Consumers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward the role of oak in winemaking

Figures & data

Table 1 Consumer demographic, consumption, and knowledge characteristics

	Total sample (%) n= 1,015	Oak knowledge segments
		(%) Cl n=46l	C2 n=133	C3 n=141	C4 n=112
Sex
Male	37.0	33.8	38.3	44.7	64.3
Female	63.0	66.2	61.7	55.3	35.7
Age (years)
18–34	35.8	33.2	41.4	29.8	41.1
35–54	46.5	48.4	44.4	48.9	47.3
55+	17.7	18.4	14.3	21.3	11.6
Highest level of education achieved
Secondary qualifications	8.5	9.8	8.3	9.2	6.3
Technical/trade certificate	14.7	15.6	17.3	13.5	7.1
Undergraduate	27.5	27.8	27.1	22.0	33.9
Postgraduate	49.3	46.9	47.4	55.3	52.6
Average household income (AUD)
≤$25,000	4.7	5.9	6.8	3.5	1.8
$25,001–$50,000	10.2	10.0	12.0	8.5	6.3
$50,001–$75,000	17.6	18.2	17.3	18.4	10.7
$75,001–$100,000	19.0	20.2	18.8	18.4	17.9
$100,001–$150,000	27.5	26.2	29.3	27.7	33.9
$150,001–$200,000	13.4	13.4	12.0	14.9	16.1
>$200,000	7.5	6.1	3.8	8.5	13.4
Frequency of wine consumption
Frequent (≥4 times per week)	32.3	30.2	24.1	38.3	52.7
Moderate (1–3 times per week)	55.0	55.5	63.2	51.8	45.5
Occasional (≤ once per week)	12.7	14.3	12.8	9.9	1.8
Average spend on a bottle of wine (AUD)
≤$10	12.2	14.1	9.0	10.6	2.7
$11–$15	38.3	43.4	30.8	38.3	20.5
$l6–$20	33.1	30.4	43.6	36.2	34.8
$21–$30	13.8	10.4	12.8	13.5	33.0
$31–$50	2.3	1.7	3.0	0.7	8.0
>$50	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.7	0.9
Likelihood of reading back label information
Unlikely	21.5	21.3	12.0	19.1	17.0
Neither likely nor unlikely	14.2	14.3	10.5	14.2	13.4
Likely	64.3	64.4	77.4	66.7	69.6
Self-assessed wine knowledge
Limited/novice	10.5	13.2	6.0	5.7	1.8
Basic	43.1	51.0	45.1	26.2	14.3
Intermediate	38.6	34.3	44.4	56.7	41.1
Expert	4.2	1.3	2.3	5.0	24.1
Professional	3.5	0.2	2.3	6.4	18.8

Abbreviations: C1, cluster 1; C2, cluster 2; C3, cluster 3; C4, cluster 4.

Table 2 Consumers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward the use of oak in wine production

	Oaked wine consumer segment n=847	Oak knowledge segments
		C1 n=461	C2 n=133	C3 n= 141	C4 n=112
Perceptions relating to wines aged in stainless steel tanks with oak chips, compared to wines aged in barrels …
Opinions
Not as socially acceptable or impressive	3.0±0.79	2.93^b±0.61	3.30^a±0.87	2.55^c±0.91	3.49^a±0.83
Type of oak treatment should be on label	3.6±0.81	3.57^b±0.69	3.90^a±0.77	3.48^b±0.94	3.74^a,b± 1.02
Don’t care how it’s made as long as it tastes good	3.6±0.98	3.77^a±0.86	3.47^b,c±0.99	3.74^a,b± 1.09	3.21^c± 1.14
Oak alternatives are the way of the future	3.0±0.74	3.12^a±0.52	3.12^a±0.75	2.97^a±0.88	2.25^b±0.90
Production method has no influence on purchase decision	3.3±1.00	3.51^a±0.80	3.06^b±1.00	3.42^a±1.08	2.33^c±1.02
Wines made with oak alternatives are “cheap”	3.1±0.72	2.97^c±0.40	3.43^b±0.82	2.62^d±0.78	3.77^a±0.85
Doesn’t sound romantic Knowledge	3.6±0.67	3.49^b±0.67	3.91^a±0.69	3.36^b±0.96	3.92^a±0.74
Are young, “drink now” wines	3.3±0.68	3.18^b±0.48	3.90^a±0.54	2.98^c±0.81	3.73^a±0.74
Wine is always aged in a barrel	2.5±0.93	2.89^a±0.63	2.92^a±1.00	1.72^b±0.70	1.66^b±0.90
Have a crisper taste	3.0±0.57	3.02^b±0.29	3.27^a±0.62	2.90^b±0.69	2.54^c±0.89
This production method is used to produce large volumes of wine	3.5±0.69	3.18^c±0.44	3.94^b±0.55	3.30^c±0.78	4.24^a±0.68
Are not good enough to be aged in a barrel	2.9±0.67	2.83^b±0.40	3.33^a±0.66	2.22^c±0.61	3.48^a±0.75
Lower quality	3.0±0.76	2.83^c±0.46	3.56^b±0.67	2.30^d±0.68	3.97^a±0.60
Have less depth and complexity	3.2±0.70	3.00^c±0.38	3.72^b±0.60	2.93^c±0.82	4.13^a±0.67
Would be less likely to show signs of spoilage	3.0±0.64	3.07^b±0.41	3.42^a±0.68	2.84^c±0.83	2.77^c±0.86
Won’t age as well/less cellaring potential	3.1±0.66	2.99^c±0.36	3.56^b±0.62	2.61^d±0.72	3.86^a±0.72
Are better than wines matured in old oak barrels	2.6±0.70	2.88^a±0.38	2.61^b±0.80	2.34^c±0.65	1.67^d±0.76
Top brands/wineries always use barrels	3.0±0.74	3.12^b±0.41	3.42^a±0.84	2.33^d±0.70	2.82^c±1.05
There would be no difference in quality between the two wines	2.7±0.74	2.97^a±0.47	2.60^b±0.77	2.78^b±0.80	1.84^c±0.80
Display better oak/aroma flavor	2.8±0.67	3.02^a±0.34	2.92^a±0.76	2.58^b±0.66	1.84^c±0.72

Notes: Data are mean ± standard deviation, where 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree. Different letters within a row indicate a statistically significant difference (P<0.05, one-way ANOVA, Fisher’s least significant difference post hoc).

Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; C1, cluster 1; C2, cluster 2; C3, cluster 3; C4, cluster 4.

Table 3 Consumers’ liking of wine sensory attributes

Sensory attributes	Total sample n=1,015	Oak knowledge segments
		C1 n=461	C2 n=133	C3 n= 141	C4 n= 112
Oak
Chocolate, caramel, butterscotch, honey	3.42±0.96	3.43±0.96	3.54±0.96	3.44±0.93	3.57±0.95
Vanilla, coconut, woody, oak	3.42±0.94	3.54±0.84	3.55±0.94	3.62±0.89	3.65±0.96
Red
Spicy, black pepper, licorice	3.46±1.12	3.45^b±1.04	3.64^b±1.08	3.67^b±1.09	4.04^a±0.93
Herbaceous, earthy, tobacco, cigar	3.02±1.13	2.94^c±1.04	3.25^b±1.09	3.27^b±1.17	3.73^a±1.11
Prune, raisin, fig	3.36±0.89	3.40±0.83	3.46±0.95	3.35±0.96	3.45±0.88
Blackcurrant, blackberry, strawberry, cherry	3.87±0.88	3.82^b±0.87	3.96^a,b±0.90	3.92^a,b±0.88	4.l6^a±0.71
White
Floral, rose, geranium	3.00±0.95	2.92^b±0.91	3.00^b±0.99	2.91^b±0.99	3.37^a±0.96
Citrus, lemon, lime	3.65±0.94	3.59^b±0.93	3.40^b±0.99	3.63^b±0.97	4.04^a±0.87
Capsicum, cut grass, eucalyptus	2.78±0.97	2.81±0.93	2.77±0.95	2.75±1.02	3.06±1.09
Apricot, peach, apple	3.43±0.91	3.36^b±0.89	3.36^b±0.94	3.43^b±0.91	3.73^a±0.80
Melon, passion fruit, pineapple, tropical fruit	3.41 ±1.02	3.38±0.97	3.38± 1.07	3.39± 1.03	3.46±1.04

Notes: Data are means ± standard deviation, where 1= strongly dislike and 5= strongly like. Different letters within a row indicate a statistically significant difference (P<0.05, one-way ANOVA, Fisher’s least significant difference post hoc).

Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; C1, cluster 1; C2, cluster 2; C3, cluster 3; C4, cluster 4.

Table 4 Consumers’ preferences for oak maturation of wine

	Total sample (%) n= 1,015	Oaked wine consumer segment (%) n=847	Oak knowledge segments (%)
			C1 n=461	C2 n=133	C3 n= 141	C4 n= 112
Enjoy drinking oaked wines
No	16.6
Yes	44.4		47.3	55.6	58.2	68.8
Sometimes	39.0		52.7	44.4	41.8	31.3
Prefer French or American oak
Not sure/no preference		81.0	92.6	75.9	79.5	41.1
French		17.1	6.5	21.1	17.0	56.3
American		1.9	0.9	3.0	3.5	2.7
Able to tell the difference between wine made in barrel or with alternatives
No		78.3	90.9	78.9	78.0	25.9
Yes		21.7	9.1	21.1	22.0	74.1

Abbreviations: C1, cluster 1; C2, cluster 2; C3, cluster 3; C4, cluster 4.

Table 5 Relative importance of factors influencing wine consumers’ purchasing decisions

	Total sample n=1,015	Oak knowledge segments
		C1 n=461	C2 n=133	C3 n=141	C4 n= 112
Oak treatment	2.67±1.10	2.51^c±1.02	2.94^a,b±1.11	2.84^b±1.11	3.25^a±0.94
Production method	2.44±1.00	2.35^c±0.95	2.67^a,b±1.04	2.51^b,c±1.03	2.92^a±1.05
Previous consumption	4.46±0.64	4.48±0.61	4.42±0.63	4.48±0.68	4.33±0.66
Price	4.13±0.73	4.11±0.71	4.20±0.64	4.04±0.86	3.96±0.77
Wine style	4.05±0.90	3.97^b±0.93	4.14^a,b±0.80	4.12^a,b±0.96	4.26^a±0.68
Wine grape variety	4.00±1.03	3.87^b±1.04	4.I7^a±0.91	4.22^a±0.92	4.38^a±0.77
Occasion	4.00±0.86	3.97±0.85	4.16±0.68	3.96±0.91	3.92±0.92
Try something different	3.54±0.90	3.49^b±0.87	3.58^a,b±0.86	3.61^a,b±0.85	3.83^a±0.95
Reputation of winemaker	3.71±0.90	3.67^b±0.87	3.83^a,b±0.91	3.70^b±0.90	4.00^a±0.81
Wine region	3.95±0.92	3.90^b±0.92	4.I6^a±0.77	3.97^a,b±0.83	4.17^a±0.85
Environmental issues	2.63±1.11	2.65±1.13	2.78±1.15	2.53±1.09	2.49±1.04
Recommendation by wine writers	3.05±1.12	2.96^c±1.10	3.28^a,b±1.14	3.02^b,c±1.07	3.62^a±0.96
Cellaring potential	2.50±1.14	2.37^c±1.10	2.73^b±1.17	2.68^b±1.16	3.26^a±1.03
Wine brand	3.75±0.49	3.83^a±0.43	3.82^a,b±0.48	3.68^b±0.53	3.48^c±0.54
Food pairing	3.28±1.06	3.26^b±1.02	3.47^a,b±1.03	3.34^a,b±1.06	3.66^a±0.90
Year of vintage	3.34±1.02	3.29^c±0.95	3.56^b±0.95	3.53^b±0.99	3.92^a±0.86
Advertising	3.45±1.04	3.55^a±1.00	3.47^a,b±0.99	3.26^bc±1.01	3.05^c±1.13
Awards or medals	3.35±0.97	3.47^a±0.87	3.50^a±0.97	3.12^b±0.98	2.96^b±1.09
Alcohol level	2.35±1.05	2.38^a,b±1.04	2.22^b±1.02	2.24^b±0.94	2.59^a±1.10
Packaging	3.13±1.03	3.18^a±1.00	3.25^a±1.02	3.06^a±1.01	2.69^b±1.08
Recommendation from friends/family	3.91±0.84	3.98^a±0.77	3.97±0.83	3.83^a,b±0.86	3.63^b±0.96
Cellar door visit	3.30±1.21	3.22^b±1.24	3.44^a,b±1.11	3.51^a,b±1.06	3.63^a±1.11
Additives	2.64±1.13	2.72^a±1.11	2.78^a±1.18	2.58^a,b±1.20	2.32^b±1.03
Hot or cold weather	3.45±1.14	3.44±1.09	3.66±1.14	3.60±1.12	3.55±1.19

Notes: Data are means ± standard deviation, where 1= very unlikely and 5= very likely. Different letters within a row indicate a statistically significant difference (P<0.05, one-way ANOVA, Fisher’s least significant difference post hoc).

Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; C1, cluster 1; C2, cluster 2; C3, cluster 3; C4, cluster 4.

Table 6 Final cluster centers for oak knowledge segmentation

	C1 n=461	C2 n=133	C3 n= 141	C4 n= 112
Oak impacts taste	3.09^b	3.53^a	2.91^d	3.02^c
Opinion toward oak alternatives	2.98^a	2.97^a	2.25^b	2.00^c
Oak impacts quality	2.97^c	3.63^b	2.68^d	3.94^a

Notes: Data are means. Different letters within a row indicate a statistically significant difference (P<0.05, one-way ANOVA, Fisher’s least significant difference post hoc).

Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; C1, cluster 1; C2, cluster 2; C3, cluster 3; C4, cluster 4.