Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

2,839

Published on

This summary report highlights the wine tourism performance of GWCGN capitals. The goal of this project is to benchmark performance of wine tourism market across 8 of the 10 member cities of the …

This summary report highlights the wine tourism performance of GWCGN capitals. The goal of this project is to benchmark performance of wine tourism market across 8 of the 10 member cities of the Network, in order to provide the wine industry with a scientific international analysis identifying "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance".
Data were collected from the GWCGN capitals during the summer of 2013.
Further détails on greawinecapitals.com

Published in: Data & Analytics, Travel, Business
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,839
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 2013 Great Wine Capitals Global Network Market Survey “The Pillars Of Wine Tourism Performance” Executive Summary Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley
  • 2. This summary report highlights the wine tourism performance of GWCGN capitals. We collected data from the GWCGN capitals during the summer of 2013. The number of survey responses per city is shown below. On a positive note, the number of survey responses was up 47% from the 2012 survey. However, because several capitals had very small response rates (below 30 observations) we were unable to implement a meaningful statistical analysis of the factors that might lead to better than average wine tourism performance for these capitals. GWCGN CAPITALS Bordeaux Mainz­ Rheinhessen RESPONSES Christchurch Cape Town Bilbao­ Rioja Porto Mendoza San Francisco­ Napa TOTAL 273 Florence 123 38 27 13 13 11 10 4 34 Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley
  • 3. Wine Tourism Revenues Break­up Wine Tourism Revenues and Top Sources of Profits For the 2013 survey, we find that high­end wines (price greater than $25/bottle) represent a top source of profits (with over 40% of responses) in Mendoza and Christchurch. Middle­price wines are a top source of profits in Bilbao­Rioja and Christchurch. Tasting Fees are a top source of profits in Porto. Low­End Wines (less than $15/bottle) are important in Mainz­ Rheinhessen, Bilbao­Rioja, Bordeaux, Florence and Cape Town. Accommodations/Lodging are key in Mainz­Rheinhessen and Florence; Mixed Wine sets in Bilbao­Rioja and Christchurch; Food Services in Mendoza, Mainz­Rheinhessen, Bilbao­ Rioja and Porto. Finally, Hosting Events is the largest category in Cape Town as compared to other capitals. Top Sources of Wine Tourism Profit Over 70% of wine Tourism revenues come from Wine Sales in Bilbao­ Rioja, Bordeaux, Christchurch and Cape Town. Among all capitals, Mendoza has the largest percentage of Merchandizing revenues. Porto has the largest percentage of Tasting Fees and Food Services revenues. Mainz­ Rheinhessen has the largest percentage of commodation/Lodging revenues and Christchurch and Cape Town have the largest percentage revenues tied to Hosting Events. Winesales Merchandising FoodTastingFees Accommodation Hosting/rest Greater $25 each Less $15 each Food services Btwn $15 and $25 each Accommodation Hosting events Tasting fees Mixed wine Argentina Germany Spain France Italy NewZealand Portugal SouthAfrica Argentina Germany Spain France Italy New Zealand Portugal South Africa 59 % 48 % 74 % 79 % 56 % 75 % 70 % 13 % 25 % 35 % 22 % 1 % 7 % 9 % 13 % 8 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 8 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 9 % 7 % 23 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 2 % 10 % 9 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 4 % 15 % 12 % 26 % 16 % 7 % 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% 90% Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley
  • 4. Improving Services is the top investment category for the 2012­2013 period in Mendoza, Bilbao­Rioja and Porto. Investments in Market Positioning are at the top stated investments in Mainz­Rheinhessen and Christchurch. Investments in Infrastructure are also critical in Bordeaux, Florence, Christchurch, Porto and Cape Town, even though they represent less than 40% of respondents in Bordeaux. Investments in Wine Tourism Wine Tourism Investments and Marketing Just like in the 2012 survey, we again find that the top marketing tool used across the sample is a winery’s Own Website. Relying on Tourism Office comes again in second position, but this is because Bordeaux wineries (45% of the sample) tend to overwhelmingly answer that the tourism office is one of the top marketing tool they use. Citations by Guides comes in third position, closely followed by Social Network and Mailing/Newsletters. Doing an inter­capital comparison, we find that South­Africa gives the highest rate of stated responses for promoting Sustainability and Authentic Experience, making good use of the Region's Fame, Citations by Guides and Specialized Media. Mendoza distinguishes itself by the highest response rate for using Travel Agencies, Tourism Offices, Tourism Exhibits, Brochures and Referrals. Mainz­Rheinhessen has the highest response rate for using wineries' Own Website, organizing Tasting Events and Cultural Festivals, as well as relying on Traditional Ads and the region's controlled Appellation. Porto is highest in the categories of Tour Operators and Social Networks. Finally Bilbao­Rioja gives the highest response rate for interfacing their wineries' online content with Other Websites and making extensive use of Mobile Apps. Top Marketing Tools Used 28%Mentionedotherwebsites Borchures SocialNetworks Spclzedmedia TourOp. Appelation Tourismxhib TravelAgencies 32% 60% 8% 44% 50% 13% 15% 39% 11% 55% 15%Sustainable Citations Referrals AuthenticExperience Mailing/Newsletter CulturalFestivals Winefairs WineContests Regionfame Usemobileapps 42% 11% 33% 9% 26% 30% 19% 76% 19% 42% Ownwebsite TourismOff TraditionalAd TastingEvents Infrastructure Imp services Market positioning Training emp Strategic partn. CulturalEntert. None Argentina Germany Spain France Italy New Zealand Portugal South Africa 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 70% 80% South Africa Portugal New Zealand Italy France Spain Germany Argentina Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley
  • 5. We observe that Cape Town clearly surpasses other capitals in terms of Numbers of Visitors per winery. Mendoza and Porto are respectively second and third. On the other hand, in terms of Spending per Visitor, Florence, Bordeaux and Mainz­Rheinhessen dominate with over 60 euros per visitor in Florence. On the face of it, a simple explanation is a difference of business strategy between old­world vs. new­world wineries. New­world wineries are more focused on attracting a high volume of visitors whereas old­world wineries are more focused on pricing products and services for a narrower segment of the demand. We observe a great disparity in the demographic composition of the wineries' visitors in terms of national origin, age and sex. Striking are the fact that for example the large majority of visitors in Florence appear to be foreigners whereas they are mostly nationals in Mainz­ Rheinhessen. Except for the case of Cape Town, where local visitors make up about 43% of the total onsite visits, there seems to be room for stimulating local wine tourism in the other capi­ tals. In terms of age groups, countries like Cape Town, Mendoza and Florence appear to attract a younger clientele. Furthermore, when examining only the less­than­35­years­old group we observe that Cape Town and Christchurch are particularly positioned to attract these young visitors. With respect to female vs. male attendance, we find that on average about 45% of visitors are females across the board. Christchurch, Mendoza and Mainz­Rheinhessen, are the top attractors of female visitors. Tourists Characteristics Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley
  • 6. First, we isolate the candidate factors that explain or at least correlate with more tourist visits. The Table below shows the most impactful factors for the overall sample. The variable we try to explain here is the Number of Tourists visiting a given winery. The factors highly correlated with increased number of tourists are shown in the left hand side column. Only three categories seem to impact the ability to attract more tourists. In the category Activities Offered, Gastronomy is the most impactful activity. For the category Promotional Tools, and even though the Cape Town sample is small and may be pulling the results, the promotion of Authentic Experience has the most impactful effect. Having a winery's Own Website is a close second. In terms of External Factors, Membership­to­a­Business­Association is negatively correlated with attracting more tourists. There is not necessarily direct causation here. The Location factor and the presence of Local Facilities in addition with partnerships with Tour Operators, all have a positive impact. Factors Correlated with Attracting More Tourists Most Significant and Impactful Factors Gastronomy 18 % 187 Activities Offered+ + Authentic Experience + + Own Website + Wine Tasting Events ­ Tourism Information Office + Membership to Bus. Asso ­­ Local Facilities + + Location + Tour Operators + Effect Factor Categories Table shows results from Quantile Regressions. Corrected for size effect and using capitals dummy variables. Pseudo B and Observations 2 19 % 186 19 % 159 Promotional Tools External FactorsTable Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley
  • 7. The factors correlated with higher spending per tourist are now analyzed. Amongst the category of Investments in Wine Tourism, Market Positioning has the strongest positive impact. Investments in Infrastructure and Improved Services also have a positive impact. However, Strategic Partnerships have a negative impact. Within the dimension of Activities Offered, Spa Therapy is also correlated with higher spending, which is not very surprising as it is more of a luxury good. On the other hand, Tasting Visits are negatively correlated with spending. In the category of Promotional Tools, having a winery's Own Website is highly correlated with higher visitor's spending. By contrast, it is worth noting that while Wine Tasting Events were also negatively correlated with attracting more tourists, they nevertheless attract more spending. Tourism Information Offices are perceived as correlated with less spending, whereas they also tend to bring more tourists onsite (from the previous results). In terms of External Factors, Marketing by Tourism Office is also perceived as generating less spending per visitor. On the other hand, a positive impact is perceived with respect to Location and Membership to a Tourism Association. Membership to the GWC is also perceived as a positive factor. Factors Correlated with Higher Spending/Tourist Table shows results from Quantile Regressions. Corrected for size effect and using capitals dummy variables Most Significant and Impactful Factors Spa Therapy + + Tasting Visits ­­ Museum Exhibition Onsite shops ­ ­ Own Website + + Newsletter + + Wine Tasting Events/Fairs + Tourism Information Office ­ Location + + Tourism Association + GWC Membership + Marketing by Tourism Office ­­ Effect Factor CategoriesPseudo B and Observations 2 Activities Offered Promotional Tools External Factors 8 % 184 10 % 194 11 % 194 15 % 163 Investments in Wine tourism Market Positioning + + Strategic Partnerships ­­ Improved Services + Infrastructure + Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley Copyright GWCGN. No part of the content of this document is to be reproduced in any media without the expressed consent of GWCGN ­ For any further information: gwc@greatwinecapitals.com
  • 8. The 2013 edition of the GWC survey has produced some interesting and contrasting results for the various great capitals of the GWCGN. In terms of general activities associated with wine tourism, Gastronomy/Lodging/Wine Festivals and Cross Sel­ ling of Regional Produces appear to dominate in 2013. Wine sales revenues are no less than 50% of WT total revenues. Food revenues and tasting fees are very important for Porto; Accommodation revenues are crucial for Mainz­Rheinhessen and Merchandizing for Mendoza. Christchurch and Cape Town have the largest percentage revenues tied to Hosting Events. On average the top source of profits is the sale of wine (priced at around $15 or less) as well as mid­priced wine (between $15 and $35). Food services and Hosting Events are very important sources of profits for Porto and Cape Town. Lodging is very important for Mainz­Rheinhessen and Florence. In terms of attracting more tourists Gastro­ nomy seems to be a key activity, with wine­ ries having their Own Website as well. While wineries organizing special Tasting Events appear to bring in less visitors, they bring in more spending. Location and partnerships with Tour Operators appear to make a signifi­ cant positive impact. In terms of attracting more spending per tourist, investments in Market Positioning/ Improved Services and Infrastructure are all important factors. Special activities like Spa Therapy are pluses. Personalization via Own Website and Newsletters are key. The role of Tourism Offices is interesting as they appear to be generating more visitors but less spending per tourist. This pattern may merit further investigation, to at least determine whether this is an issue that is found in other capitals, and is not purely driven by the Bordeaux sample. Managerial Implications and Conclusion Copyright GWCGN. No part of the content of this document is to be reproduced in any media without the expressed consent of GWCGN ­ For any further information: gwc@greatwinecapitals.com Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

×