See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271638855

Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search

Article in Wine Economics and Policy · December 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002

CITATIONS READS

97 1,407

2 authors:

Thomas Atkin Elizabeth Thach

Sonoma State University Sonoma State University
13 PUBLICATIONS 658 CITATIONS 54 PUBLICATIONS 1,638 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Luxury Wine Marketing View project

Conjunctive Labeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Atkin on 10 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

www.elsevier.com/locate/wep

Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search$

Thomas Atkin1, Liz Thachn
School of Business & Economics, Sonoma State University, 1801 E. Cotati Blvd., Rohnert Park, CA 94928, USA
Received 1 June 2012; received in revised form 14 August 2012; accepted 27 August 2012

Abstract

Marketing managers in the US have long been concerned with how to reach young consumers most effectively and how to present
important information. This research demonstrates how the information search and risk reduction strategies of Millennials differ from
older consumers. Findings from a survey sample of 409 US consumers suggest that if unsure about making a wine selection, Millennials
are more apt to seek information from friend/family and shelf talkers than elders. Elders were more willing to ask questions of store
personnel and wine stewards. While brand is very important to both groups, Millennials rely less on geographical cues such as region of
origin to determine wine quality and pay more attention to medals won, label imagery, and alcohol content. The differences in the
importance of and usage of these various information sources are helpful for wineries to prioritize their marketing appeals to the
Millennial segment.
& 2012 UniCeSV, University of Florence. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Information search; Risk perception; Millennials; Wine label; Consumer behavior

1. Introduction Fortunately, providing product information, such as help-

ful labels, shelf-talkers, friendly retailers and recommenda-
As the global wine industry grows more competitive, tions from others can ease this insecurity, and increase the
marketers continually strive to differentiate their brands to likelihood of purchase (Gluckman, 1990).
consumers in ways that are critical to success. Consumer In the US, one of the fastest growing wine consumer
perceptions of a wine’s quality are important factors in the segments is the Millennial generation (Wine Market
decision process, but with thousands of wines to choose Council, 2009). Much research has been conducted on
from, it is difficult for the consumer select one wine over the types of wine they like to drink, as well as their
another. motivations for drinking wine, yet very little research has
For many consumers the act of purchasing wine is focused on the issues of risk perception and information
clouded with insecurity. There is concern they will select search within this important consumer segment. Therefore,
the wrong bottle which could result in negative social the purpose of this research study was to examine
perceptions. Because of this researchers have found that Millennial use of product information to reduce risk of a
risk perception is an important driver of wine purchase bad purchase decision in comparison to older wine con-
behavior (Lockshin et al., 2006; Mueller et al., 2008). sumers. The findings are useful in that they provide new
insights for Millennial wine marketing strategies.
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 1 707 664 4212.
E-mail addresses: tom.atkin@sonoma.edua (T. Atkin), 2. Review of the literature
lizthach@aol.com, liz.thach@sonoma.edu (L. Thach).
1
Tel.: þ1 707 664 3333.
Wine has a high proportion of characteristics that can
Peer review under responsibility of UniCeSV, University of Florence.
only be assessed during consumption, so the ability of the
consumer to gauge quality prior to purchase is very low.
They have to rely upon intrinsic and extrinsic cues to aid in
the evaluation. Intrinsic cues for wine buyers include grape

2212-9774 & 2012 UniCeSV, University of Florence. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
2 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

variety, alcohol content and wine style—things that relate decision by using a variety of coping mechanisms. These
to the product itself. Consumers cannot always evaluate include:
the relevant intrinsic attributes at the point of purchase
because the quality-related characteristics, such as taste  selecting wine brands that represent consistent quality
and aroma, are not available at that time. The consumer is and are included in the range of ‘‘safe brands’’ estab-
then forced to rely upon extrinsic attributes such as brand lished in the mind of the wine consumer;
name or package as surrogates (Jacoby and Olson, 1985;  selecting wines based on the recommendations of
Zeithaml, 1988). friends and colleagues;
The extrinsic cues are features that the winery can adapt  following the advice of sales associates;
to particular market segments without actually changing  using their own knowledge gained through wine
the product. For example, according to Lockshin and education;
Rhodus (1993), the average wine consumer is likely to rely  price (as an indicator of quality); and
upon extrinsic cues such as price or region of origin when  packaging and labeling as an indicator of quality.
making quality assessments. Later research found that they
also consider elements such as label, brand and shelf
position (Lockshin et al., 2006; Lockshin and Spawton, On the other side of the equation are the social benefits
2001). These cues are used as shortcuts or decision of selecting a wine which is admired by others. Indeed, one
heuristics to inform their choice. Consumers are also able of the four value dimensions established by Sweeney and
to develop trust with brands and regions whose track Soutar (2001) in their assessment of brand benefits (per-
records have pleased them before (Bruwer and Wood, ceived value) was social benefit. They defined social value
2005). (enhancement of social self-concept) as the utility derived
In a similar vein, Hall et al. (2004) found extrinsic cues from the product’s ability to enhance social self-concept.
used to evaluate quality to include price, the consumer’s Consumers assess the products beyond just the functional
distribution outlet, region of production, recommenda- terms of expected performance and value for money.
tions of friends, advice of salespersons, label and packa- Consumers also assess products in terms of the social
ging, and brand name (Hall et al., 2004). If the brand is not consequences of what the product communicates to others
well known, the consumer will assess quality by using in terms of social value (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001).
other cues such as country of origin (Perrouty et al., 2006). Orth (2005) found that with increasing age, consumers
seek less social benefit and more health benefit. He showed
2.1. Risk perception and social benefits that younger individuals who are more involved and more
susceptible to the opinions of others desire greater social
Wine is generally regarded to be a complicated product benefits (Orth, 2005). In addition, another study (Barber
from the viewpoint of the consumer. It involves both risks et al., 2006) found that younger consumers, 21 through
and social benefits. The risk may be selecting the wrong 40 years old, were more intimidated and had a higher
wine, and the benefits revolve around choosing a wine that ‘‘respondent concern about choosing wine’’ than consu-
others admire. Therefore consumers generally employ risk mers over 60.
reduction strategies. Reviewing the label cues like those
mentioned above for pertinent information is one way for 2.2. Information search
wine consumers to reduce the risk of buying an unsatis-
factory wine. Risk perception is one of the wine-related The steps that consumers go through to learn about
personal traits found to be an important driver of wine wines before making a selection are considered informa-
purchase behavior (Lockshin et al., 2006; Mueller et al., tion search (Olsen and Thach, 2001). One of the ways that
2008). According to one study (Teagle et al., 2010), Mitchell and Greatorex (1989) described to reduce risk
Millennials were found to be less risk averse than older when purchasing wine is information seeking. Hall et al.
wine consumers. (2004) found that younger consumers (under 35 years old)
Because of the inability to test the contents of the bottle place more importance on information gathering and risk
before purchasing, there is an element in the decision reduction. Specifically, they rely more upon advice
process that involves a risk-perception strategy (Spawton, from salespersons, advice from waiters, and samples and
1991; Mitchell and Greatorex, 1989; Gluckman, 1990). in-house displays than older consumers (Hall et al., 2004).
It has been asserted by Mitchell and Greatorex (1989) that If a consumer’s low self-confidence is specific to wine, as
purchasing wine mostly involves functional risks such as opposed to being a personality trait, they will pursue more
social risks, financial risks and physical risks. Social risks information seeking in order to reduce risk (Olsen et al.,
would involve trying to avoid being embarrassed in front 2003).
of business associates and friends. Consumers often employ information appearing on the
Spawton (1991) identified six risk-related consumer label of the product to make inferences about the quality
strategies to evaluate quality. He asserted that consumers of the product (Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). There are
strive to reduce the likelihood of making a bad purchase many different cues on the wine package that may

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3

influence the consumer’s evaluation. These include region, has shown that wine consumers who are young and less
appellation, and country of origin as well as vintage, grape experienced rely heavily on descriptions from labels,
variety, medals won, and alcohol content. Recent studies journalists, wine writers, and retail sales associates
have found that origin of wine is often perceived as an (Chaney, 2000). In addition, another study (Perrouty
indicator of quality and may be used as the basis of et al., 2006) reports that novices give extra attention to
decision making when purchasing wine (Duhan et al., wine origin cues, but their interest shifts to brand and price
1999). as their knowledge increases. The price of a bottle of wine
Place of origin is an attribute that can help persuade a also acts as an indicator of quality for many wine
consumer to buy a particular wine. Consumers often consumers (Quester and Smart, 1998). Thomas and
employ information about the place of origin of a product Pickering (2003) determined that price was one of the
to make inferences about the quality of the product most important informational items consumers use to
(Verlegh and Steenkamp, 1999). The origin information assess wines before buying.
helps consumers to reduce perceived risk and assess the
social acceptability of their choices (Papadopoulos and 2.4. Characteristics of the millennial generation
Heslop, 2002). Jarvis and Rungie (2002) used a choice-
based experiment to reveal consumer utility values. The In the US, the Millennial generation (also referred to as
category ‘‘well known region’’ had the highest stated Gen Yers, Nexters, and Echo Boomers) has received much
choice utility among all respondents. Those findings were attention from marketing research firms in the past decade.
in agreement with research performed by Tustin and A very large generation, most experts agree they were born
Lockshin (2001). between the years of 1977 and 2000, though these dates
Recent research by Hussein et al. (2007) found that wine vary by source ranging from starting as late as 1983 and
consumption was positively related to age and income. ending in 2004 (Gillespie, 2010; Tapscott, 2008; Junco and
They suggest that US wineries consider such demographics Mastrodicasa, 2007; Howe and Strauss, 2000), resulting in
in their marketing plans. Hall et al. (2004) demonstrated 70–76 million people. Regardless of the exact beginning
that the importance of region was different for different and ending birth dates, marketing experts consider the
age group segments. The youngest group (18–25 years old) Millennials to be important to consumer product firms
relied significantly less on the region of origin of the wine because they are the largest consumer group in the history
(Hall et al., 2004). of the US with average annual incomes totaling $211
Not enough is yet known about the impact of region of billion (Kleber, 2009). Many have been given parent co-
origin on wine consumer purchasing decisions and how the signed credit cards at a young age, and are very involved in
impact varies across different consumer market segments family shopping (Neuborne, 1999).
(Johnson and Bruwer, 2007; Bruwer and House, 2003; As children of the Baby Boomer Generation, Millennials
Lockshin, 2003). Recently, researchers concluded that have developed specific traits and values that set them
there is not a statistically significant difference in the apart from previous generations. The most recognized is
influence of a wine’s region of origin between consumers their technology savvy and use of technology in almost
aged 18–34 and those over 35 years old (McCutcheon every aspect of their lives. They spend an average of 33
et al., 2009). hours per week on the Internet (Junco and Mastrodicasa,
Perrouty et al. (2006) assert that novices utilize wine 2007); 83% use online social networking sites (Zickuhr,
origin cues, like the winery name, but they shift their 2010); and more than 54% of Millennials have a smart
attention to cues like brand and price as they gain more phone (Borstin, 2011). Millennials grew up with the
knowledge. Young, less experienced consumers, however, Internet and integrate it seamlessly into their lives.
tend to rely more heavily on descriptions from labels and Other values include innovation, freedom, fun, and
other sources (Chaney, 2000). We would expect that collaboration (Tapscott, 2008). They also have a high level
consumers with different ages will utilize different informa- of integrity, and seek it out in the companies for which
tion in their evaluation of wine quality. they work. They are knowledgeable about brands and
Thomas and Pickering (2003) found that among new value quality products, but are concerned about fair
wine drinkers, alcohol level was seen as the most important pricing and environmental practices of consumer products
information appearing on the wine label. They surmised companies (Moriarty, 2004; KeyFindings, 2004). In addi-
that those findings could be a reflection of the perceived tion, they are very open to diversity with one out of every
risk and lower confidence levels of that group (Thomas three US Millennials identified as non-Caucasian
and Pickering, 2003). (KeyFindings, 2004). Finally, Millennials are optimistic
and believe they can accomplish whatever they set out
2.3. Other factors—wine knowledge and price to do (Howe and Strauss, 2000).
In terms of wine consumption, in the US, the Millennial
Other factors that need to be considered when examin- generation has been credited as being one of the driving
ing risk perception and information search are wine forces for increasing wine consumption from 25% in 2000
knowledge and price. In terms of wine knowledge, research to 34% in 2010 (Gillespie, 2010). However, this does not

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
4 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

hold true in other countries where Millennial behavior statement. A ‘‘1’’ indicated ‘‘strongly disagree’’ and a ‘‘7’’
towards wine is often the opposite. In both France and indicated ‘‘strongly agree.’’
Italy, Millennials are consuming less wine, and overall To measure the social benefit (enhancement of self-
consumption has dropped in those countries (Charters concept) derived from the purchase of wine, a construct
et al., 2011; Thach and d’Hauteville, 2008). adopted from Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and Orth et al.
Previous research has identified several reasons why (2004) was developed. It consisted of four statements rated
Millennials are adopting wine in the US in such large on a 7 point scale anchored by ‘‘1’’ strongly agree and ‘‘7’’
numbers, and some of these reasons can be linked to their strongly disagree. An example of a statement is: ‘‘The
values of collaboration, diversity, and fun. Millennials wines I usually purchase make a good impression on other
report that they enjoy the taste of wine; believe it goes people.’’
well with food; it helps them relax, and it is a good social The wine knowledge profile was a replication of the
drink to have with friends and family (Thach, 2005; Olsen profile used by Johnson and Bruwer (2007). Respondents
et al., 2007; Thach and Olsen, 2006). Their interest in were asked to describe themselves as (1) new to wine, (2)
technology explains why many seek out wine groups on know a little about wine, (3) somewhat knowledgeable
Facebook and other social networking sites (Thach, 2009). about wine, (4) very knowledgeable about wine, or (5)
Even though US Millennials report that red wine is their expert.
preferred varietal (Olsen et al., 2007), they also enjoy To measure information search, the question posed was
trying new wines from different countries (Gillespie, 2010; ‘‘When I am unsure about making a wine selection I
Nielson, 2007) which indicates a link to their value of consulty’’ Then a list of seven choices was provided:
innovation. Store Personnel, Newspaper, Wine Steward, Bottle Label,
Overall, according to the Wine Market Council (2009), Wine Magazine, Friends/Family or Shelf Talker. Respon-
Millennial are responsible for a 35% growth in wine dents were asked to select all of the choices they use for
consumption in the US. Yet, despite these impressive wine information search.
numbers, there is very little research on the types of An additional construct was also used to measure
information Millennials use to select wine or the perceived information search. This asked ‘‘Which of the following
risk when doing so. information do you evaluate on a wine label to gauge the
quality inside the bottle? Check all that apply.’’ This
question was followed with ten choices including State,
3. Materials and methods
Vintage, Region, Brand Name, Alcohol Content, Appella-
tion, Organic, Label Imagery, Country of Origin and
3.1. Research questions
Medals Won.
The survey was beta-tested and revisions were made. It
Based on the preceding discussion of wine buying
was then administered online using Survey Monkey with
behavior, we developed a set of research questions to
the support of Survey Sampling International (2009)—a
ascertain age related differences in the wine purchasing
professional survey firm which has a database of more
situation. Specifically, Millennials’ characteristics and their
than 6 million participants in over 50 countries.
behaviors when evaluating wine differ from those of elders
regarding 5 key attributes.
3.3. Sample
Research Questions: Do Millennials’ wine information
usages differ from their elders regarding: (1) Perceived risk,
The sample for this study consisted of 409 respondents
(2) Social benefit, (3) Wine Knowledge, (4) Price, and
who were recruited by Survey Sampling International. It
(5) Information search strategies?
invited only those who consume wine at least occasionally
to respond, so should not be taken as a general population
3.2. Survey development sample. It was a geographically diverse group of US
respondents from 46 states as shown in Table 1 below. It
An online survey was developed based on the review of compares fairly closely to the state consumption shares
the literature. A series of basic demographic questions was presented in earlier research (Cholette, 2004; Atkin and
included, as well as wine consumption frequency, preferred Johnson, 2010). This enabled researchers to collect a
wine type, and pricing. Special constructs were developed representative group of study participants on the basis of
to measure risk perception, social benefits, wine knowl- gender, age, consumption habits, and geographical loca-
edge, and information search. tion. The survey was available on Survey Monkey between
For risk perception, the construct measurement was October 22 and October 28, 2008. Data analysis required
based upon an existing scale (Lockshin et al., 1997) downloading the results in Excel and then inputting the
consisting of four statements. An example is: ‘‘There are data into SPSS.
times when an improper buy of wine could bring me grief.’’ The study sample of 409 respondents represents US wine
The survey participant could respond by indicating on a 7 consumers (based upon consuming at least one bottle of
point scale the degree to which they agreed with each wine in the previous year). As shown below, the

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

Table 1 Table 2
Sample demographics. Significant differences between Millennials and Elders in risk perception,
social benefit, wine knowledge and price paid.
Response (%) 2008 US Census (%)
Construct Millennial Elder Significance
Gender
Male 47.3 49.3 Mean SD Mean SD Sig
Female 52.8 50.7
Risk perception 3.78 1.78 3.12 1.35 0.003*
Age group Social benefit 3.88 1.52 3.47 1.49 0.055
21–29 14.3 19.3 Wine knowledge 2.19 0.805 2.45 0.844 0.029*
Elders 85.7 80.7 Price paid 1.82 0.594 2.00 0.681 0.038*
30–39 18.8 18.2
40–49 26.0 20.0 *po0.05.
50–59 16.6 18.1
60 and over 24.3 24.4
information search undertaken by respondents. The data
Consumption frequency
was split into two groups based on age. Respondents from
Core 64.9
Marginal 35.1 21 to 29 were in the Millennial group and those over 30
years old were in the ‘‘Elders’’ group. An independent
Origin state
sample T-test of the means was then performed on key
California 16.5
Florida 9.8 variables to determine if there was indeed a difference in
New York 8.8 outcomes between Millennial and Elders.
Pennsylvania 6.3
Texas 5.0
Colorado 4.0 4.1. Risk perception, social benefits, wine knowledge and
Illinois 4.0 pricing
Ohio 4.0
New Jersey 3.8 The results for risk perception, social benefits, wine knowl-
Virginia 3.8
edge and pricing illustrate significant difference between
Washington 3.8
Michigan 3.5 Millennials and Elders in 3 of the 4 constructions as illustrated
North Carolina 2.8 in Table 2. The risk perception for Millennials was signifi-
Arizona 2.5 cantly greater than the risk perception for elders (Mean—-
Massachusetts 2.3 Millennials¼ 3.78, SD¼ 1.78; Mean—elders¼ 3.12. SD¼ 1.35;
Georgia 2.2
p¼ 0.003). This indicates that Millennials are much more
Idaho 2.2
33 other states, each less than 2% concerned with making a mistake in wine choice compared to
older wine consumers.
The social benefit for Millennials was greater than the social
composition of the sample is fairly close to United States
benefit for elders, although not statistically significant
Census Data from 2008 (US Census Bureau, 2008). The
(Mean—Millennials¼ 3.88, SD¼ 1.52; Mean—elders¼ 3.47.
total sample included 47.3% men and 53.8% women. They
SD¼ 1.49; p¼ 0.055). This indicates that both Millennials
came from 46 US states, with 64.9% drinking wine once a
and Elders are equally concerned about the impact of their
week, and 35.1% drinking less frequently. Preferred wine
wine choice on others in a social setting.
style was 50% red wine, 34/1% white wine, 13% rose wine,
Self-reported wine knowledge was another area where the
2.9% sparkling, and 0% fortified wine. Most importantly,
groups differed. The knowledge profile reported by Millen-
the range of ages included 14.4% of respondents between
nials was significantly lower that the knowledge profile
ages of 21 and 30 (58 respondents). These can be
reported by elders (Mean—Millennials¼ 2.19, SD¼ 0.805;
considered Millennials, because in 2008 they would have
Mean—elders¼ 2.45, SD¼ 0.844; p¼ 0.029). In their research
been born between the years of 1978 and 1987 which
on the effects of expertise on wine choice, researchers have
matches several expert definitions (Gillespie, 2010;
shown perceived expertise to be a better predictor of the types
Tapscott, 2008; Junco and Mastrodicasa, 2007). There
of cues consumers utilize to choose a wine than objective
were 346 respondents 30 years and over, the elders, who
expertise (Aurier and Ngabo, 1999).
constituted 85.7% of the sample. The age characteristics of
Our analysis did show a significant difference in the price
the sample are roughly comparable to the age distribution
that each group generally paid for a bottle of wine. They were
according to the US Census Bureau (2008), as shown in
asked ‘‘How much do you usually spend on a bottle of wine
Table 1.
for home usage?’’(1) less than $9.99, (2) $10.00–$19.99, (3)
$20.00–$29.99 , or (4) over $30.00. The Millennials usually
4. Results spend less than elders (Mean—Millennials¼ 1.82, SD¼ 0.594;
Mean—elders¼ 2.00, SD¼ 0.681; p¼ 0.038). This is most
The survey delved into the coping mechanisms used in likely because Millennials have less disposable income due
conditions of uncertainty and the nature and extent of to their young age.

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
6 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

4.2. Information search Table 4

Importance of wine label information for
Millennials and Elders.
The next area of research concerned the information
search habits of Millennials and Elders as they cope with Information 21–29 Elders
the risk perceived in the wine choice decision. Table 3 and
Fig. 1 illustrate where Millennials and Elders turn for Brand name 77.2 76.9
Vintage 47.4 52
information in making a wine choice. The results show
Country of origin 47.4 57
that Millennials showed a demonstrably greater preference Region 45.6 56.4
for gathering information from friends/family and from Alcohol content 40.4 19.9
reading shelf talkers than elders, whereas elders relied Label imagery 40.4 21.9
more on store personnel, wine stewards, and the bottle Medals won 40.4 20.8
State 36.8 46.5
label. The only source that both groups appeared to rely Appellation 21.1 19.3
on equally, though to a small extent, was wine magazines. Organic 14 7
Another aspect of information search was examined by
asking which information consumers use to gauge the
quality of the wine inside the bottle. The customer
typically is not able to sample the wine so he/she is faced
with assessing the wine using external cues such as the
information appearing on the label. Therefore respondents
were asked to identify ‘‘Which of the following informa-
tion do you evaluate on a wine label to gauge the quality
inside the bottle? Check all that apply.’’ The results are
illustrated in Table 4 and Fig. 2. Results of this analysis
show that brand was the most utilized piece of information
for both groups and each group used brand about equally
(77.2% for Millennials—76.9% for elders). However from
there, the picture changes with Millennials reporting they
utilize alcohol content, label imagery, and medals won to a
much greater degree than elders. Elders reported using
country of origin, vintage, region, and state to a greater
Fig. 2. Graph of importance of wine label information for Millennials
degree than Millennials. Appellation and organic were the
and Elders.

Table 3 least used types of information for both, with Millennials

Wine information sources for Millennials and using them more than elders.
Elders.

Source 21–29 Elders 5. Discussion

Store personnel 14.0 28.9
‘‘If we can understand how consumers choose wine, then
Newspaper 0.0 2.0
Wine steward 3.5 6.7 we have a much better framework to decide pricing,
Bottle label 17.5 22.8 packaging, distribution, advertising, and merchandising
Wine mag. 5.3 5.0 strategies’’ (Lockshin, 2003, p. 5).
Friends or family 36.8 18.7
Shelf talker 22.8 15.8
5.1. Implications of findings on wine risk perception

The major focus of this article is the impact of age on the

consumer’s perception of risk and information search in
the evaluation of wines. In terms of risk perception, there is
significant difference between Millennials and Elders, as
well as their reported wine knowledge and the amount of
money they are will to pay for a bottle of wine. These
results support the research literature, to some extent. For
example Barber et al. (2006), found that younger con-
sumers were more intimidated by wine than older con-
sumers, yet Teagle et al. (2010) reported that Millennials
were less risk adverse than their elders. Our findings are
Fig. 1. Graph of wine information sources for Millennials and Elders. more in line with Barber et al. (2006), and indicate that

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7

wine marketers need to take actions to help reduce they will continue to be an information resource for all
perceived risks in wine purchasing with Millennials. ages, though not to the level of other information sources.
Millennials also reported they have less wine knowledge When examining the wine label, specifically, as a source
and pay less for a bottle of wine than older consumers. The of information search, there is strong agreement between
fact that they are younger and generally make less money US Millennials and Elders that brand is the leading criteria
than consumers in their thirties and older most likely for evaluating the quality of wine. This is supported by
contributes to both of these findings. As Millennials gain other studies showing that wine brand is important in wine
more knowledge about wine, they may become more purchase decisions (Lockshin et al., 2006; Lockshin and
confident in their choices. Likewise as their disposable Spawton, 2001; Perrouty et al., 2006). This is understand-
income grows with age and experience, it is expected that able, because research shows that consumers are able to
some of them will pay more for a bottle of wine. develop trust with brands whose track records have
Interestingly the results show that both Millennials and pleased them before (Bruwer and Wood, 2005), and are
their Elders view the social benefits of wine in almost equal more likely to shop for them when making a purchase
levels. This suggests that consumers of all ages are decision.
concerned with the impact of their wine choice on others Differences in the utilization of information became
in a social setting. It is possible than when selecting a wine notable as we looked at how Millennials supplement the
to drink at home in a family setting, that the stress of brand information. Here alcohol content, label imagery,
selecting the ‘‘right wine,’’ is diminished. Our findings and medals won are much more important to Millennials
show Millennials have a slightly higher concern for social than Elders. This supports the findings of Thomas and
benefits than elders (though not significant). This supports Pickering (2003) where they found that alcohol level was
a study conducted by Orth (2005) showing younger seen as very important information for young wine
individuals are more susceptible to the opinions of others drinkers, and could be a reflection of the perceived risk
and desire greater social benefits than older consumers. and lower confidence levels of that group. It could also be
an indication of the purpose for which the Millennials are
buying the wine—perhaps they want more alcohol for
5.2. Implications of findings on wine information search certain settings and less alcohol for others. This study also
highlights the importance of attractive imagery on the label
Providing product information, such as helpful labels, and promotion of medals for Millennials. Striking and
shelf-talkers, friendly retailers and recommendations from colorful labels have also been identified in a recent study as
others can ease fears and increase the likelihood of important to Millennials (Henley et al., 2011). Perhaps in
purchase (Gluckman, 1990). Our findings support this response to this, more wineries in the US are exhibiting
statement, but highlight key differences in sources of medals on the front label, and are also incorporating
information used by Millennials and Elders. Results show vibrant and innovative labels and packaging.
that Millennials prefer to gather information from friends/ Elders, on the other hand, reported using country of
family and from reading shelf talkers to a greater extent origin, vintage, region, and state as more important on the
than elders. This is consistent with US Millennials values label more so than Millennials. This finding is consistent
of collaboration (Tapscott, 2008), and social networking with other studies illustrating that region of origin is an
via the Internet (Zickuhr, 2010). In many cases while important extrinsic cue and indicator of quality for many
shopping, Millennials will use smart phones to consult wine consumers (Lockshin and Rhodus, 1993; Duhan
with friends on purchases as well as look up product et al., 1999; Papadopoulos and Heslop, 2002; Jarvis and
information – similar to online shelf-talkers – to assist in Rungie, 2002), but that it is less important to younger wine
purchase choice. Our findings are not consistent with consumers (Hall et al., 2004).
previous research showing that younger wine consumers Finally, appellation and organic designations on the
rely heavily on retail sales associates, wine writers, and label were the least used types of information for both
labels (Chaney, 2000). However, they do support studies groups. However, Millennials reported they use these more
listing recommendation of friends as a coping mechanism than elders. This could be because of their values of
(Spawton, 1991; Hall et al., 2004). diversity (KeyFindings, 2004) and openness to purchasing
Elders, on the other hand, relied more on store person- products from many regions around the world, as well as
nel, wine stewards, and the bottle label. This is more their concern for the environment (Moriarty, 2004).
consistent with previous studies (Hall et al., 2004; Chaney,
2000), and suggests that the advent of portable technology
may be changing the way US Millennials shop for wine to 5.3. Managerial implications
a greater degree than previously considered. The only
source that both groups appeared to rely on equally, In order to use marketing resources more strategically,
though to a small extent, was wine magazines. Since many the wine industry may benefit from promoting a different
of these are increasingly found online and can be accessed set of characteristics when trying to reach Millennials. The
through smart phones while shopping, it is feasible that results presented here are important because wineries need

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
8 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

to know how to make wine more accessible to the techniques compared to older consumer segments. This
Millennials by reducing purchase risks. could be accomplished with in-depth interviews or focus
In terms of information sources, wine marketers may groups. In addition, it may be fruitful to perform this
want to pay more attention to how they can have their survey on international samples to ascertain differences in
wine recommended to Millennials by friends and families. attitudes and preferences of Millennials in other countries.
Tactics could include more wine events and tastings with Finally, it could be illustrative to compare difference
encouragement or incentives to spread the word. For groups of Millennials based on either state or country to
example, recommending a friend to join a wine club ascertain if there are differences in risk perception and
could result in a gift from the winery. In addition, more information search by geography.
strategic use of social networking sites and online media
to target Millennials regarding wine options could be 6.3. Final conclusion
useful. Friends can ‘‘like’’ a wine or ‘‘recommend’’ a
winery online, which could encourage wine purchases. Tailoring brands to markets requires answers to questions
Since shelf-talkers were also identified as important to concerning how segments differ in the benefits sought from a
Millennials, wine marketers should focus on making these brand (Orth et al., 2004). The results of this study can be
easy to read, attractive and accessible. They need to work useful for the wine industry in general as a means for
with retailers to make sure they are positioned in the right understanding how best to reduce risks and support wine
location on shelves. Likewise, they could create electronic information search for Millennials. It illuminates how age
shelf-talkers using barcodes or QR codes so that Millen- differences may affect the evaluation of wine quality in
nials could easily use their smart phones to look up deciding which wine to purchase. For wine marketers, the
information on the wine while shopping at a retail outlet results demonstrate the need for a targeted approach to their
or dining at a restaurant or wine bar. consumer segments. In order to reach younger customers, for
In terms of wine label information, this study demon- instance, attractive label imagery and medals should be
strates that featuring alcohol content, label imagery, and presented. Marketing efforts based upon place-of-origin
medals won may help to attract Millennials. Therefore may be best targeted at older consumers because they utilize
wine marketers will want to insure that this type of geographical cues to a greater extent Millennials.
information and design is included on wines targeted at
Millennials. In addition, they will want to work with
References
retailers to accommodate consumer information needs.
For instance, if high and low alcohol wines could be Atkin, T., Johnson, R., 2010. Appellation as an indicator of quality.
grouped together in order to make that pertinent informa- International Journal of Wine Business Research 22 (1), 42–61.
tion easier to find, it may assist with wine sales. Likewise, Aurier, P., Ngabo, P.V., 1999. Assessment of consumer knowledge and its
featuring gold medal winning wines in one location may consequences: a multi-company approach. Advances in Consumer
Research 26 (1), 569–575.
also spur sales.
Barber, N., Almanza, B., Donovan, J., 2006. Motivational factors of
Finally marketers may want to reinforce the attitude gender, income and age on selecting a bottle of wine. International
that there is no wrong wine choice. This would serve to Journal of Wine Marketing 18 (3), 218–232.
reduce intimidation and take advantage of the variety Borstin, J. 2011. TV Content, Advertising are King, Smartphones on the
seeking attitude of Millennials. Rise. CNBC. /http://www.cnbc.com/id/41372312/TV_Content_Ad
vertising_Are_King_Smartphones_On_the_RiseS (retrieved on
16.01.2012).
6. Conclusion Bruwer, J., House, M., 2003. Has the era of regional branding arrived for
the Australian wine industry? Some perspectives. The Australian and
6.1. Limitations New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker, 56–61.
Bruwer, J., Wood, G., 2005. The Australian online wine-buying con-
sumer: motivational and behavioral perspectives. Journal of Wine
Although this study provides several new insights, it is
Research 16 (3), 193–211.
not without its limitations. First, the study is focused on a Chaney, I., 2000. External search effort for wine. International Journal of
geographically diverse sample of wine consumers in the Wine Marketing 12 (3), 5–15.
USA. This is a useful sample for assessing wine decision- Charters, S., Thach, L., Fountain, J., Kolyesnikova, N., Ritchie, C.,
making habits but readers should recognize that it is not a Dodd, T., Fish, N., Herbst, F., Terblanche, N., 2011. Generation Y
totally random sample of the general population. It was and sparkling wines: a cross-cultural perspective. International Jour-
nal of Wine Business Research Journal 2 (2), 161–175.
obtained from a subset of wine consumers willing and able Cholette, S., 2004. A tale of two wine regions: similarities, differences, and
to take the survey on the internet. trends in the French and Californian wine industries. International
Journal of Wine Marketing 16 (2), 24–48.
6.2. Future research Duhan, D.F., Kiecker, P.L., Areni, C.S., Guerrero, C., 1999. Origin
information and retail sales of wine. International Journal of Wine
Marketing 11 (3), 44–58.
The results of this study indicate several future research Gillespie, J., 2010. Wine Market Council’s 2010 Consumer Tracking
possibilities, including a qualitative analysis of reasons Study. Presentation at Wine Market Council Seminar, Santa Rosa,
why Millennials use different information search CA, January 2010.

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
 T. Atkin, L. Thach / Wine Economics and Policy ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

Gluckman, R.L., 1990. A consumer approach to branded wines. European Nielson, 2007. US Millennials’ Alcoholic Beverage Attitudes and Usage
Journal of Marketing 24 (4), 27–46. Studied. /http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/us-millennial
Hall, J., Binney, W., O’Mahoney, G.B., 2004. Age related motivational s-alcoholic-beverage-attitudes-and-usage-studied-2537/S (retrieved on
segmentation of wine consumption in a hospitality setting. Interna- 01.07.2010).
tional Journal of Wine Marketing 16 (3), 29–43. Olsen, J., Thach, L., 2001. Consumer behavior regarding wine consump-
Henley, C., Fowler, D., Yuan, J., Stout, B., Goh, B., 2011. Label design: tion: a conceptual framework. Australian and New Zealand Wine
impact on millennials’ perceptions of wine. International Journal of Business Journal—Special Marketing Addition 16 (6), 123–129.
Wine Business Research 23 (1), 7–20. Olsen, J., Thach, L., Nowak, L., 2007. Wine for my generation: exploring
Howe, N., Strauss, W., 2000. Millennials Rising. Vintage Books, New York. how US wine consumers are socialized to wine. Journal of Wine
Hussein, M., Cholette, S., Castaldi, R., 2007. Determinants of wine Research 18 (1), 1–18.
consumption of US consumers: an econometric analysis. International Olsen, J., Thompson, K., Clarke, T.K., 2003. Consumers self-confidence in
Journal of Wine Business Research 19 (1), 49–62. wine purchases. International Journal of Wine Marketing 15 (3), 42–50.
Jacoby, J., Olson, J.C., 1985. Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Orth, U.R., 2005. Consumer personality and other factors in situational
Stores and Merchandise. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. brand choice variation. Brand Management 13 (2), 115–133.
Jarvis, W., Rungie, C., 2002. Loyalty towards a well known brand or a Orth, U.R., McDaniel, M., Shellhammer, T., Lopetcharat, K., 2004.
well known region? A conjoint approach using actual purchase data. Promoting brand benefits: the role of consumer psychographics and
In: Proceedings of the 27th World Congress of the International Office lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Marketing 21 (2), 97–108.
of Wine and Vine (OIV), Bratislava. Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L., 2002. Country equity and country
Johnson, R., Bruwer, J., 2007. Regional brand image and perceived wine branding: problems and prospects. Brand Management 9 (4/5),
quality: the consumer perspective. International Journal of Wine 294–314.
Business Research 19 (4), 276–297. Perrouty, J.P., d’Hauteville, F., Lockshin, L., 2006. The influence of wine
Junco, R., Mastrodicasa, J., 2007. Connecting to the Net.Generation: attributes on region of origin equity: an analysis of the moderating
What higher education professionals need to know about today’s effect of consumer’s perceived expertise. Agribusiness 22 (3), 323–341.
students. NASPA, Washington, DC. Quester, P., Smart, J., 1998. The influence of consumption situation and
Key Findings, 2004 November/December. Understanding the Millennials: product involvement over consumers’ use of product attribute.
Who They Are and How You Can Reach This Young, Affluent Journal of Consumer Marketing 15 (3), 220–238.
Market Segment. Key Findings Newsletter. Available at: /http:// Spawton, T., 1991. Wine and the marketing mix. European Journal of
www.keyfindings.com/healthcare/article2.htmS. Marketing 25 (3), 19–31.
Kleber, 2009. Millennial White Paper—The Newest Generation Drama- Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the develop-
tically Shifting the Consumer Landscape. /http://www.kleberandas ment of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing 77 (2), 203–220.
sociates.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KAMillennialsWhitePaper. Tapscott, D., 2008. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is
pdfS (retrieved on 16.01.2011). Changing Your World. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Lockshin, L., 2003. Consumer purchasing behavior for wine: what we Teagle, J., Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., 2010. How do Millennials wine
know and where we are going. Marches et Marketing du Vin, attitudes and behavior differ from older generations? Refereed
Bordeaux Ecole de Management n57-03, Aout. Paper—5th International Academy of Wine Business Research Con-
Lockshin, L., Rhodus, W., 1993. The effect of price and oak flavor on ference, Auckland, New Zealand. February 8–10, 2010.
perceived wine quality. International Journal of Wine Marketing 5 (2), Thach, L., d’Hauteville, F., May 2008. Why French Gen Ys Don’t Drink
13–25. Wine. Wine Business Monthly Online, May 5, 2008. /http://www.
Lockshin, L., Spawton, A.L., 2001. Using involvement and brand equity winebusiness.com/News/DailyNewsArticle.cfm?dataid=55252S
to develop a wine tourism strategy. International Journal of Wine (retrieved on 27.04.2010).
Marketing 13 (1), 72–81. Thach, L., Olsen, J., 2006. Market segment analysis to target young adult
Lockshin, L.S., Macintosh, G., Spawton, A., 1997. Using product, brand, wine drinkers. Agribusiness: An International Journal 22 (3), 307–322.
and purchasing involvement for retail segmentation. Journal of Thach, L., 2005. How to Market to Millennials. Wine Business Monthly,
Retailing and Consumer Services 4 (3), 171. December 15, 2005. /http://www.winebusiness.com/wbm/?go=getAr
Lockshin, L., Jarvis, W., d’Hauteville, F., Perrouty, J.P., 2006. Using ticle&dataId=41527S (retrieved on 16.01.2011).
simulations from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer Thach, L., June 2009. Tips to Market Wine to Millennials—An Emphasis
sensitivity to brand, region, price and awards. Food Quality and on Wine 2.0. Wine Business Monthly. Available at /http://www.
Preference 17 (3/4), 166–178. winebusiness.com/news/?go=getArticle&dataId=65623S.
McCutcheon, E., Bruwer, J., Li, E., 2009. Region of origin and its Thomas, A., Pickering, G., 2003. The importance of wine label informa-
importance among choice factors in the wine-buying decision making tion. International Journal of Wine Marketing 15 (2), 58–74.
of consumers. International Journal of Wine Business Research 21 (3), Tustin, M., Lockshin, L., 2001. Region of origin: does it really count?.
212–234. Australia and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 16, 139–143.
Mitchell, V., Greatorex, M., 1989. Risk reducing strategies used in the US Census Bureau 2008. /www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/popu
purchase of wine in the UK. European Journal of Marketing 23 (9), lation.htmlS (accessed 06.07.2012).
31–46. Verlegh, W., Steenkamp, J., 1999. A review and meta-analysis of country-
Moriarty, R., 2004. Marketers target savvy ‘‘Y’’ spenders: Hip imagery, of-origin research. Journal of Economic Psychology 20, 521–546.
sophisticated sales pitches, web sites are designed to appeal to youth. Wine Market Council, 2009. Wine Market Councils’ 2009 Consumer
The Post Standard February 8, 2004. Tracking Study. /www.winemarketcouncil.comS (retrieved on
Mueller, S., Francis, L., Lockshin, L., 2008. The relationship between 22.12.2010).
wine liking, subjective and objective wine knowledge: does it matter Zeithaml, V., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a
who is in your ‘consumer sample’? Paper Presented at the Academy of means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52
Wine Business Research (AWBR), Siena, Italy. 17–19 July. (July), 2–22.
Neuborne, E., 1999 February 15. Generation Y Today’s teens – the Zickuhr, K., 2010. Generations Online 2010 Report. Pew Internet
biggest bulge since the boomers – may force marketers to toss their old Research. /http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Generations-2010/
tricks. Business Week. Overview.aspxS (retrieved on 16.01.2012).

Please cite this article as: Atkin, T., Thach, L., Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Economics and Policy
(2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002
View publication stats