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

8
2013 Great Wine Capitals Global Network Market Survey The Pillars Of Wine Tourism PerformanceExecutive Summary Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza Porto Bilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

description

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

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

Page 1: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

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

Page 2: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

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

Page 3: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

Wine Tourism Revenues Break­up

Wine Tourism Revenues and Top

Sources of ProfitsFor 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

Arg

enti

na

Ger

man

y

Spa

in

Fran

ce

Ital

y

New

Zea

land

Por

tuga

l

Sou

th A

fric

a

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

Page 4: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

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 %

Men

tion

ed o

ther

web

site

s

Bor

chur

es

Soc

ial Net

wor

ks

Spc

lzed

med

ia

Tou

r Op.

App

elat

ion

Tou

rism

xhib

Tra

vel A

genc

ies

32 %

60 %

8 %

44 %

50 %

13 %

15 %

39 %

11 %

55 %

15 %

Sus

tain

able

Cita

tion

s

Ref

erra

ls

Aut

hent

ic E

xper

ienc

e

Mai

ling

/ New

slet

ter

Cult

ural

Fes

tiva

ls

Win

efai

rs

Win

e Co

ntes

ts

Reg

ionf

ame

Use

mob

ile a

pps

42 %

11 %

33 %

9 %

26 %

30 %

19 %

76 %

19 %

42 %

Ow

n w

ebsi

te

Tou

rism

Off

Tra

diti

onal

Ad

Tas

ting

Eve

nts

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

Page 5: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

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

Page 6: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

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 andImpactful 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 andObservations

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

Page 7: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

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 andImpactful 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 andObservations

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: [email protected]

Page 8: GWC 2013 Wine Tourism Market Survey "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance"

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: [email protected]

Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley