characteristics are depicted in Table III. Of
those who noted bottled wine consumption, the average
quantity was just over eight bottles per month or two per
week. Box wine consumption incidence was very low (^ 6
Table I Respondent self-described wine knowledge demographic

factors
Demographic factor
0 007
45.8
54.2
n
483
487
483
439
322
480
Notes: * Significant at 0.05 level (two-tailed); * * significant at 0.01 level

(two-tailed)
U-test was conducted to test for differences between two

independent groups (males and females) on the incidence of
buying wine at over $15 per bottle at retail. In the case of
purchasing at least 1 bottle of wine per week at over $15, the
p-value 0.025 and hence the result is not significant. There
is no statistically significant difference in the incidence of
buying at least 1 bottle of wine per week at over $15 between
males and females. As far as whether most wine purchased by
the respondents is priced over $15 per bottle, the pvalue 0.884 and also is not significant. Again we find that
there were no significant differences between the wine
expenditure per bottle of males and females.
In summary, participants in the survey are by and large
highly-involved wine consumers. Over half of the group is
comfortable spending more than $15 retail on a bottle of wine
each week. They are wine knowledgeable and drink wine
frequently. As a group they are older, well-educated
professionals and self-made in their careers. Household
incomes are above average and they reside overwhelmingly
(75 percent) in California, and in particular the greater San
Francisco Bay Area. Overall these findings confirm the second
hypothesis.
Geopolitical regions and their corresponding wine appellations.
The Newman-Stein-Friedman (2004) survey examining the
region Sonoma and several of its AVAs established a strong
correlation between greater quality expectation and the
inclusion of Sonoma County as a place of origin on wine
labels. From this it was hypothesized that any and all
appellations might benefit from association with the larger
regions that encompass them.
A total of 483 of the participants answered questions
regarding their preference for labels with and without the
region included. In each case, a label with an AVA only was
shown side by side with a label that displayed the same AVA as
well as the larger region in which that AVA falls. In all but one
instance, respondents preferred the label with both the region
and the AVA. Figure 1 is an excerpt of the pages built online
to conduct the survey.
While the results do show that respondents most often
chose the label that combined region with AVA, the effect of
combining place names on a wine label is not equivalent and
it is therefore not a guarantee of raising quality expectations.
Table III Wine volume consumption per month (one-way ANOVA)
Bottles (750 ml)

Boxes (2.0-4.0 litre)
Mean
df
Sig.
8.3
2.5
2.649 *
7
6
0.011
0.970
0.185
Note: * Significant at 0.05 level (two-tailed); Grouping variable: Age
percent) among the group with 2.5 boxes on average. It

should be noted that the bottle consumption figure shows a
fairly high interest in wine as this figure is for the individual
consumer, not the household. Bruwer et al. (2005) noted that
wine volume consumption can be an indicator of the level of
involvement of a consumer with wine. It has also been
established that heavy wine users are more likely to be
interested in and involved with wine (Goldsmith and
dHauteville, 1998).
A one-way ANOVA was conducted for wine volume
consumption by age group (Table III). The bottle
consumption was significant at the 0.05 level with it
increasing except for the 55-65 year old group. Box wine
consumption was not significant by age group.
Expenditure behaviour on wine. Monthly household spending
on wine is close to $180 as reflected in Table IV. The average
price per bottle purchased is $21.61 which fits comfortably
within the ultra-premium wine price segment. Given the
general tendency for quick consumption, one might assume
that most of this wine is drunk within two weeks of purchase.
A chi-square test of independence was conducted on the
amount spent per month on wine and gender. The Pearson
chi-square value of 41.939 (41 degree of freedom) was not
significant at 0.430. Hence the average total amount spent per
month on wine is not dependent on any gender group. This
was also confirmed by the statistical analysis presented in
Table V.
Of particular interest to producers of ultra-premium and
icon wines, is a segment of 70 percent of all the respondents
who purchase at least one bottle of wine at a price of over $15
retail every week. Furthermore, the majority (56 percent) of
these respondents reported that most of the wine they
purchase is at over $15 per bottle retail. A Mann-Whitney
Table IV Monthly household expenditure on wine
Total amount spent per month

Average spend per bottle
Mean
Pearson Chi-Square
df
Asymp. Sig. (two-tailed)
$178.85
$21.61
41.939
41
0.430
Note: Grouping variable: Gender
Table V Purchase wine over $15 per bottle retail

Purchase behaviour
Do not purchase $1 bottle per week at over $15
Purchase $1 bottle per week at over $15
Most wine purchased is over $15 per bottle
Mann Whitney U *
Asymp. Sig. (two-tailed)
30.3
69.7
55.6
25170.000
27609.000
2.242
0.146
0.025
0.884
Note: Grouping variable: Gender
10
Figure 1 Label choices presented to respondents in the survey
A further subset of this higher spending population

identified themselves as either very knowledgeable about
wine or an expert/professional. The expectation in the wine
community is that this group would certainly be more aware
of individual appellations and value them accordingly. Yet
again the results of the survey demonstrate that wine
knowledgeable consumers are not put-off by the inclusion of
regional information beyond that of the AVA. As above, the
only region benefiting from the exclusion of the county name
was the Livermore Valley (see Figure 4).
The results confirmed the fourth hypothesis that the brand
images of AVAs are not equal and that some are held in higher
regard than their corresponding wine regions.
Across all label comparisons except one, respondents chose

the combined label over the label with AVA alone. Therefore
the third hypothesis that regional brand image enhances the
image of the AVAs within it and strengthens consumer
confidence and quality perception was confirmed, yet not
shown to be universally applicable.
A total of 486 respondents made a selection of one of the
two labels offered for each wine region. Figure 2 shows the
percentage of respondents and their choices.
Livermore Valley was alone in scoring higher in preference
without its region mentioned. The reason for this might be
alluded to in the qualitative associations that respondents
noted regarding the region Alameda County. Alameda
struggles with an image of traffic and urban congestion. The
standing and perceived value of the regions studied is
therefore not equivalent.
There are many in the wine industry who argue for the
value of specific place names or appellations, which in the
United States are known as AVAs. It is their commonly held
belief that an AVA alone commands more value in the
marketplace that consumers will pay more for appellation
labeled wine than regionally labeled wine. Yet the results in
this study show a powerful halo effect given by the wellregarded regions, especially when the AVA is little known.
Despite this, some in the wine community argue that in the
case of higher-spending consumers, they are right. But when
put to the test, this survey shows otherwise.
Respondents in the survey were further segmented to
include only those who purchase at least one bottle of wine
every week over $15 as well as those who also identify
themselves as spending over $15 per bottle on most of the
wine they purchase. Their preference for AVA only labels is
only slightly higher than the group at large, as shown in
Figure 3.
6. Conclusions, managerial implications and

research recommendations
This study explored different levels of place-based marketing
in the form of region-of-origin branding strategy used by
wineries in their marketing efforts. It aimed to describe the
relationship between wine regional brands and their
corresponding appellations. The answers gained could
provide grape growers and winery owners with a greater
understanding of the strength of their own regional brands.
The study also obtained insights into wine consumer
dynamics such as product involvement level, consumption
frequency and differences between segments on the basis of
demographics from a regional branding perspective. In the
process, the regional brand image of selected California wine
regions and the effect of that image on consumers quality
perceptions when included on wine labels were also
explored.
The study found that consumers with a high level of
involvement in wine as a product category differ in their
consumer behaviour dynamics in terms of age. We therefore
11
Figure 2 Label preference for AVAs with or without region
those regions have a positive brand image. Positive images are

key as it was also found that region is not a universally positive
attribute.
The proliferation of AVAs and the diluting effect on
regional brands is an issue that is being discussed in the wine
industry, but is beyond the scope of this study. Wine industry
marketers and winery owners throughout the country should
be interested to see how the results of this study might be
extrapolated to the regions where they work. Food producers
might also be interested to see how the results of this survey
might be applied to their own regional branding efforts.
More research on a national level should be done. It is
important to research the effect of regional branding in other
areas of the USA. More AVAs are currently being proposed
and few wineries today are labeling with any mention of the
county of origin. There are certainly other areas where the
advantage of the larger wine region is being ignored while
embracing small, very local and relatively unknown AVAs.
Any follow-on to this study should also include a broader
sampling of consumer types throughout the USA and
comparisons made to this study to assess the validity of
generalising the results herein.
concur with Hollebeek et al. (2007) and recommend that

regional branding efforts be targeted at high wine product
involvement consumers rather than their low involvement
counterparts as high involvement consumers are likely to be
more influenced by brand-based cues.
Consumers in the study used regional branding cues,
information and images in their assessment and valuation of
comparative wine labels. Almost without exception, the
addition of regional information on a label increased
consumer confidence in the quality of the product. The
strength of regional branding was even demonstrated with the
well-regarded Russian River Valley AVA. In the case of the
lesser known AVAs, such as Fiddletown and Bennett Valley,
the inclusion of a regional name was particularly beneficial.
While the importance of regional wine brands,
characterized as US counties, was shown by consumers
overwhelming ratings of quality, the true value of those brands
has not been acknowledged by many of the grape growers and
wineries that have spent energy and money branding the
smaller appellations where they work.
It is strongly recommended that wineries (in particular,
wineries using little-known appellations), begin utilizing the
brand power of the larger regions available to them when
12
Figure 3 Label preference for AVAs with or without region higher spending segment
Figure 4 Label preference for AVAs with or without region higher spending segment self-described as very knowledgeable or expert
13
Andrews, J.C., Durvasula, S. and Akhter, S.H. (1990),

A framework for conceptualizing and measuring the
involvement construct in advertising research, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 27-40.
Aurefeille,J.M.,Quester,P.G.,Lockshin,L.S.andSpawton,A.L.
(2002), Global vs international involvement-based
segmentation: a cross-national exploratory study,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 369-86.
Barber, N., Almanza, B.A. and Donovan, J.R. (2006),
Motivational factors of gender, income and age of
selecting a bottle of wine, International Journal of Wine
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 218-32.
Barham, E. (2003), Translating terroir: the global challenge
of French AOC labelling, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 127-38.
Bernabeu, R., Brugarolas, M., Martinez-Carrasco, L. and
Diaz, M. (2008), Wine origin and elaboration,
differentiating strategies in traditional producing countries,
British Food Journal, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 174-88.
Bloch, P.H. and Bruce, G.D. (1984), Product involvement
as leisure behavior, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 197-202.
Brucks, M. (1985), The effects of product class knowledge
in information search behavior, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-46.
Bruwer, J. (2004), The love affair of Generation X
consumers with the winery cellar door, The Australian
& New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker, No. 491,
December, pp. 19-24.
Bruwer, J. and House, M. (2003), Has the era of regional
branding arrived for the Australian wine industry? Some
perspectives, The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower
& Winemaker, No. 579, December, pp. 56-61.
Bruwer, J. and Reilly, M. (2006), The power of word-ofmouth communication as an information source for winery
cellar door visits, The Australian & New Zealand Wine
Industry Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 43-51.
Bruwer, J. and Wood, G. (2005), The Australian online
wine-buying consumer: motivational and behavioural
perspectives, Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 193-211.
Bruwer, J., Li, E., Bastian, S. and Alant, K. (2005),
Consumer household role structures and other
influencing factors on wine buying and consumption,
The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker,
No. 503, December, pp. 50-8.
Charters, S. and Pettigrew, S. (2006), Product involvement
and the evaluation of wine quality, Qualitative Market
Research: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-93.
Chaudhuri, A. (2000), A macro analysis of the relationship
of product involvement and information search: the role of
risk, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 1-15.
Dimara, E. and Skuras, D. (2005), Consumer demand for
informative labeling of quality food and drink products:
a European case study, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Frey, N. (2006), personal communication, March.
Frochot, I. (2003), An analysis of regional positioning and
its associated food images in French tourism regional
brochures, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 14

Nos 3/4, pp. 77-96.
Gergaud, O. and Livat, F. (2007), How do consumers use
signals to assess quality?, Working Paper No. 3, American
Association of Wine Economists, April, pp. 1-22.
Goldsmith, R.E. and dHauteville, F. (1998), Heavy wine
consumption: empirical and theoretical perspectives,
British Food Journal, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 184-90.
Goodman, S., Lockshin, L. and Cohen, E. (2007),
Influencers of consumer choice in a retail setting more
international comparisons, The Australian & New Zealand
Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 42-8.
Hall, J. (2003), Branding Britain, Journal of Vacation
Henchion, M. and McIntyre, B. (2000), Regional imagery
and quality products: the Irish experience, British Food
Journal, Vol. 102 No. 8, pp. 630-44.
Hollebeek, L.D., Jaeger, S.R., Brodie, R.J. and Balemi, A.
(2007), The influence of involvement on purchase
intention for new world wine, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 1033-49.
Johnson, R. and Bruwer, J. (2007), The balancing act
between regionality and American Viticultural Areas
(AVAs), Journal of Wine Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 163-72.
Kapferer, J.N. and Laurent, G. (1993), Further evidence on
the consumer involvement profile: five antecedents of
involvement, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 347-55.
Keown, C. and Casey, M. (1995), Purchasing behaviour in
the Northern Ireland wine market, British Food Journal,
Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 17-20.
Kisliuk, B. (2008), Name dispute stalls New Napa AVA,
Napa Valley Register, 22 June, pp. 1-2.
Kolyesnikova, N., Dodd, T.H. and Duhan, D.F. (2008),
Consumer attitudes towards local wines in an emerging
region: a segmentation approach, International Journal of
Wine Business Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 321-34.
Lecocq, S. and Visser, M. (2006), What determines wine
prices? Objective vs sensory characteristics, Journal of Wine
Economics, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 42-56.
Lockshin, L.S., Spawton, A.L. and Macintosh, G. (1997),
Using product, brand and purchasing involvement for
retail segmentation, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 171-83.
Lockshin, L.S., Jarvis, W., dHauteville, F. and Perrouty, J.P.
(2006), Using simulations from discrete choice
experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand,
region, price, and awards in wine choice, Food Quality and
Preference, Vol. 17 Nos 3-4, pp. 166-78.
Masson, J., Aurier, P. and dHauteville, F. (2008), Effects of
non-sensory cues on perceived quality: the case of lowalcohol wine, International Journal of Wine Business
Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 215-29.
Merrill, P. (2006), How to evaluate your wines packaging,
Wine Business Monthly, April, pp. 56-7.
Newman-Stein-Friedman (2004), Branding Sonoma
County grapes and wine, unpublished report prepared
for the Sonoma County Grape Growers Association,
Rohnent Park, CA.
Orth, U.R., Wolf, M.M. and Dodd, T.H. (2005),
Dimensions of wine region equity and their impact on
References
14
consumer preferences, Journal of Product & Brand

Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 88-107.
Papadopoulos, N. and Heslop, L. (2002), Country equity
and country branding: problems and prospects, Brand
Management, Vol. 9 Nos 4-5, pp. 294-314.
Perrouty, J.P., dHauteville, F. and Lockshin, L.S. (2006),
The influence of wine attributes on region of origin equity:
an analysis of the moderating effect of consumers perceived
expertise, Agribusiness, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 323-41.
Quester, P.G. and Smart, J. (1998), The influence of
consumption situation and product involvement over
consumers use of attribute, Journal of Consumer
Quester, P.G., Neal, C., Pettigrew, S., Grimmer, M., Davis, T.
and Hawkins, D.I. (2007), Consumer Behaviour: Implications
for Marketing Strategy, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill Australia,
North Ryde.
Rothschild, M.R. (1984), Perspectives on involvement:
current problems and future directions, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 216-7.
Santos, C.R., Blanco, M.C. and Fernandez, A.G. (2008),
Segmenting wine consumers according to their
involvement with appellations of origin, Brand
Management, Vol. 13 Nos 4/5, pp. 300-12.
Schamel, G. (2006), Geography versus brands in a global
wine market, Agribusiness, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 363-74.
Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2006), Consumer Behavior,
8th ed., Prentice-Hall International, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Schiffman, L.G., Bednall, D., OCass, A., Paladino, A., Ward, S.
and Kanuk, L.L. (2008), Consumer Behaviour, 4th ed.,
Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest.
Skuras, D. and Vakrou, A. (2002), Consumers willingness
to pay for origin labelled wine: a Greek case study, British
Food Journal, Vol. 104 No. 11, pp. 898-912.
Thakor, M.V. and Lavack, A.M. (2003), Effect of perceived
brand origin associations on consumer perceptions of
quality, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 394-407.
Thode, S. and Maskulka, J. (1998), Place-based marketing
strategies, brand equity and vineyard valuation, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 379-99.
Tootelian, D.H. and Segale, J. (2004), The importance of
place of origin in purchase decisions for agricultural
products, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 27-43.
Tustin, M. and Lockshin, L. (2001), Region of origin: does
it really count?, The Australian & New Zealand Wine
Industry Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, September-October,
pp. 139-43.
US Census Bureau (2006), US and California Summary:
2004-2005, Census Profiles, US Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration, Washington, DC.
van Ittersum, K., Meulenberg, M.T.G. and van Trijp, H.C.M.
(2003), Determinants of the accessibility of regionalproduct information, Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 180-6.
Vrontis, D. and Papasolomou, I. (2007), Brand and product
building: the case of the Cyprus wine industry, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 159-67.
Warner, K.D. (2007), The quality of sustainability:
agroecological partnerships and the geographic branding
of California wine grapes, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 142-55.
Watson, R.T., Berthon, P., Pitt, L.F. and Zinkhan, G.M.

(1999), Electronic Commerce: The Strategic Perspective,
The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX.
Wine Market Council (2008), USA Consumer Market Survey
2007. Merrill Research, Iwoa City, IA.
Winfree, J.A. and McCluskey, J.J. (2005), Collective
reputation and quality, American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 206-13.
Yasin, N.M., Noor, M.N. and Mohammad, O. (2007), Does
image of country-of-origin matter to brand equity?,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 38-48.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), Measuring the involvement
construct, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 341-52.
Corresponding author
Johan Bruwer can be contacted at: johan.bruwer@adelaide.
edu.au
Executive summary and implications for

managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
Country of origin (COO) often functions as a powerful aspect
of a brands image. Its impact is often particularly significant
in the marketing of wine. Consumers are now faced with an
abundant choice of brands in wine markets around the world
and COO is readily acknowledged as a key differentiator able
to positively influence the equity of a brand.
In some nations, the picture has developed further and the
region-of-origin has become increasingly more important.
France provides a perfect example of this shifting tendency,
with such as Burgundy and Bordeaux recognized as indicating
a more precise identification of brand source.
Issues to consider
Product involvement is widely accepted as influencing a
consumers desire for information. Those who find a
particular product interesting and relevant are likelier to
seek to acquire greater knowledge about it and therefore
become even more highly involved. And it has also been
shown that where high involvement levels prevail, the
individual can acquire substantial amount of product
knowledge over time. But for purchases deemed
unimportant, involvement will be low and the information
search minimal at best. Knowledge exists in both objective
and subjective forms and it is the latter that is considered
here.
Links between consumer involvement and wine
consumption are well established and have formed the basis
for numerous studies into aspects that include consumer
segmentation, purchase intention and the consumption
situation. Many scholars believe that consumer involvement
is higher for self-indulgent products. Since wine is
acknowledged as being experiential, it meets the necessary
15
criteria in this respect. Interested consumers form a personal

connection with the product and may aim to discover
information concerning such as its vintage year or process of
maturation. It is logically assumed that consumers who
acquire such details or knowledge of the products region-oforigin are likely to consume larger quantities of this wine.
Furthermore, production information contained on the
label will have greater significance for these highly-involved
consumers. Wine is a category where product quality has a
considerable impact on consumer behavior. Most of the
quality cues are conveyed through the packaging and label.
Brand origin is perceived by consumers as a key indicator of
quality. Surveys have shown that consumers rank vineyard
location as being among the most important details on the label.
If the geographical area in question boasts a positive reputation,
then this information alone will convey quality to many
consumers. In the USA, the esteem attached to California has
been exploited by wine producers for numerous years.
That wine consumers respond to marketing based on place is
widely acknowledged. Growing demand for region-of-origin
information has led a significant increase in the number of
American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) being created. AVAs serve
to define grape-growing regions by geographical features, which
are felt by the wine industry to be more appropriate than the
use of state or county boundaries used previously. In order to be
granted AVA status, the regions name must be known locally or
nationally. While an AVA signifies grape source, analysts point
out that no other indication of quality is suggested.
These findings confirmed authorial predictions about how

certain demographic aspects relate to knowledge and
involvement.
Previous work had identified that consumers believed the
inclusion of the Sonoma County origin on wine labels greatly
increased their expectation of quality. Similar indications were
revealed here. All but one of the 483 participants who
answered questions relating labeling formats preferred the
option that incorporated region and AVA rather than AVA
alone. This confirms prior belief that including the larger
regional brand helps to enhance the image of sub-regions or
AVAs within its boundaries.
However, the authors point out that combining place names
on a label does not ensure that consumers will anticipate
superior quality in all cases. Some regions enjoy a more
positive image than others so producers should be wary of
making assumptions about what consumers will infer from the
information on the label. That the Alameda County region is
plagued by a reputation for traffic and urban congestion is
cited as an example. Survey responses do, nevertheless,
indicate that the including a respected region on the label will
have a positive effect, especially when the AVA is little known.
This confirms the suspicion that AVA brand names are not
equal either. In addition, Bruwer and Johnson point out how
the mantra from some wine industry players that a stand alone
AVA is more powerful in the marketplace is seriously
undermined here. They do concede though that such an
impact could be possible among those who spend heavily on
wine and possess knowledge levels that border on expert. But
even this segment does not object to regional information also
being included.
Study and findings

Bruwer and Johnson examine place-based marketing in the
present work and investigate how including region and/or subregion or AVA of product origin on wine labels impacts on
consumer perception of product quality and brand equity.
The study was carried out on behalf of the Sonoma County
Grape Growers Association with one key aim being to
determine the impact of including the Sonoma brand name
on product labels. To disguise this purpose, the authors
included other Californian regions alongside two AVAs.
Male and female wine consumers aged 21 or over who
subscribed to wine newsletters were recruited for the survey
and 570 useable responses were obtained. An online
questionnaire was the selected method for a study regarded
as exploratory in nature. Hypotheses were formed based on
self-described knowledge level, involvement level, regional
brand image and the brand image for the sub-region or AVA.
The survey indicated:
.
Around 87 percent of male respondents and 83 percent of
females considered themselves to be reasonably
knowledgeable about wine.
.
Age and household income negatively correlates with wine
consumption frequency.
.
Consumption volume may be related to involvement.
.
Monthly amount spent on wine does not differ by gender.
.
Over half of respondents purchase more expensive wine
every week.
Marketing and additional research

Highly involved individuals are more likely to employ brandbased cues in their decision making. The authors therefore
urge marketers to target this group rather than those
identified as low involvement consumers. Another key
recommendation is that wineries should exploit the brand
power of the regional name when the image is positive. It is
noted that many wineries and grape farmers have invested
heavily in building their AVA and are somewhat reluctant to
acknowledge the value of utilizing the regional brand too.
Conducting similar research on a national level will help
evaluate the impact of other regional brands and perhaps
better inform those marketing on the basis of AVA alone.
Bruwer and Johnson also suggest applying the study within
other industries, such as food, may be interesting. Including a
broader sample of consumers in future work could allow a
generalization of these results.
(A precis of the article Place-based marketing and regional
branding strategy perspectives in the California wine industry.
Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Place-Based Marketing and Regional Branding

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Place-Based Marketing and Regional Branding

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Place-based marketing and regional branding

strategy perspectives in the California wine

Wine was one of the first products of agricultural origin to

An executive summary for managers and executive

Journal of Consumer Marketing