SEGMENTING WINE FESTIVAL ATTENDEES:A FACTOR-CLUSTER APPROACH

JINGXUE (JESSICA) YUAN1, LIPING A. CAI2, ALASTAIR M. MORRISON2 and SALLY LINTON3

1Department of Nutrition, Hospitality and Retailing, Texas Tech University, USA

2Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University, USA

3Indiana Wine Grape Council, Food Science Department, Purdue University, USA

Address correspondence to Dr. Jingxue (Jessica) Yuan, Department of Nutrition, Hospitality and

Retailing, Box 41162, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA 79409-1162. Tel: 1-(806)-

742-3068; Fax: 1-(806)-742-3042; E-mail: jessica.yuan@ttu.edu

Abstract: This paper investigates the segmentation of wine festival attendees on the basis of

their motivations. Three distinct groups were identified using a factor-cluster approach. They

were wine focusers, festivity seekers, and hangers-on. Through multiple discriminant analysis,

the study revealed that each of the three segments placed a unique set of priorities on the

available products and activities at the festival. The demographic characteristics of all three

segments were examined. The findings were discussed in comparison with those of the existing

literature on travel motivations and festival motives as well as wine tourist segmentation.

Practical implications of the study’s findings are presented.

Key words: Travel motivation, festival motives, market segmentation, wine festival, wine tourism, Indiana, USA

Introduction

Wine tourism is emerging as a viable and rapidly growing field of study for tourism

researchers and practitioners alike, as many wine growing regions throughout the world are

experiencing substantial growth in the wine tourism sector (Macionis & Cambourne, 1998; Ali-

Knight & Charters, 1999; Cambourne et al., 2000). Substantial research to date on wine tourism

has been conducted in the “New World”, particularly in Australia and New Zealand. The

research efforts have recently culminated in the publication of two books (Hall et al., 2000; Getz,

2000) and a number of proceedings of the International Wine Tourism Conference (Carlsen &

Charters, 2004). A few researchers in North America have made important contributions to the

field from either the supply or demand side (e.g., Dodd, 1995; Dodd, Pinkleton, & Gustafson,

1996; Dodd & Bigott, 1997; Dodd, 1998; Telfer & Hashimoto, 1999; Telfer, 2001).

According to Hall and Macionis (1998), wine tourism is the “visitation to vineyards,

wineries, wine festivals, and wine shows for which wine tasting and/or experiencing the

attributes of a wine region are the prime motivating factors for visitors.” Wine tourism is in

essence a phenomenon that involves the participation of a particular group of consumers – wine

tourists. Yet in-depth research is lacking in examining the nature of wine tourists, their

motivations, and how they can be effectively segmented using information inferred from the

demand side (Mitchell, Hall, & McIntosh, 2000; Charters & Ali-Knight, 2002). It is imperative

that more empirical evidence to be gathered from the consumers for a more accurate and

comprehensive picture of wine tourists. With an increasing number of studies on wine tourism

consumers appearing in academic journals, studies on the subject in general are on the rise.

1

Researchers have acknowledged the role that wine festivals play in selling wine brands,

promoting the attractiveness of wine growing regions, and helping build customer loyalty toward

individual wineries (Cambourne & Macionis, 2000; Getz, 2000; Hoffman, Beverland &

Rasmussen, 2001; Bruwer, 2002). Yet few studies to date have examined issues related to the

nature of wine festival attendees’ motivations and segmentation in the field of wine tourism

research (Beverland et al., 2001; Bruwer, 2002). Visiting wine festivals is one important activity

in the complete construct of wine tourism (Hall & Macionis, 1998). As special events, wine

festivals, if taking place at convenient locations, may attract attendees who do not intend to visit

any winery or wine region and thereby would never be ascribed to the category of wine tourists

(Yuan et al., in press).

The current research was a second in a series of studies on wine tourists. The purpose of

the series was to develop a typology of wine tourists attending the 2003 Vintage Indiana Wine

and Food Festival. The current study was designed to achieve the following objectives:

(1) To segment wine tourists at a wine festival based on their motivations to attend the

festival

(2) To identify factors differentiating wine tourist segments

(3) To profile the segments by their demographic characteristics

The segmentation of wine festival attendees, using their motivations as the base, was the

focus of the current study.

Literature Review

Travel Motivations

2

Travel motivation is accepted as a central factor in understanding tourist behavior

(Baloglu, 2000; Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991; Fodness, 1994; Pearce, 1995). Crompton (1979)

notes that the understanding of motivation answers the question, “Why do tourists travel?” or in

more specific terms, “Why do certain groups of people choose certain holiday experiences?”

(Pearce, 1995). A more in-depth elucidation of motivation, therefore, may lead to a better

understanding of the overt behaviors of tourists. The initial stage of tourism behavior begins

when an individual recognizes a need to be satisfied (Fluker & Turner, 2000). Basic motivation

theory describes a dynamic process of internal psychological factors (needs, wants, and goals)

that lead to actions designated to release the resulting tension and thereby satisfy the needs

(Fodness, 1994).

A major tourist motivational model was presented by Dann (1977, 1981) and Crompton

(1979) in the explanation of push and pull theory. Push factors represent the general desire to be

somewhere else (Bansal & Eiselt, 2004). Pull factors (e.g., destinations) are external to an

individual. People travel in response to push and pull factors, that is, to satisfy certain

psychological needs and in search of specific benefits at the destination (Turnbull & Uysal,

1995). Iso-Ahola’s (1982, 1989) concept of motivation involved simultaneously avoiding and

seeking behaviors. The psychological benefits of travel derive from the interplay of escaping

routine or stressful environments while seeking opportunities for certain psychological rewards

(Dunn Ross & Iso-Ahola, 1991). Pearce and Caltabiano (1983, also cited in Pearce, 1988) used

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a framework to infer motivations from travelers’ experiences.

They applied a five-fold hierarchical system (physiological, safety and security, love and

belongingness, self-esteem, self-actualization) to rank tourists’ experiences. Fodness (1994),

3

using a straightforward approach to the study of attitudes, suggested that the reasons people give

for leisure travel represent the psychological functions (the needs) the travel serves.

These studies suggest that travel motivations can be explained in many different ways.

No single conceptualization has been agreed upon (Krippendorf, 1987; Fodness, 1994; Holden,

1999). Motivations for vacations are dynamic and may involve multiple variables (Wight, 1996).

Interpretation of travel motivations lies in a mixture of different theories that researchers have

depended upon (Krippendorf, 1987; Pearce, 1993). Pearce (1995) posited three main approaches

to examining travel motivation: historical and literary accounts of travel and travelers, the

discipline of psychology and its long history of trying to understand human behavior, and the

current practices of tourism industry researchers, particularly those involved with surveying

visitors. From a marketing perspective, tourism products can be designed and marketed as

solutions to consumers’ needs (Fodness, 1994). Tourism researchers measure motivation so that

they can identify types of tourists and segment those traveling for pleasure for the purpose of

product development and service quality evaluation (McIntosh & Goeldner, 1990). Crompton

(1979) concluded that a motivational basis for tourist segmentation may provide cues and

insights around which destinations could develop and promote products and activities to target

markets. Researchers have suggested categories of travel motivations to classify tourists into

various segments (e.g., Cha, McCleary & Uysal, 1995; Bieger & Laesser, 2002; Loker & Perdue,

1992; Lundberg, 1971; Mayo & Jarvis, 1981; Shoemaker, 1989, 1994).

While psychology theories and the extant tourism literature provide a rich source of

potential motives, for travel motivation to be useful and meaningful, it must be placed in a

context (Pearce, 1995). Travel motivations are subject to specific situations and unique settings

4

(Yuan et al., in press). Gnoth (1997) proposed a dichotomy of internal and external motivators

containing drive-based push factors and pull factors related to knowledge or beliefs. The push

factors are motives, representing the needs that all humans experience. The pull factors indicate

the presence of specific situations with which these needs arise. Motivations thus refer to an

interaction between motives and situations (McCabe, 2000). Festivals and special events provide

such contexts or situations in which people are aroused and motivated to travel.

Festival Motivations

Festivals are embedded in the construct of special events, which reflect the cultural

resources of an area and are organized to deliver a positive image of a place (Uysal et al., 1993).

Festivals are themed and unique (Falassi, 1987; Getz, 1991). The name of an event or festival

can potentially influence motives and behavior (Getz & Cheyne, 2002). The benefits attained

through participation in festivals and special events are diverse and accordingly, festival

attendees attempt to satisfy one or more needs at the event (Iso-Ahola, 1982). The analysis of

motivations and the underlying benefits sought for festival attendance is an important marketing

tool for market segmentation and effective promotion (Lee, 2000). Segmenting festival visitors

and understanding their characteristics through motivations enables organizers to identify the

strengths and opportunities of each market and promote festival features valued by target

segments (Lee & Lee, 2001).

In recent years, with the wide recognition of festivals and events as one of the fastest

growing forms of tourism attraction, researchers have been prompted to study motivations of

visitors attending festivals and events with a variety of themes (Backman et al., 1995; Carlson,

1998; Crompton & McKay, 1997; Formica & Uysal, 1996, 1998; Gitelson et al., 1995; Green &

5

Chalip, 1998; Kerstetter & Mowrer, 1998; Lee, 2000; Lee & Lee, 2001; Lee, Lee & Wicks,

2004; Kim, Uysal, Chen, 2002; Mohr et al., 1993; Nogawa et al., 1996; Pitts, 1999; Ralston &

Crompton, 1988; Raybould, 1998; Saleh & Ryan, 1993; Schneider & Backman, 1996; Scott,

1996; Uysal et al., 1991; Uysal, Gahan & Martin, 1993; Weiler, Truong, & Griffiths, 2004; Yuan

et al., in press). A review of the findings from these event- or festival-specific studies on motives

reveals some key dimensions of motivations common in these studies, although the order and the

components of factors vary depending upon the type of festivals. These key dimensions include

escape, excitement and thrills, novelty, socializing, family togetherness, and cultural exploration.

In addition to the common motives and benefits, some of the cited studies also found

unique dimensions of motivation attached to different festivals and events. The uniqueness is

often associated with and specific to the theme of the festival or event. For example, Scott (1996)

noticed differences among visitors’ motivations across three different festivals and verified that

motivations were situation specific. In his study, nature appreciation was found to be the most

important motivation for the two festivals facilitating education of insects and maple sugaring.

Kerstetter and Mowrer (1998) examined First Night, a community-oriented and alcohol-free

festival, and ascertained four reason factors: family fun, entertainment, community, and alcohol

free, of which the latter two exhibited the theme of the festival. Travel motivated by festivals and

special events thus concerns seeking universal leisure experience connected with a special event

as well as attaining unique benefits related to the theme of the event (Getz & Cheyne, 2002; Lee,

2000; Yuan et al., in press).

In their exploratory qualitative research on event motives and behavior, Getz and Cheyne

(2002) provided a general framework for evaluating motives to attend festivals and events.

6

Multiple motives may apply to any given event visit. First, generic (common) leisure and travel

motives incorporate the related theories (e.g. Iso-Ahola and Maslow). Second, event-specific

motives stem from the inherent uniqueness of events and targeted benefits related to the theme

and program. Getz and Cheyne’s (2002) theoretical framework is congruent with the dichotomy

view of travel motivations postulated by Gnoth (1997) and McCabe (2000), in which the internal

motives represent the needs that all humans experience, whereas the external motivators indicate

the presence of specific situations with which these needs arise. An additional dimension

proposed by Getz and Cheyne in their framework encompasses a number of extrinsic motives

that are unrelated to any specific appeal of the event itself (i.e., business, obligation, and

incentive). For instance, some people might attend a festival out of obligation because friends or

family want to go. Generic leisure/travel motives, event-specific motives, and extrinsic motives

form an integrated framework that can serve as a foundation to study festival motives.

So why do people choose to attend a wine festival? Are there any generic leisure needs,

event-specific benefits and/or extrinsic obligations that they intend to realize at the specific

venue? Can the attendees be segmented on a motivational basis? Can the resulting motivational

groups be differentiated based upon their demographics? The context in which these questions

were addressed in the current study was a festival with a wine theme. In such a context, the

attendees’ motivational segmentation should be examined via their internal or generic needs, the

more situational-based and event-specific motivations (Gnoth, 1997; McCabe, 2000) and the

extrinsic motives that are independent of the event (Getz & Cheyne, 2002). The understanding of

wine festival motivations from both internal and external factors affords a sound basis for

subdividing or segmenting the attendees.

7

Segmentation of Wine Tourists

Wine tourism researchers and marketers have come to realize that wine tourists are not

alike in terms of their needs, wants, and personal characteristics as there are different types of

experiences sought (Tzimitra-Kalogianni et al., 1999; Bruwer, Li & Reid, 2001; Charters & Ali-

Knight, 2002). Wine tourists should not be treated as being a homogenous group and,

consequently, careful segmentation strategies will benefit wine marketers (Cambourne &

Macionis, 2000). A proper segmentation of wine tourists enables a better understanding of the

characteristics and needs of the particular groups, increases the effectiveness of advertising and

promotional efforts, and enables wine tourism marketers to better target high-yield customers

(Dodd & Bigotte, 1997; Getz, 2000).

The attempts to segment or classify wine tourists have been recent. Examples include the

works of the Roy Morgan study (1996) cited in Cambourne and Macionis (2000), Movimento

del Turismo del Vino (MTV, 1996) cited in Mitchell et al. (2000), and Charters and Ali-Knight

(2002). The MTV study used a lifestyle approach to classify Italian wine tourist into four types:

“the professional”, “the impassioned neophyte,” “the hanger-on,” and “the drinker.” Hall (1996)

(also cited in Hall and Macionis, 1998) identified three market segments: “wine lovers,” “wine

interested” and “curious tourists” according to the different levels of experience sought by wine

tourists at New Zealand wineries. Ali-Knight and Charters (1999), in their qualitative study

exploring the value and importance of education to the wine tourist, confirmed this in their

interviews with eight Western Australian wineries. At least two types of visitors were identified

by the wineries. The “casual visitors” looked to taste and little else. They may have been seeking

“novelty” or “lifestyle” experiences. The “sophisticated drinkers” were hungry for information

8

and were already educated. Most wine tourists, however, fell into the middle category, claiming

no special knowledge, but were interested in experiences as much as learning.

Dodd and Bigotte (1997) adopted a visitor socio-demographic market segment approach.

They suggested two consumer clusters based on age and income using a consumer-perception

survey at Texas wineries. One cluster was older, with a higher mean income than the other

cluster. Differences in terms of visitor perceptions of wine, winery environment, and service

attributes were detected between the two clusters. Their study, however, focused on the purchase

of wine by wine tourists rather than the process of wine tourism (Charters & Ali-Knight, 2002).

Williams and Dossa (2003) analyzed non-resident visitor markets in British Columbia’s wine

tourism destinations. Two wine tourist clusters were generated and labeled as “the generalist”

and “the immersionist” according to differences in trip motivation characteristics. The

immersionists placed greater importance on being able to increase their knowledge of the region

they were visiting and becoming immersed in a variety of activities. The two market niches

exhibited several other different traits related to socio-demographic, travel philosophy, trip

behavior, activity, and product importance-performance characteristics. Williams and Dossa used

a general visitor survey and the motivation variables, therefore, were not specifically meant for

wine tourists. They also made the assumption that respondents indicating they had included a

visit to a winery/farm during their travels were “wine” tourists.

Charters and Ali-Knight (2002) continued the progress in this research stream. They

conducted personal interviews outside the tasting rooms of six wineries within two different

wine regions of Western Australia in Margaret River and the Swan Valley. Respondents were

asked to self-classify on the basis of their interest and knowledge of wine. This classification

9

produced a modification of the categories previously suggested (Ali-Knight & Charters, 1999;

Hall, 1996; MTV, 1996). The wine lover (the “highly interested”), the wine interested (the

“interested”), and the wine novice (those with limited interest) segments were joined by a fourth,

marginal group, the “hangers on,” who went to wineries with no apparent interest in wine, but as

a part of a group. The previous educational experience of different segments varied, with the

wine lovers having a more comprehensive grounding in wine education. The entire lifestyle

package (e.g., learning about wine and food links) was particularly important for the wine lovers.

One limitation of the study was that the visitor survey examined wine tourist motivation mainly

in relation to the educational possibilities at the winery.

The current study, built upon Gnoth’s (1997) and McCabe’s (2000) postulations on travel

motivations and Getz and Cheyne’s (2002) framework for evaluating festival motives, attempted

to segment wine tourists attending a regional wine festival based on their reasons for attending

the festival as well as the wine-related leisure experience. The first study in the series by the

authors uncovered the underlying dimensions of wine festival attendees’ motivations (citation

omitted in the review process). The current study focused on the motivational segmentation of

wine festival attendees, with the three objectives as specified earlier.

Methodology

Sample and Measurement

A visitor survey was conducted at the 2003 Vintage Indiana Wine and Food Festival

(referred to as the festival hereafter), a one-day event organized by the Indiana Wine Grape

Council. It is Indiana’s only statewide wine and food festival and was initiated in June 2000. The

2003 event featured 14 Indiana wineries, live music, a variety of foods presented by local

10

restaurants, and a wine/food educational area with demonstrations on cooking. More than 6,000

visitors attended the event in 2003 (The Indiana Wine Grape Council, 2004). Ten trained field

workers intercepted the attendees on the site of the festival and completed survey questionnaires

through personal interviews. Only visitors above 21 years old were selected. A total of 510

questionnaires were collected during the festival. Of these, nine were incomplete and thus

excluded from the data analysis.

One major component of the survey was to examine visitors’ motivations to participate in

the festival. A set of 25 questions were extracted from the literature on motivations to visit

wineries/wine regions and to attend other types of festivals. Respondents were asked to indicate

the importance of the reasons to attend the festival on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = not at all

important and 7 = extremely important.

Data Analysis

The analyses of the study consisted of four steps in two stages (Figure 1). To test the first

objective, the 25 motivational elements were factor-analyzed by using the maximum likelihood

method combined with a Varimax rotation. A four-factor solution emerged. This factor analysis

was followed by a cluster analysis to identify the underlying segments on the basis of factor

scores. A two-step clustering procedure was adopted: (1) a hierarchical cluster analysis,

identifying the appropriate number of clusters by Ward’s method; and (2) a K-means cluster

analysis, providing further elaborative information on the cluster membership. A tracing of the

ratio of within-group to between-group variance suggested a three-fold grouping as an

appropriate compromise between generality and within-group uniformity (Hair et al., 1998).

11

“Insert Figure 1 about here”

To test the second objective, the study employed multiple discriminant analysis (MDA)

to examine the differences in terms of the motivation factors associated with each cluster. The

clusters acted as the dependent variable. The principal objective of the discriminant analysis was

to identify those variables (also known as attributes) that were best able to separate or distinguish

the predefined groups and to interpret these findings (Duarte Silva & Stam, 2000). The MDA

identified the motivation factors that best differentiated members of the three groups from one

another. Since this was a three-group MDA model, it was necessary to define two canonical

discriminant functions in order to discriminate among the three groups (Hair et al., 1998). To

test the third objective, cross-tabulations with chi-square analyses were performed to compare

the demographic profiles of the clusters. Five demographic variables, i.e., gender, education, age,

income, and marital status, were examined to determine whether statistically significant

differences existed among the three different groups.

RESULTS

Sample Description

About 76% of the respondents at the festival had college or above degrees. Nearly 69%

had annual household incomes of more than $40,000. These two demographics were comparable

to the findings of other wine tourist studies (Yuan et al., in press). The respondents were,

nevertheless, younger than the average wine consumers (MKF Research Report, 2000), as 29.5%

of them were in the 21-29 age group and another 22.6% in 30-39 category; and a total of 74.1%

were less than 50 years old. The percentages of male and female respondents were 35.9 and 63.7,

respectively. Married (53.3%) and not married (46.5%) respondents were fairly evenly split (for

12

the table containing the detailed demographic information, refer to the earlier study conducted by

the authors or contact the authors).

Reasons for Wine Festival Participation

Four factors explaining 53.05% of the variance emerged from the factor analysis of the

25 motivational items (for details of the factor analysis, refer to the earlier study conducted by

the authors or contact the authors). The total Cronbach’s alpha value indicated that the model

was internally reliable ( = 0.89). The four dimensions were labeled as: (1) Festival & escape

(eigenvalue = 4.08, variance explained = 21.5%, = 0.88), (2) Wine (eigenvalue = 2.67,

variance explained = 14.0%, = 0.81), (3) Socialization (eigenvalue = 1.77, variance explained

= 9.3%, = 0.73), and (4) Family togetherness (eigenvalue = 1.56, variance explained = 8.2%,

= 0.78) (Yuan et al., in press).

The first factor, “Festival & escape,” consisted of nine variables: enjoying special events,

going after the festive atmosphere, enjoying a festival crowd, enjoying a day out, changing pace

from everyday life, enjoying the entertainment, for the uniqueness of the festival, getting away

on weekend and trying something new. The second factor, “Wine,” included five variables:

experiencing local wineries, tasting wine, getting familiar with Indiana wines, increasing wine

knowledge, and buying wines. The third factor, “Socialization,” included three variables:

meeting people with similar interests, exchanging ideas with wine makers, and visiting a place

one can talk about when getting home. The last factor, “Family togetherness,” included two

variables: bringing family together more and spending time with family. These four wine festival

motivational dimensions demonstrated the combined effects of push motives and pull factors

associated with the context as posited by Gnoth (1997) and McCabe (2000). Escape,

13

socialization, and family togetherness represented the inner desires of the respondents. Festival

and wine expressed the characteristics or activities (pull factors) of the wine festival.

Motivational Segments of Wine Festival Attendees

The cluster analysis produced three distinct groups on the basis of the motivational factor

scores. These three clusters were named after the highest cluster coefficient(s) on each

motivational dimension (Table 1). The clusters were labeled, respectively, as: (1) wine focusers,

(2) festivity seekers, and (3) hangers-on. The festivity seekers segment made up the largest

portion of the respondents (56% of the valid sample), followed by the wine focuser cluster

(27%). The hangers-on represented a smaller group (17%) whose significance should,

nevertheless, not be ignored.

“Insert Table 1 about here”

The wine focusers geared their attention toward the wine-related experience at the

festival. The benefits they were seeking were straightforward and clear-cut: wine was their

primary pursuit. Seemingly, they did not care much about the other activities or entertainment

available at the festival. The festivity seekers indulged themselves in almost every aspect of the

festival with an evident enthusiasm for festivals and escaping. They seemed to consider wine as

an add-on experience. Their major purpose at the festival was to enjoy a special event and its

festive atmosphere, escape from everyday life, be entertained, and/or try something new. The

hangers-on group showed no interest in virtually anything at the festival. They were just hanging

around at the festival site, making no evident attempt to get involved with the festivities. They

particularly eschewed the wine theme.

14

The means of the four motivation factors for the members of each cluster were computed

and compared (Table 1). The summary information revealed the importance of each factor for

attending the festival for members of each cluster. Significant differences in the mean scores

were detected among all pairings of the three clusters over three motivational factors: festival &

escape, wine, and socialization. For the family togetherness factor, the only significant difference

was between the festivity seekers and the other two clusters. The results provided clear evidence

that motivations represent a potentially useful base to segment the wine tourists at a regional

wine festival. The factor analysis demonstrated that there were multiple motivations for

attending the festival, some of which were directly related to wine, and others that were due to

the festival’s appeal as a special event. The respondents were subsequently classified into three

distinct groups on the basis of motivation factors.

Differentiating Factors

Multiple discriminant analysis (MDA) was performed on the three clusters. The goal of

the discriminant analysis was to identify the motivation factors that best differentiated among the

three identified clusters. Table 2 contains the results for the MDA model. Two canonical

discriminant functions were calculated in order to discriminate among the three groups. The two

functions were statistically significant, as measured by the chi-square and corresponding p-

values. With an eigenvalue of 1.616, Function 1 explained 52.38% of the variation. Function 2

had an eigenvalue of 1.470 and explained the remaining variation (47.62%). Together the two

functions explained 100% of the variance. To determine whether the functions were valid

predictors of cluster memberships, the classification matrices were examined (Table 3). The

discriminant functions achieved a high degree of classification accuracy. They did particularly

well in distinguishing the festivity seekers as 100% of the respondents were correctly ascribed

15

into that cluster. The hit ratio (percentage of respondents correctly classified by the discriminant

function) of the analysis sample was 93.5%.

“Insert Table 2 about here”

“Insert Table 3 about here”

In determining which predictor variable contributed the most to each function, the partial

F-values and discriminant loadings were employed. The partial F-value is an additional means of

interpreting the relative discriminating power of the independent variables (Hair et al., 1998). A

ranking of the partial F-values in this study showed that the factor differentiating the clusters the

most was wine (F = 347.583, Wilks Lambda = 0.390), followed by festival & escape (F =

224.287, Wilks Lambda = 0.497). The factors of socialization (F = 19.962, Wilks Lambda =

0.918) and family togetherness (F = 12.656, Wilks Lambda = 0.946) did not contribute as much

to the prediction, though their F-values were significant (p < 0.001). It was also noted that the F-

values of these two factors were much lower compared to those of the other two factors. The

discriminant loadings in Table 4 reveal that in Function 1 the wine factor differentiated the

clusters most. In Function 2, the festival & escape factor had the most differentiating power

followed by the socialization and the family togetherness factors.

Respondents at the wine festival were motivated by multiple reasons and could be

classified into distinct clusters on the basis of their motivations. Yet these motivation factors had

varying degrees of power in separating the groups. The ability of the wine and festival & escape

factors to distinguish the members into wine focusers and festivity seekers was more significant

than the other two factors. The wine and the festival & escape delineated the characteristics and

theme of the event.

“Insert Table 4 about here”

16

Segment Profiles

A demographic profile of each cluster was compared through cross-tabulations. The chi-

square statistic was employed to determine if there were any statistically significant differences

among the three clusters with respect to selected demographic characteristics. Table 5 provides

the results of the chi-square analyses. It appeared that the three clusters were only significantly

different in terms of annual household incomes. Compared with the other two clusters, the

hangers-on consisted of more people whose incomes were below $20,000 and $60,000,

successively. This cluster had less people in the $60,001-$80,000 income group. The wine

focusers cluster had the largest potion in the $60,000+ income group. The festivity seekers were

mainly in the $20,000-$80,000 income range.

“Insert Table 5 about here”

Conclusion

The study defined the segments of wine tourists attending a regional wine festival on the

basis of attendance motivations. The results indicated that people were drawn to the wine festival

due to multiple motivational factors. Festival & escape and wine, the dominant reasons for

attending the festival, reflected the attendees’ internal needs as well as how their decisions were

influenced by the situational motivations (Gnoth, 1997; McCabe, 2000). These two motivational

factors had the greatest power in distinguishing cluster membership. The wine festival thus

provided a special occasion where the attendees actively pursued the theme of wine and/or

searched for the hedonic attainment made available by other leisure activities at the festival.

17

The study identified three different types of wine festival attendees, namely wine

focusers, festivity seekers, and hangers-on. The wine focusers were similar to the “wine lovers”

group identified in Charters and Ali-Knight (2002). This was the wine-intensive group, whose

members seemed the most highly interested in wine. They were purpose-driven and pursued the

wine theme when attending the festival. Their motivations were very much focused on the wine,

while the other festival activities were of secondary priority. The hangers-on were similar to the

“hangers on” as described by Charters and Ali-Knight (2002). Their interest in wine was limited

and it was not the reason for attending the festival. This group had no particular goals in seeking

the festival’s leisure experience. They attended the festival as a part of a group or to accompany

someone else. In comparison with the findings from previous wine tourist segmentation studies

(Ali-Knight & Charters, 1999; Charters & Ali-Knight, 2002; Hall, 1996; MTV, 1996), the

festivity seekers identified in the current study were a seemingly newly-defined group, due to the

uniqueness of the study venue. This group searched for a more diversified or integrated

experience incorporating wine, food, environment, setting, learning, and cultural aspects, i.e., the

appeal of a festival. The integrated experience has been referred to by Beames (2003) as the

“total experience” or a culmination of wine-related travel. The festivity seekers may have an

interest in wine, but their participation also involved savoring other leisure experiences at the

festival. This festival provided an ideal venue for them to relax and have fun while pursuing a

special experience with the wine.

The motivational segmentation of attendees at the regional wine festival corresponded

with the postulation for structuring festival motives by Getz and Cheyne (2002), who stated that

festival motives of any given event visit incorporated three interacting components, namely

generic leisure and travel motives, event-specific motives, and extrinsic motives. The festivity

18

seekers were primarily seeking to fulfill generic needs for a leisure experience. Their

participation in the festival was motivated by common reasons that have been found in other

festival and/or travel motivation studies. The wine focusers were largely pursuing the wine and

its related themes at the festival. Their motives stemmed from the inherent uniqueness of the

festival and targeted benefits related to the theme. The hangers-on might have attended the

festival out of obligation, for example to accompany their friends or families, which are

considered extrinsic motives unrelated to any specific appeal of the festival itself.

From a marketing perspective, tourism researchers measure motivation so that they can

classify and segment tourists, which in turn lead to a systematic analysis of travel patterns for

product development and service quality evaluation (McIntosh & Goeldner, 1990). A

motivational segmentation approach may provide insight on effective promotions and target

marketing (Crompton, 1979; Lee, 2000; Lee & Lee 2001). The segmentation approach in this

study produced viable market segments that can be differentiated on managerially-relevant

variables. These findings should be valuable to the organizers of wine and food festivals and

destination marketers in wine-growing regions. The festival atmosphere appealed successfully to

a large group of attendees who were motivated by the prospect of enjoying a fun experience. The

festival organizers should continue with the provision of the total wine tourism experience to

retain this group of visitors. Other attendees who were highly interested in wine found the

festival an ideal venue to sample and buy local wines and get acquainted with local wineries.

This is where the organizers may accentuate the unique wine theme to meet the needs of these

wine lovers and to promote the regional wines. A small portion of the attendees (the hangers-on)

came for a completely different set of reasons and had limited interest in the event. However, the

exposure likely opened up the world of wine to them. Incentives may be offered to induce them

19

to attend subsequently, and these people might eventually enjoy the festival. The three groups

were not demographically distinguishable, except for household incomes. This may indicate that

people of similar socio-demographic backgrounds were attracted by this festival. It might also

suggest that segmenting wine festival attendees using demographics is not as viable an approach

as compared with classifying them by motivations.

These findings on the motivational segments of wine festival attendees can be an

important input to designing and implementing marketing programs of wine-growing

destinations. While a wine festival is an attraction in its own right from a destination’s point of

view, its role in generating interest in visiting wine regions represented at the festival should be

explored. Future studies may be designed to investigate wine festival product development,

service quality evaluation, and the interaction between wine festivals and wine-growing

destinations.

Biographical Notes

Jingxue (Jessica) Yuan is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Hospitality and

Retailing, Texas Tech University. Her research interests include wine tourism, special interest

tourism, consumer behavior for hospitality and tourism, and e-marketing and Website evaluation.

Her current research focuses on typology and modeling of wine tourists.

Liping A. Cai is an Associate Professor and Director of Purdue Tourism and Hospitality

Research Center in the Department of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Purdue University.

His research interests include destination branding and management, visitor socio-economic and

20

behavioral profile, and international tourism development. His current research focuses on

destination branding and rural tourism.

Alastair M. Morrison is a Distinguished Professor of Hospitality and Tourism Management,

Purdue University. He holds the position of Associate Dean for Learning and Director of

International Programs in the School of Consumer and Family Sciences. His research interests

include destination marketing, Internet marketing and e-commerce, international tourism market

development, and consumer behavior in tourism. His current research focuses on special interest

tourism markets, destination image measurement, Website satisfaction and evaluation, and

wireless applications in tourism.

Sally J. Linton is the Marketing and PR Specialist for the Indiana Wine Grape Council, an

association created to enhance the economic development of wine and grape industry in the state

of Indiana. She is the creator and coordinator of the Vintage Indiana Wine & Food Festival, an

annual event attracting more than 5,000 people.

References

Ali-Knight, J., & Charters, S. (1999). Education in a Western Australian wine tourism context. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 11(1), 7-18.

Backman, K., Backman, S. J., Uysal, M., & Sunshine, K. M. (1995). Event tourism: An examination of motivations and activities. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 3(1), 15-24.

Baloglu, S. (2000). A path-analytical model of visitation intention involving information sources, socio-psychological motivations and destination images. In A. G. Woodside, D. I. Crouch, J. A. Mazanec, M. Oppermann, & M. Y. Sakai (Eds.), Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure (pp. 63-90). Oxon, UK: CABI Publishing.

21

Bansal, H., & Eiselt, H. A. (2004). Exploratory research of tourist motivations and planning. Tourism Management, 25(3), 387-396.

Beames, G. (2003). The rock, the reef and the grape: The challenges of developing wine tourism in regional Australia. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(3), 205-212.

Beverland, M., Hoffman, D., & Rasmussen, M. (2001). The evolution of events in the Australasian wine sector. Tourism Recreation Research, 26(2), 35-44.

Bieger, T., & Laesser, C. (2002). Market segmentation by motivation: The case of Switzerland. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1), 68-76.

Bruwer, J. (2002). Wine and food events: A golden opportunity to learn more about wine consumers. The Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 17(3), 92-99.

Bruwer, J., Li, E., & Reid, M. (2001). Wine-related lifestyle segmentation of the Australian domestic wine market. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 16(2), 104-108.

Cambourne, B., Hall, C. M., Johnson, G., Macionis, N., Mitchell, R., & Sharples, L. (2000). The

maturing wine tourism product: An international view. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, & N. Macionis (Eds.), Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets (pp. 24-66). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Cambourne, B., & Macionis, N. (2000). Meeting the wine-maker: Wine tourism product development in an emerging wine region. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, & N. Macionis (Eds.), Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets (pp. 81-101). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Carlsen, J., & Charters, S. (2004). International Wine Tourism Research: Proceedings of the International Wine Tourism Conference. Margaret River, Western Australia, May 2-5, 2004.

Carlson, A. (1998). America’s growing observance of Cinco de Mayo. Journal of American Culture, 21(2), 7-16.

Cha, S., McCleary, K. W., & Uysal, M. (1995). Travel motivations of Japanese overseas travelers: A factor-cluster segmentation approach. Journal of Travel Research, 34(1), 33-39.

Charters, S., & Ali-Knight, J. (2002). Who is the wine tourist? Tourism Management, 23(3), 311-319.

Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations for pleasure vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4), 408-424.

22

Crompton, J. L., & McKay, S. L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 425-439.

Dann, G. M. S. (1977). Anomie, ego-enhancement, and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4), 184-194.

Dann, G. M. S. (1981). Tourist motivation: An appraisal. Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2), 187-219.

Duarte Silva, A. P., & Stam, A. (2000). Discriminant analysis. In L. G. Grimm, & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Associations.

Dodd, T. (1995). Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 7(1), 5-16.

Dodd, T. (1998). Influences on search behavior of industrial tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, 5(2/3), 77-94.

Dodd, T., & Bigotte, V. (1997). Perceptual differences among visitor groups to wineries. Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), 46-51.

Dodd, T. H., Pinkleton, B. E., & Gustafson, A. W. (1996). External information sources of product enthusiasts: Differences between variety seekers, variety neutrals, and variety avoiders. Psychology & Marketing, 13(3), 291-304.

Dunn Ross, E. L., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1991). Sightseeing tourists’ motivation and satisfaction. Annals of Tourism Research, 18(2), 226-237.

Falassi, A. (1987). Time out of time: Essays on the festival. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Fluker, M. R., & Turner L.W. (2000). Needs, motivations, and expectations of a commercial whitewater rafting experience. Journal of Travel Research, 38(4), 380-389.

Fodness, D. (1994). Measuring tourist motivation. Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3), 555-581.

Formica, S. & Uysal, M. (1996). A market segmentation of festival visitors: Umbria Jazz Festival in Italy. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 3, 175-182.

Formica, S. & Uysal, M. (1998). Market segmentation of international cultural-historical event in Italy. Journal of Travel Research, 36(4), 16-24.

Getz, D. (1991). Festivals, Special Events, and Tourism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Getz, D. (2000). Explore wine tourism: Management, development & destinations. Cognizant Communication Corporation.

23

Getz, D. & Cheyne, J. (2002). Special event motives and behavior. In C. Ryan (Ed) The Tourism Experience (2nd ed.) (pp. 137-155). London, UK: Continuum.

Gitelson, R.J., Kerstetter, D., & Kiernan, N.E. (1995). Evaluating the educational objectives of a short-term event. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 3(1), 9-14.

Gnoth, J. (1997). Tourism motivation and expectation formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 24(2), 283-304.

Green, B. C. & Chalip, L. (1998). Sport tourism as the celebration of subculture. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(2), 274-291.

Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hall, C. M. (1996). Wine tourism in New Zealand. In G. Kearsley (Ed.), Proceedings of Tourism Down Under II: Towards a More Sustainable Tourism (pp. 109-119). Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin.

Hall, C. M., & Macionis, N. (1998). Wine tourism in Australia and New Zealand. In R. Butler, C.M. Hall, & J. Jenkins (Eds.), Tourism and recreation in rural Areas (pp. 97-224). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hall, C. M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B., & Macionis, N. (2000). Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hoffman, D., Beverland, M. B., & Rasmussen, M. (2001). The evolution of wine events in Australia and New Zealand: A proposed model. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(1), 54-71.

Holden, A. (1999). Understanding skiers’ motivation using Pearce’s “travel career” construct. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 435-438.

The Indiana Wine Grape Council (2004, April). Indiana wine fact sheet. Retrieved November 12, 2004, from http://www.indianawines.org/files/wordfactsheet04.doc

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1982). Toward a social psychological theory of tourism motivation: A rejoinder. Annals of Tourism Research, 9(2), 256-262.

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1989). Motivation for leisure. In Understanding Leisure and Recreation (E.L. Jackson & T. Burton, eds), 247-279. State College, PA: Venture.

Kerstetter, D. L. & Mowrer, P. H. (1998). Individuals’ reasons for attending First Night, a unique cultural event. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 5(3), 139-146.

24

Kim, K., Uysal, M., & Chen, J. S. (2002). Festival visitor motivation from the organizers’ points of view. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 7(2), 127-134.

Krippendorf, J. (1987). The Holiday Makers: Understanding the Impact of Leisure and Travel. Oxford: Heinemann.

Lee, C.-K. (2000). A comparative study of Caucasian and Asian visitors to a cultural expo in an Asian setting. Tourism Management, 21(2), 169-176.

Lee, C.-K., & Lee, T.-H. (2001). World Culture EXPO segment characteristics. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(3), 812-816.

Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K., & Wicks, B.E. (2004). Segmentation of festival motivation by nationality and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 25(1), 61-70.

Loker, L. E., & Perdue, R. (1992). A benefit-based segmentation of a nonresident summer travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 31(1), 30-35.

Lundberg, D.E. (1971, February). Why tourists travel? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 75-81.

Macionis, N., & Cambourne, B. (1998). Wine tourism: Just what is it all about? The Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 13(1), 41-47.

Mayo, E., & Jarvis, L.P. (1981). The psychology of leisure travel. Boston: CBI Publishing.

McCabe, A.S. (2000). Tourism motivation process. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(4), 1049-1052.

McIntosh, W.R., & Goeldner, C.R. (1990). Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Mitchell, R., Hall, C. M., & McIntosh, A. (2000). Wine tourism and consumer behavior. In C. M. Hall, L. Sharples, B. Cambourne, & N. Macionis (Eds.), Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets (pp. 115-135). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

MKF Research Report (2000). U.S. wine demographics report. St. Helena, CA: The Wine Business Center, Motto Kryla & Fisher LLP.

Mohr, K., Backman, K. F., Gahan, L. W., & Backman, S. J. (1993). An investigation of festival motivations and event satisfaction by visitor type. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 1(3), 89-97.

MTV (Movimento del Turismo del Vino) (1996). http://ulysses.ulysse.s.it/mtv. In Hall, C.M., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. & Macionis, N. (2000) (eds) Wine tourism around the world: Development, management and markets. Butterworth-Heinemann.

25

Nogawa, H., Yamaguchi, Y., & Hagi, Y. (1996). An empirical research study on Japanese sport tourism in sport-for-all events: Case studies of a single-night event and a multiple-night event. Journal of Travel Research, 35(2), 46-54.

Pearce, P. L. (1993). Fundamentals of tourist motivation. In D. Pearce, & R. Butler (Eds.), Tourism research: Critiques and challenges (pp. 113-134). London: Routledge.

Pearce, P. L. (1995). Pleasure travel motivation. In R.W. McIntosh, C. R. Goeldner, & J. R. Brent Ritchie (Eds.), Tourism: Principles, practices, philosophies (7th ed., pp. 167-178). New York: Wiley.

Pearce, P. L. (1988). The Ulysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist setting. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Pearce, P. L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (1983). Inferring travel motivation from travelers’ experiences. Journal of Travel Research, 12(2), 16-20.

Pitts, B. (1999). Sports tourism and niche markets: Identification and analysis of the growing lesbian and gay sports tourism industry. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(1), 31-50.

Ralston, L., & Crompton, J. L. (1988). Motivations, service quality and economic impact of visitors to the 1987 Dickens on the Strand emerging from a mail-back survey. Report No. 3 for the Galveston Historical Foundation. Texas A & M University.

Raybould, M. (1998). Participant motivation in a remote fishing event. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 5(4), 239-241.

Saleh, F. & Ryan, C. (1993). Conviviality: A source of satisfaction for hotel guests: An application of the Servqual model. In P. Johnson & B. Thomas (eds) Choice and Demand in Tourism. New York: Mansell.

Schneider, I. E. & Backman, S. J. (1996). Cross-cultural equivalence of festival motivations: A study in Jordan. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 4, 139-144.

Scott, D. (1996). A comparison of visitors’ motivations to attend three urban festivals. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 3(4), 121-128.

Shoemaker, S. (1989). Segmentation of the senior pleasure travel market. Journal of Travel Research, 17(3), 14-21.

Shoemaker, S. (1994). Segmenting the U.S. travel market according to benefits realized. Journal of Travel Research, 32(3), 8-21.

Telfer, D. J. (2001). Strategic alliances along the Niagara wine route. Tourism Management, 22(1), 21-30.

26

Telfer, D. J., & Hashimoto, A. (1999). Niagara icewine tourism: Japanese tourists at Inniskillin winery. Paper presented at the European Wine Tourism Conference, University of Surrey, UK, September 1-3.

Turnbull, D. R., & Uysal, M. (1995). An exploratory study of German visitors to the Caribbean: Push and pull motivations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 4(2), 85-92.

Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I., Papadaki-Klavdianou, A., Alexaki, A., & Tsakiridou, E. (1999). Wine routes in Northern Greece: Consumer perception. British Food Journal, 101(11), 884-892.

Uysal, M., Backman, K., Backman, S., & Potts, T. (1991). An examination of event tourism motivation and activities. Paper presented at the New Horizons Conferences, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Uysal, M., Gahan, L., & Martin, B. (1993). An examination of event motivations: A case study. Festival Management & Event Tourism, 1(1), 5-10.

Weiler, B., Truong, M., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Visitor profiles and motivations for visiting an Australian wine festival. In J., Carlsen & S. Charters (Eds.) International Wine Tourism Research: Proceedings of the International Wine Tourism Conference. Margaret River, Western Australia, May 2-5, 2004.

Wight, P. A. (1996). North American ecotourism markets: Motivations, preferences, and destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 35(1), 3-10.

Williams, P. W., & Dossa, K. B. (2003). Non-resident wine tourist markets: Implications for British Columbia’s emerging wine tourism industry. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 14(3/4), 1-34.

Yuan, J., Cai, L. A., Morrison, A. M., & Linton, S. (in press). An analysis of wine festival attendees’ motivations: A synergy of wine, travel, and special events? Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(1).

27

Figure 1

Steps Involved in the Analysis

Stage 1: Cluster Segmentation Step 1: Factor analysis of 25 motivation items

Results: Identification of four motivation factors

Step 2:

Cluster analysis of respondents on the identified four factor dimensions of motivations

Results: Identification of three clusters

Step 3: Discriminant analysis of motivationsResults: Identification of discriminating motivation factors

for each cluster

Stage 2: Identification of Cluster Descriptors Step 4: Chi-square tests on demographic variables

Results: Identification of significant cluster descriptors

28

Table 1

Means of Motivation Factors among the Three Attendee Clusters

  Cluster Segments  I II III

Motivation Factors Wine Focusers Festivity Seekers Hangers-On(n = 121) (n = 252) (n = 74) F-value

Festival & escape** 3.76 II, III

(-.99)5.82 I, III

(.54)4.30 II, I

(-.21) 264.10*

Wine 5.34 II, III

(.42)5.78 I, III

(.27)3.19 II, I

(-1.60) 272.99*

Socialization 2.00 II, III

(-.37)3.57 I, II

(.19)2.45 II, I

(-.02) 59.24*

Family togetherness 2.55 II

(-.29)3.85 I, III

(.19)2.79 II

(-.17) 24.29*

Note: Numbers in the brackets are cluster coefficients. *Significant at p < 0.001 level. **Respondents were asked to choose from a 7-point scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.I, II, III The mean of the segment is significantly different from the mean(s) of other segment(s) (p < .05) on the same attitude dimension based on Tukey’s HSD test. The superscripts represent the corresponding segments.

29

Table 2

Summary of Three-Group Discriminant Analysis Results

Discriminant Percent of WilksFunction Variance Eigenvalue Lambda Chi-square Sig. Level

1 52.38 1.616 0.155 825.65 0.0002 47.62 1.470 0.405 400.04 0.000

30

Table 3

Classification Results of Discriminant Analysis

Predicted Group Membership  Actual Group I II III Total

Wine Focusers (I) 88.43% 11.57% 0.00% 121

Festivity Seekers (II) 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 252

Hangers-On (III) 4.05% 16.22% 79.73% 74

Percent of original grouped cases correctly classified: 93.5%

31

Table 4

Discriminant Function Loadings

Centroids (group means) Function 1 Function 2

Wine Focusers 1.165 -1.643Festivity Seekers 0.234 1.039Hangers-On -2.701 - 0.853

Motivation Factors    Wine 0.959a 0.231Festival & Escape - 0.141 0.816 b

Socialization - 0.065 0.238 b

Family Togetherness 0.007 0.197 b

a One motivation factor discriminates the three clusters in Function 1.

b Three motivation factors discriminate the three clusters in Function 2.

32

Table 5

Demographic Profile of Three Clusters

  Cluster Segments  I II III

Demographic Profile Wine Focusers Festivity Seekers Hangers-On χ2

(n = 121) (n = 252) (n = 74)

Gender (%) 7.03Male 38.0 33.3 47.3Female 62.0 66.3 51.4

Age 13.5721-24 9.9 6.0 12.225-34 30.6 40.1 32.435-44 20.7 18.7 16.245-54 19.8 23.4 27.055-64 12.4 10.7 6.865+ 4.1 0.8 2.7

Education 6.16High school 4.1 6.7 8.1Some college 14.9 18.3 16.2Associate degree 9.1 11.5 6.8Bachelor’s degree 41.3 38.1 47.3Graduate degree 30.6 25.4 21.6

Marital Status 7.25Not married 38.0 48.8 55.4Married 62.0 50.8 44.6

Household Income 37.78*

Less than $20,000 6.6 5.2 13.5$20,000-$40,000 11.6 18.3 20.3$40,001-$60,000 15.7 18.3 13.5$60,001-$80,000 15.7 15.5 5.4$80,000+ 43.0 36.2 40.6

* χ2 = p < 0.05. Note: Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding or missing values.

33