Table 12.1 Table of participating Rutherglen wineries listing distinguishing features
Chapter 12
Wine Connoisseurs or Curious Tourists? The Participants in Wine Festivals
Creating and staging wine festivals has become an important promotional component of winery visitation (National Wine Tourism Strategy, 1999), and it could be argued that festivals have the unique position of being able to combine sales promotion, consumer promotion and relationship marketing to achieve the promoter’s (the winery operator’ s) goals. According to Ivers (1999, p.36) ‘effective marketing is about spending less to achieve more’; this, he suggests, includes segmenting the target audience and isolating behaviour patterns. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) stress the importance of information gathering about customers and incorporating it in planning, while Snepenger, (1987) and Dodd and Bigotte (1997) propose that socio-demographic variables can be useful tools for identifying and segmenting a market, predicting behaviour and developing marketing strategies to target the groups of interest. In relation to the wine industry, Fry (1999, p.11) concurs stating that wine tourism providers need to ‘know their customers’, and Dodd (1995) offers, as an example of the effectiveness of this strategy, the fact that an individual’s income has been shown to be a mostly reliable predictor of wine consumption (Houghton, 2007 in press).
However, while undeniably a successful consciousness raising exercise, some winery operators view wine festivals with reservation; a condition that is magnified by the very large numbers who can attend these events. Hall and Macionis (1998, p.218) suggest that the ‘image of a large drunken party’ may not provide the required promotional image (e.g. quality) that the stakeholders seek while noting that the opportunity to build a relationship is also diminished. Wine festivals, while recognized as having a role in attracting a wide range of people to wineries (Rasterhoff in Collins, 1996), can overwhelm the individual wineries and they are therefore approached by some winery operators with ambivalence. This suggests that although wine festivals are successful mediums for attracting large numbers, their very popularity makes quality interaction difficult; organizers query whether ‘serious wine drinkers’ are kept away by the event, while others (perhaps new con umers) are attracted. This makes it important to understand the characteristics of wine festival attendees in order to ascertain who comes, the level of their interest in wine and the influence festival participation has on their ongoing involvement with the industry. This chapter will explore the characteristics of wine festival patrons and try to identify the ‘types’ of people who attend these events and if consequently wine festivals are an effective promotional tool for wineries.
Profiling Wine Festival Patrons
A marketing orientation means improving your understanding of your customers and their needs (Uncles, 2000) and, as Getz (1991) suggests, while there are commonalties of type in festival attendees in general, there are variations dependent upon the theme of the event. Many studies of wine festivals patrons have been conducted since the mid-1990s. Examples include Victorian Wineries Tourism Council (VWTC) 1996, 1998, Ritchie and Houghton (1997), Houghton (2001), Beeton and Pinge (2001), Weiler, Truong and Griffiths (2004), Yuan et al., (2005) and Taylor (2006).
One of these research projects involving over 1,000 participants was conducted in the Rutherglen winegrowing region of south eastern Australia (Table 12.1) (Houghton, 2001, 2005, 2007 in press). This region is well known for a variety of tourist attractions, including skiing, national parks, heritage attractions (notably the outlaw Ned Kelly and old gold mining sites), water sports, and food and wine production. Rutherglen is typical of many wine regions in Australia in that it consists of many small, independently owned wineries that cooperate to conduct annual wine events.
Table 12.1 Table of participating Rutherglen wineries listing distinguishing features
The development of the wine industry in Rutherglen is in many ways similar to other ‘New World’ wine regions. The town of Rutherglen, began life in the 1850s, as a gold rush town and within 3 months the town was considered a well established and settled community (Mortensen, 1990). At this time, Lindsay Brown of Gooramadda planted the district’s first vines. By 1862, the demand for his wine exceeded the supply of ‘Colonial’ wine which was sold at hotels for one shilling a tumbler. In 1863, he commenced a campaign to persuade gold miners that if they were unsuccessful in that industry they should turn to winegrowing – ‘they would only have to dig down a foot!’ (Mortensen, 1990). Within a few years, thousand of gallons of Rutherglen wine (both red and white) were being shipped from Melbourne to the world. By 1892, there were 350 vignerons within 56 kilometres of the town but, in 1899, phylloxera (a root-attacking aphid) was discovered and many wineries failed or turned to other crops. It was not until 1925 that the district was judged free of the pest and by this time the Rutherglen wine industry had changed substantially.
In addition to shipping wine to Melbourne distributors, from the early days until the end of the 1940s there was a steady trade in jar and small barrel sales. Vignerons traded directly, either via mail order, small licensed groceries or cellar door sales. This bulk wine was then sold and shipped in returnable, refundable one, two, three and five-gallon stone jars or octave, quarter casks and hogshead barrels. The growing popularity of flagon sales (no need to return or decant), the introduction of bottle shops and the closing of wine saloons ended this trade and this, combined with cheaper production elsewhere, saw the local industry struggle for some years; by 1960 only a dozen wineries remained in Rutherglen (Mortensen, 1990).
This all began to change in the 1970s. European (especially Italian) migrants discovered the wines, roads improved, cars were more comfortable and cellar door trade as it is known today began to grow. Single bottle licenses were obtained and winemakers set about offering tasting and wine education to these early cellar door patrons (wine tourists) who were eager to learn about these unfamiliar beverages. As an outlet for wine product it is for both large and small wineries an important part of their marketing mix. Today Rutherglen vineyards are some of the oldest vinegrowing and winemaking centres in Australia. The fortified wines, (muscats and Tokays) produced in this region are unique and are produced by winemaking families which have, in many cases, been there for generations. Each winery offers, in addition to wine tasting and sales, various exhibitions and displays, and most open to cellar door visitors seven days a week.
Autumn 1968 marked the commencement of Rutherglen district wine festivals. The inaugural festival grew and became very popular during the 1970’ s. Initially this festival was held in Rutherglen township precincts, but the increasingly boisterous crowds created many problems of drunkenness, vandalism and hooliganism and the town festival was abandoned (and this perhaps is the historical background of the organizer’s scepticism as to the type of patrons these events attract). It was replaced by the ‘Winery Walkabout Weekend’ which is still held in winter, at the property of each of the participating wineries (19 in 2007), over a long weekend. In 1990 the ‘Tastes of Rutherglen’ festival commenced. The wineries felt that the autumn period was of special significance to winegrowers, ‘harvest time’, and as the weather was generally reliable at that time, an additional, alternative festival was arranged.
Today the region hosts four major festivals per year (Table 12.2). These festivals, each with a different theme and significance, are managed by festival specific sub-committees. The two most popular festivals attended by the general public are the ‘Tastes of Rutherglen’ and ‘Winery Walkabout’ and it is these events that form the basis of this case study.
Table 12.2 Major wine festivals conducted by winemakers of Rutherglen (2007/2008)
The major focus of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of wine festivals as a promotional activity for wineries. Festival participants were interviewed at the two wine festivals and further responses were collected from the cellar door visitors to the area’s 17 participating wineries. These respondents completed voluntary questionnaires over a 12-month period. A sample group of 800 plus people who had at some point attended a wine festival was identified and it is these respondents who are used to illustrate the types of people who attend wine festivals.
Generally, establishing the profile of individuals in touristic studies commences with an examination of the basic demographic variables which may include combinations of age, gender, income, origin and education standard; these provide a functional insight into participants. From this perspective, not surprisingly, wine festival participants and wine tourists share many common characteristics. Wine tourists have been found to be more often female than male, predominately from the local area, generally aged between 30 and 50 years, have a moderate to high income, and a university or tertiary qualification, is more prevalent in these groups (Macionis and Camborne, 1998; Mitchell et al., 2000). Wine festival participants also exhibit these traits with the one exception, being that of age (Table 12.3).
Table 12.3 Comparison of demographic variables of visitors to Rutherglen wine festivals as a percentage of the total sample
There is evidence that particularly the young are more inclined to attend festivals than the middle age and older groups. A number of studies give some indication of this phenomenon. For example, in a 1997 Australian (Yarra Valley) wine festival survey they represented 32 per cent; in the 2000 Rutherglen survey (a self-selecting, convenience sample) the 18 to 30 olds were the noticeably largest group. Taylor (2006) also observed this in a longitudinal study (conducted in Western Australia between 1999 and 2003). This study revealed that not only are these events popular but that the rate of participation by the young is increasing. In the Rutherglen study many first-time visitors to wine festivals responded very positively to the idea of a return visit to a winery or festival as a consequence of their initial experience. Given that the preponderance of these first-time festival visitors are in the 18–30 age group this would appear to translate into ongoing benefits for the wineries and in fact may be proof of Rasterhoff (in Collins, 1996) suggestion that wine festivals play a key role in demystifying the wine industry.
Delving Deeper
In the introduction to this discussion of wine festival patrons, mention was made of the reservations held by winery operators as to the motivations of people who attend wine festivals. Winery operators question whether many people who attend these events come only for the party atmosphere and social outing and that the wine is almost an incidental element of the event (Houghton, 2007 in press). Additionally there is some anecdotal evidence, gleaned in the form of discussion with winery operators, to suggest that some ‘serious’ wine tourists have the same ambivalent attitude towards wine festivals and the large crowds of ‘non-serious’ wine tourists they attract. This leads some wine festival promoters to feel that these particular (and in many cases, ‘preferred’) wine consumers would rather visit wineries outside of festivals, regardless of the ‘special attractions’ that are developed and aimed at them, the committed wine consumer (Houghton, 2007, in press).
In 1996, Hall published a study of New Zealand wine tourists and suggested, based on their demographic and behavioural characteristics and the varying strengths of these traits, that wine tourists could be categorized into three segments which he labelled ‘wine lovers’, ‘wine interested’ and ‘curious tourists’ (Table 12.4). If wine festival attendees could be similarly gauged (e.g. identify the characteristics of the participants) then the disquiet and uncertainness experienced by winery operators may be allayed by a better knowledge and understanding of who these events attracted. In Hall’s study, seven characteristics (education, family income, age of respondents plus the propensity to purchase wine at winery, to join a mailing list, their familiarity with the winemaking process and whether visiting wineries was the sole reason for their visit to the destination) were present to a greater or lesser degree in each of the wine tourism ‘types’ (Houghton, 2007, in press).
Table 12.4 Wine tourism market segments
| Market segment | Characteristics |
Wine lovers | Extremely interested in wines and wine making. |
Wineries may be sole purpose of visit to destination. May be employed in wine and food industry. | |
Likely to be mature with high income and education levels. | |
Likely to be a regular purchaser of wine and food magazines. | |
Will have visited other wine regions. | |
Highly likely to purchase at winery and add name to mailing list. | |
Wine interested | High interest in wine but not sole purpose of visit to destination. |
Likely to have visited other wine regions. | |
Familiar with winemaking procedures. | |
Moderate to high income bracket, tend to be university educated. | |
‘Word of mouth’ and wine columns in newspapers may be important for arousing interest in region. | |
Occasional purchaser of wine and food magazines, regular purchaser of ‘lifestyle’ magazines. | |
Likely to purchase at winery and add name to mailing list. | |
Potential for repeat purchase of wine through having visited winery. | |
Curious tourist | Moderately interested in wine but not familiar with wine making procedures. |
Winery tour a by product of visit to region as visiting was for unrelated purposes. | |
Wineries may be ‘just another attraction’. | |
May have visited other wine regions. | |
Curiosity aroused by drinking or seeing winery product or general tourism promotion or pamphlets. | |
Moderate income and education. | |
Opportunity for social occasion with friends and/or family. | |
| May purchase at winery but will not join mailing list. |
Source: Interviews with wineries, tour operators, regional tourism organizations and Macionis and Cambourne, 1994. Adapted from: Hall, C.M., 1996. Wine tourism in New Zealand. In Tourism Down Under II, Towards a more Sustainable Tourism, Conference Proceedings, G. Kearsley ed., pp. 109–119, Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Using the Rutherglen sample group, all of whom had at some point attended a wine festival, these seven characteristics were isolated and form the basis of an analysis and comparison with Hall’s (1996) wine tourist segments.
The first three characteristics age, income and education are discussed earlier in this chapter (for full details see Table 12.3). Four behavioural or attitudinal statements designed to measure the strength of consensus or disagreement expressed by the respondents to certain propositions make up the balance. These statements took the form of Likert statements where the most appropriate response could be circled (Table 12.5).
Table 12.5 Comparison of wine festival participants by attitudes and behaviours as a percentage of the overall sample
Table 12.5 demonstrates that overall more than half (57.3 per cent) of festival participants concurred with the suggestion that visiting a winery was the prime motivator for visiting the region. Of fundamental interest to the wineries is the possibility that visitors will purchase wine when they visit the winery; this question elicited a very positive response with 80 per cent stating that they expected to purchase wine. Hall (1996) suggests that the propensity to subscribe to an individual winery’s mailing list is a distinguishing characteristic between wine tourists groups. The table indicates that approximately 40 per cent of festival attendees would add their name to mailing lists, although more (39.9 per cent) disagreed with the statement. The final question was to assess the respondent’s perceptions of their familiarity with the process of making wine. Fifty three per cent of festival patrons attested to being confident that they understood the winemaking process.
Two techniques were employed to gather, compare and move respondents into the three groups or cluster centers. K-means clustering which allows the movement of respondents into a user specified number of clusters based on their possessed characteristics and Pattern Analysis (using PATN software) enables the analysis, summarization and display of patterns in the data. The use of multiple techniques (triangulation) offered the opportunity to verify the reliability and accuracy of the data. These two analytical techniques generated similar responses although in some instances the values differed (Houghton, 2007 in press).
What became apparent was that there were three definable groups who exhibited many of the characteristics that correspond to the groupings observed by Hall (1996) in wine tourists. Table 12.6 illustrates that while it seems possible to distinguish the ‘Wine Lovers’ the other two groups, ‘Wine Interested’ and ‘Curious Tourist’ are apparent but less conclusively defined.
Analysing each cluster further reveals some interesting variations but variations for which a possible explanation can be advanced. For example, the ‘Wine Lovers’ cluster closely aligns with the attributes expected of this group. However, the two areas where they register a lower score than may have been expected are in the responses to the ‘mailing list’ and ‘winemaking process’ questions. It is possible that the explanations for not subscribing to a mailing list might include either their lack of interest in that form of marketing or perhaps a desire to source their own purchases independent of external influences. The members of this group, who are considered the most knowledgeable about wine, could be expected to have high levels of confidence in their ability to make selections from a variety of sources. The other area in which they registered a low score was that of knowledge of the winemaking process. This is perhaps more explainable. The researcher, while not able to comment on those who filled in the self completion cellar door surveys, did note that many of those who professed a deep interest in wine also acknowledged the complexity of the winemaking process and indicated that they had ‘a lot to learn’. There was a feeling that they more they understood about winemaking the less sure they were that they understood the process and all its variables. Less experienced patrons were more prone to assert that they understood the winemaking process (Houghton, 2007 in press).
Cluster 2 (‘Wine Interested’) and Cluster 3 (‘Curious Tourist’) are distinctively different in some facets, however overall they are similar and close in score. Most noticeable is the difference in responses to the ‘sole purpose’ question. Hall (1996) suggests that for the ‘Wine Interested’ the trip to the region is part of the appeal but not the sole motivator, while for the ‘Curious Tourist’ it was at best a secondary attraction. The group that exhibited the characteristics closest to the ‘wine interested’ type scored low when asked if the opportunity to visit the wineries was the sole reason for their visit to the region whereas the ‘curious tourist’ group registered a high score (higher in fact that the ‘wine lovers’). This may reflect an inclination by the ‘curious tourist’ to make a special trip to satisfy their curiosity in contrast to the other two groups who are aware of what is on offer in various regions and avail themselves of an opportunity as it arises. The higher score recorded for purchasing wine and joining a mailing list may also be a sign of this curiosity and be an indication of less selective behaviour (Houghton, 2007, in press).
The results indicate that wine festival attendees can be classified into relatively homogeneous groups but suggest that these categories are not as decisively different as those attributed by Hall to wine tourists. The ‘serious wine drinker’ along with the novice would appear to be attracted by these wine events.
Crowds and Crowds of Participants
Many winery operators, the promoters of these events, were unsure whether the size of these events discouraged others (particularly ‘serious wine drinkers’) from visiting the wineries. On the one hand they felt that the festive crowds made patrons more comfortable (e.g. they liked the company of others), but they also said that they thought many customers preferred to visit when there were no festivals (Houghton, 2004). What became apparent when analysing the data was that though some patrons were in agreement, overall their opinions were not nearly as strong on this subject as the winery operators feared and it could be concluded that while there are some cellar door patrons that festivals may deter the majority are not concerned. There appears to be some justification for this thinking but whether it is to the degree the wineries fear is unlikely for two reasons.
First, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, the mix of patrons who are attracted to festivals is fairly evenly distributed over the categorized wine tourist ‘types’, that is all sorts of visitors are represented including the informed wine tourist. Secondly, in respect of the cellar door respondents, only one-fifth agreed that they preferred to visit wineries outside festival periods. Further, even of those who had never attended a festival (one can only speculate as to whether this non-attendance was as a result of inclination or lack of opportunity) only 44 per cent concurred with the statement that they preferred non-festival visits. These outcomes indicate that while there may be some who avoid festivals, the gains from holding these events outweigh any potential loses and as such they are successful promotional tools.
When the Festival is Over, What Next?
The literature on wine festivals as a promotional strategy reveals that for the promotion to be declared successful it should result in increased sales, visitation, brand recognition and enhanced reputation for the staging winery (Dodd, 1995; Cambourne, 1998; Hall et al., 2000). Table 12.7 summarizes the responses to a series of questions as to the intentions of participants in regard to future wine festivals and future visits to wineries. The table defines two major groups, (a) those who had attended a Rutherglen festival and (b) those who attended a wine festival in another region. In the Rutherglen group, patrons attending their first festival in particular, responded very positively to the question of return visitation. Repeat festival patrons were almost as positive about future visits, the exception being that they were not as interested in festivals in other areas. Similarly respondents who had attended a festival in another region also appeared less inclined to travel (≤ 60 per cent). These findings show that these events are valued by the public and suggest that for wineries they provide many ongoing benefits both on the day of the event and later.
Table 12.7 Summarized outcomes of responses to winery visitation questions
A Wine Festival Model
Wine festivals are created to attract the public to a specific wine product or region. But, as Taylor (2006, p.180) asks, ‘why [do] people attend wine festivals amongst the congestion, queues and confusion of a wine festival when they can obtain many of the tangible tourism products … during the other 51 weeks of the year’. There must be other benefits. What are the patrons of these events looking for? As a direct outcome of the information gathered in the Rutherglen study (reported in this chapter and other articles) a model was devised to conceptualize the melding of the aspirations of both the wine festival promoter and the wine festival patron (Figure 12.1). This model illustrates how a wine festival can become the catalyst for developing a mutually beneficial interaction between both parties.
Figure 12.1
Wine festival model illustrating synergies between winery operators and wine festival visitors
The model acknowledges that initially the two parties have similar but differing aspirations, namely the desire to attract winery visitation by the promoters and a wine-based touristic experience by the visitor. On an individual basis, to achieve benefit for a specific winery that winery needs to promote recognition of its products and the wine festival and by providing an attractive wine-based experience, has the ability to accomplish this by drawing people to the region. The visitor is seeking knowledge of both the existence of quality wineries and the opportunity to trial the products. This trial stage provides the winery promoter with the opportunity to provide insights into winemaking promote an image of quality and develop a relationship while at the same time gaining market intelligence and feedback. These steps if accomplished satisfactorily for the patron may then work as a stimulus to purchase the individual winery’s product. This process has then fulfilled the goals of both promoter and patron. That is, the winery promoter has made a sale plus ensured the possibility of maintaining ongoing contact through other festivals, mailing lists and brand recognition. The satisfied wine festival patron has acquired knowledge, product and will in all probability (as demonstrated earlier in Table 12.7) return to the winery both during normal trading hours and for other events and in so doing demonstrate a loyalty to both the wine and the wine region.
Wineries have wondered whether the benefits required (purchases, visitation and brand recognition) are being realized. They have wondered whether the ‘right type’ of person is being attracted to these highly successful and well-patronized events. Studies indicate that this promotional strategy is effective. Wine festival patrons represent a wide range of types (from connoisseur to curious tourist) and arrive with varying levels of interest in, and experiences of, wine. What they have in common and is conclusively demonstrated in the Rutherglen case, is that whatever their background and their level of interest, the wine festival has the ability to attract them and they have the potential to become continuing consumers of the wine festival promoters product.
References
Beeton, S. and Pinge, I. (2001). Bendigo Heritage Uncorked: Festival Report. La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia.
Cambourne, B. (1998). Wine tourism in the Canberra District In Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J. (eds.), Wine Tourism Perfect Partners, Proceedings of the 1st Australian Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River, Western Australia. Australia: Bureau of Tourism Research, ACT.
Carlsen, J. (1999). A profile of visitors to the Sunday Times Margaret River Wine Region Festival 1999. In Proceedings of The First New Zealand Wine Tourism Conference. New Zealand: Blenheim.
Collins, C. (1996). Drop in for more than just a drop. Weekend Australian, 9 March, p. 3.
Dodd, T. (1995). Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism in a developing wine industry. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 7(1), 5–16.
Dodd, T. and Bigotte, V. (1997). Perceptual differences among visitor groups to wineries. Journal of Travel Research, 35(3), 46–51.
Fry, C. (1999). Key drivers in cellar door sales. Second Australian Wine Tourism Conference: Book of Abstracts. Bureau of Tourism Research, ACT, Australia.
Getz, D. (1991). Festivals, Special Events and Tourism. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, USA.
Hall, C.M. (1996). Wine tourism in New Zealand. In Kearsley, G. (ed.) Tourism Down Under II, Towards a More Sustainable Tourism. Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Hall, C.M. and Macionis, N. (1998). Wine tourism in Australia and New Zealand. In Hall, C. and Jenkins, J. (eds.) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.
Hall, C.M., Johnson, G., Cambourne, B., Macionis, N., Mitchell, R. and Sharples, L. (2000). Wine tourism: An introduction. In Hall, C., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and Macionis, N. (eds.) Wine Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Butterworth Heineman, Oxford, UK.
Houghton, M. (2001). The propensity of wine festivals to encourage subsequent winery visitation. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 13(3), 32–41.
Houghton, M. (2005). Wine festivals: the promoters perspective. In Boyle, A. and Tremblay, P. (eds.) Sharing Tourism Knowledge, CAUTHE 2005. Charles Darwin University, Alice Springs, Australia.
Houghton, M. (2007) in press. Classifying wine festival customers: Comparing an inductive typology with Hall’s wine tourist classification. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, (accepted April, 2007).
Ivers, T. (1999). Breaking into new markets – spending less to get more. In Second Australian Wine Tourism Conference: Book of Abstracts, Bureau of Tourism Research, ACT, Australia.
Kohli, A. and Jaworski, B. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54April, 1–18.
Mitchell, R., Hall, M. and McIntosh, A. (2000). Wine tourism and consumer behaviour. In Hall,, C., Sharples, L., Cambourne, B. and Macionis, N. (eds.) Wine Tourism Around the World: Development, Management and Markets. Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, UK.
Mortensen, H. (1990). The Winemakers of Rutherglen. Mortensen, H. Albury, NSW, Australia.
National Wine Tourism Strategy (1999). National Wine Tourism Strategy Working Party. Winemaker’s Federation of Australia, August.
Snepenger, D. (1987). Segmenting the vacation market by novelty seeking role. Journal of Travel Research, 26(2), 8–14.
Taylor, R. (2006). Wine festivals and tourism: Developing a longitudinal approach to festival evaluation. In Carlsen, J. and Charters, S. (eds.) Global Wine Tourism: Research, Management and Marketing. CAB International, Oxford, UK.
Uncles, M. (2000). Defining market orientation. Australian Journal of Management, 25(2), 1–9.
Victorian Wineries Tourism Council (1996). A Survey of Tourism Activity at Victorian Wineries 1996. Victorian Wineries Tourism Council, Melbourne, Australia.
Victorian Wineries Tourism Council (1998). A Survey of Tourism Activity at Victorian Wineries 1998. Victorian Wineries Tourism Council, Melbourne, Australia.
Weiler, B., Truong, M., and Griffiths, M. (2004). Visitor profiles and motivations for visiting an Australian wine festival. In Proceedings of the International Wine Tourism Conference, Margaret River, Australia.
Yuan, J., Cai, L., Morrison, A. and Linton, S. (2005). An analysis of wine festival attendees’ motivations: a synergy of wine, travel and special events. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(1), 37–54.
