Sonoma County Winegrape Commission Survey August 21, 2007.

Sonoma County Winegrape Commission Survey August 21, 2007

Acknowledgement and Thanks

• The Commission market research team included growers Pamela Gunsalus and Julie Hagler Lumgair.

Panelists are recruited from diverse sources online using various methods, to avoid source bias.

Currently 3300 members, about 2300 of whom are active.

Based on benchmarking vs. Wine Market Council data, the panel is representative of the “core involved wine drinker,” roughly 18 million consumers who are responsible for about 3/4 of consumer $$ spending on wine.

Panel includes smaller samples of less frequent wine drinkers and members of U.S. wine trade (producer, wholesale and retail/restaurant tier). Useful for contrast.

Panel members in every state, similar to distribution of core wine drinkers in U.S.

Answer 1-2 surveys per month, cash/gift certificate incentives

Wine Opinions Panel

Annual Tracking Study

California Regional Survey

620 Wine Opinions consumer respondents.

Provide measures of awareness, trial and image for selected California wine regions or appellations.

Measurement of visitation to regions by core involved wine consumers.

Evaluations of perceived wine quality, price positioning and value.

To be executed annually to provide tracking of basic awareness, trial, price, quality and visitation measures.

Difference from Regional in-depth studies: no AVAs or sub-regions, no testing of regional-specific image or messages or visitation activities, much less detail.

CA Regional Report

Source: Wine Opinions

Have NOT heard of

Heard of NOT tried

HAVE Tried

Lodi 32% 42% 26%

Livermore Valley 46% 45% 9%

Lake County 42% 44% 14%

Santa Barbara County 11% 50% 38%

Amador County 51% 30% 19%

Paso Robles 22% 34% 44%

Sonoma County 1% 23% 76%

Monterey County 7% 50% 44%

Napa Valley 1% 17% 83%

Mendocino County 12% 47% 41%

Regional Awareness and Trial

Percent by awareness and trial (in past 3 months)


Leading VarietalsMany

differentDon’t know

Lodi CH 9%, WZN 5%, PG/SB 2% 9% 63%

Livermore Valley CH 7%, RL/SB 3% 7% 72%

Lake County CH/SB 9%, PG 4% 7% 63%

Santa Barbara County CH 19%, PG 7%, SB 5% 17% 40%

Amador County CH/SB/VG/WZN 3% 9% 70%

Paso Robles CH 9%, VG 7%, SB 6% 18% 45%

Sonoma County CH 37%, PG 6%, SB 4% 31% 13%

Monterey County CH 21%, PG/SB 5%, RL 4% 22% 36%

Napa Valley CH 36%, SB 6%, PG 3% 40% 9%

Mendocino County CH 12%, SB 5%, PG 4% 21% 46%

Regional Associations with White/Rose Varietals

Percent associate by region


Leading VarietalsMany

differentDon’t know

Lodi ZN 23%, CS/ME 4% 7% 53%

Livermore Valley CS 7%, ME/PS/ZN 4% 7% 70%

Lake County CS/ZN 7%, PN 5% 8% 62%

Santa Barbara County PN 33%, ME 6%, SR 5% 13% 33%

Amador County ZN 23% 5% 62%

Paso Robles ZN 14%, SR 12%, CS 9%, PN 8% 15% 34%

Sonoma County CS 24%, PN 13%, ME 10% ZN 7% 32% 10%

Monterey County PN 13%, CS 9%, ME 7% 23% 34%

Napa Valley CS 49%, ME 6% 30% 8%

Mendocino County PN 10%, ZN 7%, CS/ME 6% 19% 46%

Regional Associations with Red Varietals

Percent associate by region


Under $6 $6 - $10 $10 - $15 $15 - $20 Over $20

Lodi 3% 27% 46% 21% 4%

Livermore Valley 3% 24% 51% 19% 3%

Lake County 3% 21% 51% 21% 5%

Santa Barbara County 0% 9% 37% 39% 14%

Amador County 2% 17% 48% 26% 7%

Paso Robles 1% 11% 35% 41% 13%

Sonoma County 0% 6% 29% 38% 27%

Monterey County 1% 9% 41% 37% 13%

Napa Valley 0% 7% 21% 28% 44%

Mendocino County 1% 10% 41% 37% 11%

Pricing Estimates for Typical Wine, by Region

Percent stating price range (750ml)

Sonoma County Winegrape Commission Survey

Compare awareness and attitudes regarding Sonoma County and its wines to competing world and California wine regions.

Identify significant traits associated with Sonoma County and its wines.

Assess consumer and trade opinions of Sonoma County attributes, leading grape varieties, and wine quality and value in comparison to other regions.

Elicit consumer definitions and expectations of “wine country.”

Measure the relative merits of the Sonoma County appellation versus sub-appellations.

Measure visitation to Sonoma County and the effects of visitation on quality perceptions.

Survey Objectives

Online survey of 686 Wine Opinions panelists

565 high frequency and 121 occasional wine drinkers. 595 consumers and 128 trade members.

All states except the District of Columbia, South Dakota, Iowa, and Wyoming

Cross tabulations against age, gender, wine consumption frequency, California residents, visitors, high end wine buyers, Sonoma “fans”.

Calculated at confidence level of 90%, confidence interval range of ±2% to ±4% for entire sample

Survey Methodology

Consumer Respondent Profile

Sonoma County Survey

Survey Respondent Age Segmentation - Consumers

21-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 PlusSource: Wine Opinions

6

28

16

20

31

Percentage by age

Age segments – percentage in each segment by gender

Survey Respondent Age Segmentation - Consumers

Male

Female


4

7

1819

34

25

21

33

29

10

Survey Respondent Gender Composition - Consumers


Percentage by gender

Male

Female

39%

61%

Consumer Respondent Consumption Frequencies

Daily Wkly+ Once Wk 2-3X Mo Once MonthSource: Wine Opinions

34

52

9

4

Percentages by segment

1

High Frequency Occasional

Consumption frequency percentages by segment and gender

Consumer Respondent Consumption Frequencies by Gender

Male

Female

Daily Wkly+ Once Wk 2-3X Mo Once MoSource: Wine Opinions

38

54

52 1

31

50

12

52

Percentage purchase by frequency and price segment (750ml)

Consumer Respondent Purchase by Price Point

Under $10 $10 to $20 $20 to $30 $30 - plus

Weekly Monthly Several x Yr Less Often NeverSource: Wine Opinions

29 30

7

44

33

20

2932

32

1719

6

21

6

1

7

1

15

29

35

19

High End Wine Buyers

Percentage purchasing monthly or more often, by price point and gender

Frequency of Purchase by Price Point and Gender

Male

Female

Under $10 $10 - $20 $20 - $30 Over $30Source: Wine Opinions

5459

73 74

50

32

24

12

Trade Respondent Profile


Roughly 300 employees or owners of businesses related to wine.

Recruited in same manner as WO consumer panel, plus personal references.

40% restaurant/hospitality, 20% Grape-growing/wineries, 19% retail stores, 13% importer/distributor.

Unlike the consumer panel, the data is not projectable to Total U.S. Primarily used for directional and contrast with consumer panel.

WO Trade Panel (as of July 2007)

Segmentation of Trade Panel Respondents


Restaurant Hospitality

Growers / Producers

Importers / Distributors Retailers

48%32%

20%

Trade Respondent Gender Composition


Percentage by gender

Male

Female

41%

59%

Trade Respondent Age Segmentation


20

36

7

22

15

Percentage by age group

Awareness & Trial


Unaided Consumer Awareness of Wine Regions


RegionPercent naming

Napa/Napa Valley 80%

Sonoma/Sonoma County/Sonoma Coast/Sonoma Valley 61%

Bordeaux 28%

California 27%

Burgundy 18%

Russian River, Washington 11%

Tuscany, Rhone 10%

Paso Robles, ”Coast,” ”Coastal” 9%

Santa Barbara, Central Coast, Alexander Valley 8%

“Name up to five fine wine regions in the U.S. and/or around the world”

County7%

Valley10%

Coast1%

No Modifier

82%

Unaided Awareness – Sonoma Nomenclature



Have NOT heard of

Heard of NOT tried

HAVE Tried


Washington 8% 20% 72%

Bordeaux 2% 20% 78%


Santa Barbara 8% 30% 62%


Rioja 21% 22% 57%

Barossa Valley 34% 28% 38%

Tuscany 2% 26% 72%

Burgundy 5% 25% 70%

Oregon 9% 19% 73%

Awareness and Trial of Selected Wine Regions

Percent by awareness and trial (past year)


CaliforniansNon-

Residents

Sonoma County 99% 91%

Washington 71% 72%

Bordeaux 76% 78%

Napa Valley 97% 94%

Santa Barbara 82% 56%

Paso Robles 87% 55%

Rioja 51% 59%

Barossa Valley 39% 37%

Tuscany 64% 74%

Burgundy 67% 71%

Oregon 78% 71%

Trial of Selected Wine Regions – Californians vs. Non-Residents

Percent by trial

Quality & Value Assessment



Very Good Excellent Total


Washington 44% 24% 68%

Bordeaux 32% 46% 78%



Rioja 39% 17% 56%

Barossa Valley 38% 15% 53%

Tuscany 43% 34% 77%

Burgundy 36% 40% 76%

Oregon 41% 26% 67%

Quality Perceptions of Selected Wine Regions

Percent “excellent,” “very good,” and total top two box ratings


Quality Value


Washington 68% 69%

Bordeaux 78% 36%

Napa Valley 92% 53%

Paso Robles 63% 65%

Rioja 56% 64%


Tuscany 77% 50%

Burgundy 76% 34%

Oregon 67% 58%

Quality and Value Perceptions of Selected Wine Regions - Consumers

Percent total of top two box ratings


Quality Value


Washington 71% 68%

Bordeaux 77% 36%

Napa Valley 89% 32%

Paso Robles 63% 63%

Rioja 59% 62%


Tuscany 74% 47%

Burgundy 79% 34%

Oregon 73% 46%

Quality and Value Perceptions of Selected Wine Regions - Trade

Percent total of top two box ratings

Quality & Value Grid

4.29, 3.843.87, 3.89

4.20, 3.11

4.47, 3.55

3.82, 3.82

3.65, 3.88

3.61, 3.61

4.08, 3.50

4.09, 3.05

3.87, 3.67

3.00

3.10

3.20

3.30

3.40

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40

QUALITY AVG RATING

VA

LU

E A

VG

RA

TIN

G

SonomaWashingtonRioja

Paso

Napa

Tuscany

Oregon

Barossa

BordeauxBurgundy


Californians quality

Non-Residents quality


Washington 18% 25%

Bordeaux 55% 44%

Napa Valley 73% 52%

Paso Robles 25% 22%

Rioja 15% 17%


Tuscany 37% 33%

Burgundy 48% 37%

Oregon 16% 28%

“Excellent” Quality Perceptions – Californians vs. Non-Residents

Percent giving “excellent” ratings


Californians value

Non-Residents value


Washington 22% 26%

Bordeaux 10% 10%

Napa Valley 22% 22%

Paso Robles 27% 19%

Rioja 32% 30%


Tuscany 37% 33%

Burgundy 9% 10%

Oregon 14% 20%

“Excellent” Value Perceptions – Californians vs. Non-Residents

Percent giving “excellent” ratings

Percentage “excellent” ratings by consumer segment

Quality and Value Perceptions of Sonoma County Wines – by Visitation


57

Quality Value

Multiple VisitorsVisited OnceNever Visited

44

3128

24

18

Sonoma County: Wine Country


Agreement Statements on Definition of “Wine Country”


Statement Agree

“Wine country” is anywhere that winegrapes are grown 61%

I think of the wine regions of France or Italy as “wine country’ more than anyplace in California 24%

I think of Sonoma County as “wine country” 92%

“Wine country” mean that there are wine trails or routes established that lead from one winery to another 58%

I think of Napa Valley as “wine country” 96%

“Wine country” means that there are nice restaurants and places to stay, as well as wineries to visit 71%

I think of Santa Barbara as “wine country” 61%

Percentage completely/somewhat agree

Qualities or Traits Associated with Sonoma County and its Wines - Consumers


Agree

Highly regarded by wine critics 41%

A wide variety of wines and styles 59%

Wines are consistently excellent 40%

Wines are over-priced 9%

More for your money than wines from Napa Valley 39%

One of the best regions for wine 45%

Less pretentious or snobby than Napa Valley 42%

Many small, artisan wineries 46%

People are friendly and helpful to visitors 45%

Wines are safe and reliable choices 50%

Wines you can buy with confidence 51%

Going there is a different kind of adventure compared to other wine regions 24%

Percentage in agreement

Qualities or Traits Associated with Sonoma County and its Wines - Trade


Agree

Highly regarded by wine critics 42%

A wide variety of wines and styles 65%

Wines are consistently excellent 40%

Wines are over-priced 9%

More for your money than wines from Napa Valley 53%

One of the best regions for wine 44%

Less pretentious or snobby than Napa Valley 56%

Many small, artisan wineries 55%

People are friendly and helpful to visitors 55%

Wines are safe and reliable choices 61%

Wines you can buy with confidence 53%

Going there is a different kind of adventure compared to other wine regions 38%


Quality or Trait Associations: High End Buyers vs. Others


High end Others

Highly regarded by wine critics 48% 41%

A wide variety of wines and styles 72% 57%

Wines are consistently excellent 47% 40%

Wines are over-priced 11% 9%

More for your money than wines from Napa Valley 56% 33%

One of the best regions for wine 54% 44%

Less pretentious or snobby than Napa Valley 53% 39%

Many small, artisan wineries 58% 43%

People are friendly and helpful to visitors 60% 40%

Wines are safe and reliable choices 59% 50%

Wines you can buy with confidence 59% 52%

Going there is a different kind of adventure compared to other wine regions 33% 21%



Visited 2+ times

Visited once

Would like to visit

No interest in

visiting

Napa Valley 45% 21% 32% 2%

Sonoma County 39% 21% 38% 2%

Town of Sonoma 32% 20% 42% 6%

Town of Healdsburg 28% 17% 37% 18%

Town of Santa Rosa 24% 20% 44% 13%

Coast (Pt. Reyes to Russian River) 18% 18% 57% 7%

Russian River 21% 19% 50% 10%

Town of Yountville 29% 16% 37% 19%

Town of Mendocino 14% 19% 53% 14%

Visitation and Interest by Region or Town

Percent stating visitation frequency and/or level of interest

Sonoma County & its AVAs



Have NOT heard of

Heard of NOT tried

HAVE Tried

Sonoma Valley 2% 9% 89%

Russian River Valley 17% 15% 68%

Chalk Hill 38% 25% 36%

Alexander Valley 26% 15% 58%

Carneros 29% 14% 56%

Green Valley 67% 23% 10%

Bennett Valley 72% 20% 7%

Rockpile 69% 17% 14%

Sonoma Coast 19% 28% 53%

Sonoma Mountain 36% 29% 35%

Dry Creek Valley 25% 21% 53%

Knights Valley 54% 21% 25%

Awareness and Trial of Sonoma County AVAs

Percent by awareness and trial


Multiple Visitors

Non Visitors

Sonoma Valley 97% 80%

Russian River Valley 92% 42%

Chalk Hill 60% 18%

Alexander Valley 88% 28%

Carneros 84% 31%

Green Valley 19% 5%

Bennett Valley 14% 4%

Rockpile 30% 4%

Sonoma Coast 73% 38%

Sonoma Mountain 49% 21%

Dry Creek Valley 83% 26%

Knights Valley 42% 10%

Trial of Sonoma County AVAs – Multiple Visitors vs. Non-Visitors

Percent by trial and AVA

Respondents routed to three similar questions, with the three groups balanced for age, gender and wine-buying frequency.

Each question asks respondents to choose between same variety and price of wine, distinguished only by region of origin.

Cell 1 = Santa Barbara, Sonoma Cty, Napa Valley

Cell 2 = Santa Barbara, Sonoma Cty Russian River Valley, Napa Valley

Cell 3 = Santa Barbara, Russian River Valley, Napa Valley.

Cell 4 = Santa Barbara, Sonoma County, Paso Robles

4-celled Test of Label Designation

Variations on Sonoma AVA – Responses of Four Cells


Choice ranking of respondents, by cell

Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4

Sonoma County 2nd - - 1st

Sonoma County Russian River - 1st - -

Russian River - - 2nd -

Santa Barbara 3rd 3rd 3rd 2nd

Napa Valley 1st 2nd 1st -

Paso Robles - - - 3rd

Ranking of Sonoma AVAs – Cells 1, 2, 3

31

46

34

8

7

24

SonomaCounty

SonomaCountyRussian

River

RussianRiver

% Ranking last

% Ranking first



Appellation $14 $18 $24 $28Would

Purchase

Sonoma County 35% 38% 21% 6% 45%

Alexander Valley 16% 36% 28% 20% 34%

Sonoma County Alexander Valley 12% 38% 34% 16% 21%

Price Matching by AVA – Cabernet Sauvignon

Percent stating price by appellation and intent to purchase at stated price – all respondents


Appellation High end Others


Alexander Valley 44% 28%

Sonoma County Alexander Valley 25% 18%

Purchase intent by AVA – High End Buyers vs. Others

Percent stating intent to purchase at price they had previously guessed


AppellationMultiple Visitors

Non Visitors

California Residents

Non Residents

Sonoma County 32% 56% 33% 48%

Alexander Valley 47% 25% 54% 29%

Sonoma County Alexander Valley 21% 20% 13% 23%

Purchase intent by AVA – Visitor and Resident Groups vs. Others

Percent stating intent to purchase at price they had previously guessed

Sonoma County by Varietal


Quality Ratings of Sonoma County Varietal Wines


Percentage “very good/excellent” ratings by varietal

40

22

33

22

35

14

28

22

30

11

29

10

30

25

CS CH MER PN SB SYR ZIN

Very Good Excellent62

5549 50

41 39

55

Quality Ratings of Varietals: Multiple Visitors vs. Non-Visitors


VarietalMultiple Visitors

Non Visitors

Cabernet Sauvignon 73% 48%

Chardonnay 68% 41%

Merlot 53% 39%

Pinot Noir 65% 34%

Sauvignon Blanc 50% 31%

Syrah 50% 22%

Zinfandel 74% 37%

Percentage rating “excellent/very good”

Quality Ratings of Varietals: Consumers vs. Trade


Varietal Consumers Trade


Chardonnay 55% 60%

Merlot 49% 42%

Pinot Noir 50% 57%


Syrah 39% 40%

Zinfandel 55% 57%


Quality Ratings of Varietals: High End Buyers vs. Others


Varietal High end Others


Chardonnay 66% 49%

Merlot 56% 44%

Pinot Noir 63% 43%


Syrah 46% 35%

Zinfandel 67% 48%


Please share your thoughts on experiences you have had in Sonoma County and/or with Sonoma County wines.


Comment Theme Count

Good Wines 59

Had a good time 38

Miscellaneous positives 30

Not Napa 26

Beautiful 25

Friendly 25

Good Value 13

Discovery 12

Good Food 11

“While it's been said that Napa Valley makes a better Cabernet Sauvignon, I've found excellent Cabs from Sonoma Valley just as good for less money. I do think that the Sonoma wineries make the best Zinfandel, though.”

“Very interesting place to visit -- great variety -- some lovely wines and some real losers. Excellent restaurants and places to stay. Amazing variety of topography and history.

“This is a lovely laid-back friendly region. The wines are all interesting and the tours especially nice. Not only fine wine, wonderful food, inns and very friendly people. What more could you want?”

Consumer Verbatim Comments

“The atmosphere is so relaxed and the wineries are so comfortable. You always feel welcome, unlike some regions where they make you feel like they're doing you a favor to let you taste their wines

“Sonoma county's Russian River Valley and Sonoma Coast are world class producers of Chardonnay and Pinot Noir. The Dry Creek area, as well as the northern Alexander Valley make great Zins, which are a CA phenomenon. The Bordeaux varietals are not the greatest from this region, Napa does a better job with these..”

“Sonoma County is THE place to go in wine country. I used to say we were going "to Napa" for vacation. Now we say "Sonoma" because that's what wine country IS to us..”


“I prefer Sonoma to Napa for the more quaint, off-the-beaten path feel. Paso falls into this same category for me. I'm less in tune with Santa Barbara because it feels more like a collection of wineries, then it does a region to explore.

“I love the different, often less "commercial" tasting rooms in Sonoma. It reminds me of the Napa valley 25 years ago.

“Having had the chance to taste Sonoma Wines more in the recent past as I attend various wine tastings, I am impressed with the quality and the value! Enjoy the quality of these wines and they stack up just fine against Napa Wines in my experience!

Great & beautiful area however the wine prices are rising faster than their quality. They think because they are hot stuff in the Healdsburg, they can price gouge the consumer as they do in Napa. “


“Sonoma County is a great place to visit because of the artisinal farm trail as a complement to the wine trail. Often it's too large an area to feel I've accomplished visiting all the wineries I want to visit in a weekend vs. Napa where I can hit the 6 or more that I want to visit. Healdsburg and Sonoma (towns) are getting too touristy (like St. Helena). I like the diversity, but often times Sonoma wines are a notch below Napa.

“Perfect weather, many tourists, quality wines, great cheeses, expensive accommodations.”

“I thought it was absolutely beautiful and everyone was so hospitable. I was completely sold on the wines from this region.”

“A beautiful place. Wish I lived there.”


Sonoma is in a strong position, just behind Napa in awareness and quality, with a better value image.

Sonoma is “wine country.”

People expect nice restaurants and places to stay with “wine country” but the experience itself is still primarily about the wineries and their ambience.

Visitation has a powerful effect on regional perceptions. Even one visit is associated with major improvements in quality ratings and positive attributes and image.

Survey Conclusions

Diversity is a key strength for Sonoma County. Gives broader appeal and reliability to the wines.

In general, a combination of Sonoma County and AVA has stronger appeal to consumers than either alone. Greater specificity probably is equated with higher quality. AVA recognition and salability increases with knowledge and high end purchases by consumers. Sonoma County retains an edge over AVAs in value perception.

Friendliness and lack of pretension are significant advantages for Sonoma.

Survey Conclusions

Strategic action plan:

review of sales and market trends

trade gatekeeper survey/interviews

combine consumer, trade, market data

Other research issues:

Breakdown of research by key markets; where does Sonoma need to focus?

Concept/positioning/communication testing

Is specificity or combining Sonoma County + AVA always better or does it depend on varietal/AVA? How do

vineyard-designates fit in?

Further exploration of Trade vs. Consumer?

Next Steps?

Sonoma County Winegrape Commission Survey August 21, 2007.

Documents

Transcript of Sonoma County Winegrape Commission Survey August 21, 2007.