International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman

Do upscale restaurant owners use wine lists as a differentiation strategy?

Gloria Berenguer, Irene Gil, Mara Eugenia Ruiz *
`ncia, Avda. de los Naranjos, s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain Department of Marketing and Market Research, Universitat de Vale

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Differentiation strategy Positioning Restaurant Wine list

The present paper studies various criteria used by upscale restaurant owners to differentiate their restaurants and to dene their positioning. In particular, we studied several wine list attributes. Through a cluster analysis and a correspondence factor analysis based on different objective wine list characteristics, we obtain two main differentiated proles of restaurants according to the relative importance of their wine list in comparison with food menu: wine selection and complementarity. Upscale restaurants need to dene their positioning strategy and elaborate their wine lists according to their strategy. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The restaurant industrys environment has become highly competitive. Due to this scenario, it is fundamental for restaurants to try and develop a special gastronomical experience for increasingly demanding customers (Keyt et al., 1994; Johnson et al., 2005; Asenjo, 2006). This can be obtained through differentiation. Thus marketing researchers have traditionally been concerned with the classication of commercial establishments and the relation between company strategies and the results in terms of productivity and effectiveness (Entenberg, 1959; Bucklin, 1963; Lewis and Thomas, 1990; Conant et al., 1990). One of the differentiation factors for restaurants is the supply of wines, since good food accompanied by suitable wine can greatly enhance the gastronomical experience (Aune, 2002). Traditionally, the existence of a supply of ne wines has been an excellent parameter for judging restaurant quality, and at the same time there is no logic to having a good gastronomical supply without a magnicent wine selection (Asenjo, 2000). In this sense, the sale of wines can add signicant protability to a restaurants turnover and, consequently, the restaurant owner must carefully select suitable ways of promoting the restaurants wines (Manske and Cordua, 2005). The literature indicates that the most commonly used ways of promoting wines include adding a wine selection to the menu (Dodd, 1997), improving the wine list (Aspler, 1991a; Brown, 2003) and training waiters in wine knowledge (Granucci et al., 1994; Brown, 2003).

Nevertheless, due to the multidisciplinary nature of gastronomy, it has not been a common object of academic research (Johnson et al., 2005). A preliminary step to studying the marketing strategies of companies in the restaurant sector is to classify and dene company characteristics. Hence, the present paper aims at identifying wine list management styles in order to assess if wine lists can be a differentiation instrument for upscale restaurants. In particular, we studied the wine list as a key element in the classication of upscale restaurants and the restaurant characteristics related to the different wine list strategies. This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews literature on the importance of wines for restaurants and menu engineering. In Section 3 the methodology, the sample and the databases are described. This is followed by presentation and discussion of the results. The nal part of the paper contains the conclusions, limitations and new research lines in Sections 6 and 7. 2. Literature review 2.1. Wines and restaurants The importance of food consumption outside the home has increased substantially in recent years in Spain, and thus, the demand for restaurants (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, 2006). Expenditure in restaurants represents 25.6% of total food expenditure in Spain for 2006, with moderate and sustainable growth for the last 15 years (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion, 2006). In an increasingly competitive environment, wine plays a fundamental role in the gastronomical experience (Yuksel and Yuksel, 2002; Yuan et al., 2005). In fact, of the total expenditure in hotel and catering channels by Spanish consumers, expenditure on

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 96382 88 60; fax: +34 96382 83 33. E-mail address: M.Eugenia.Ruiz@uv.es (M.E. Ruiz). 0278-4319/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.04.003

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695

87

alcoholic drinks represents 31.5%. In particular, in the Valencia region, per capita expenditure on wines is slightly below the national average (Martin, 2006). In the wine market, as in most food markets in Europe, increased competition and more demanding consumers have given rise to a differentiation strategy, i.e. the proliferation of designations of origin (Ruiz et al., 2004). There is a trend towards an increase in the consumption of wines with designation of origin, thanks to greater consumer knowledge and interest in wine (Ruiz et al., 2004). Wine and alcoholic drinks in general have some special characteristics which mean they are mainly appreciated by consumers because of their symbolic benets (Diez, 2007). First, social and out-of-home consumption of these products is high (MAPA, 2006; Martnez, 2007). Thus, the consumption occasion plays a fundamental role in consumer segmentation. Second, consumers choose the drink and/or brand that transmits their desired values (Dez, 2007). Thus, alcohol consumption is associated to social life, leisure, entertainment, and projection of ones own personality through the consumed drink, and the alcoholic drink is considered to be an element for group integration and differentiation of individual personality (Diez, 2007). In this sense, in the wine market, brand has an important inuence on the purchase decision (Martnez, 2007), since many consumers look for a particular emotional connection with a brand, rather than an organoleptic experience. However, demand for the different brands is inuenced by the presence of different brands in the restaurants, as well as the role of the waiter as a prescriptor (Ralis and OBrien, 1986; Johnson and Masotti, 1990). In fact, there is a very wide supply of brands with low consumer loyalty (Martnez, 2007). In addition to this, although wine has been traditionally the most popular alcoholic drink in Spain, drinks with a higher alcohol content have become more popular in recent years. Consequently, there has been a 9.6% drop in wine consumption in the hotel and catering channels in 2005 and 2006 (MAPA, 2006). Finally, there are important regional differences in the wine market (Martnez, 2007), which requires large samples for analysis at national level and makes the extrapolation of results difcult. Therefore, the alcoholic drinks market has special features which are not shared by other categories and, because of its own internal structure, it is a complex sector for market research (Martnez, 2007). 2.2. Criteria for menu engineering In order to attract customers, upscale restaurants have traditionally differentiated from others through the service attributes (skills, know-how, qualied staff, . . .) and ambience attributes (size, facilities, location and decoration) (Johnson et al., 2005). These resources or differentiation elements include the menu or dish list, since consumer perceptions can be formed by past personal experience and other sources, such as restaurant communication materials (Kara et al., 1996). In this regard, the restaurant menu can be considered as both a communication and a sales instrument (Bowen and Morris, 1995). Thus, menus are designed following quantitative menu engineering criteria (Morrison, 1997) in order to pursue benets in terms of protability of the dishes or drinks included (Miller, 1980) and their contribution margin and popularity (Kasavana and Smith, 1982; Pavesic, 1983). Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to the qualitative aspects of menu design in the literature, even if this kind of criteria is highly used by practitioners and restaurant guides for evaluating restaurant quality. In particular, Gault Millau (2008) pays special attention to creativity and food and wine pairing, while the

National Restaurant Association (2008) considers reader-friendliness to be the most important characteristic of a menu. Other qualitative aspects of menu design include quality and variety of the dishes and beverages on the menu (Ribeiro, 2002). As far as variety is concerned, several studies point out the importance of heterogeneity in terms of product quality, prices and other attributes, and freedom to choose (Keyt et al., 1994; King et al., 2004) as well as a strong positive correlation between perceived variety and customer satisfaction (Bell et al., 1994; King et al., 2004). Evocative names and descriptions in the restaurant menu might improve perception of the dishes, facilitating the introduction of unfamiliar dishes (Wansink et al., 2005) and increasing their sales (Wansink et al., 2001). The inclusion of information about product features such as sensory characteristics and origin-varietal information can play a relevant role in customer decisions about wine purchase in restaurants (Durham et al., 2004). Additionally, the use of promotions is recommended according to the positive results reported in the literature (Wansink et al., 2006). There is also emphasis on the importance of price perception and psychological prices in the menu in relation to the perception of quality (Naipaul and Parsa, 2001). Wine list formal design may also play an important role, since most wine consumers view the consumption of wine as an aesthetic process (Charters and Pettigrew, 2005) and thus, wine professionals can use the association of wine to art and aesthetics as a way of promoting their product. Colours, paper quality, illustrations, information structure, and other formal features can increase sales of additional products that usually accompany main dishes and reinforce the restaurants image, as the menu is an extension of the restaurants personality. All in all, the desire to innovate can be pointed out as a rationale for menu planning (Morrison, 1997), differentiating the restaurant from competitors. Nevertheless, menu design and results highly depend on restaurant characteristics. In this sense, staff capabilities and space limitations for the dishes and beverages included on the menu might conditionate menu design (Morrison, 1997). Regarding menu results, it has been reported that the menu in itself exerts little inuence on customer decisions (Bowen and Morris, 1995). Restaurant characteristics such as atmosphere (Dube et al., 1994; Dulen, 1998; Susskind and Chan, 2000) and the presence of a sommelier (Aspler, 1991a,b; Hochstein, 1994; Manske and Cordua, 2005) play an important role in quality assessment, customer satisfaction with the restaurant services, restaurant sales and, ultimately, customer loyalty (Robinson et al., 2005). To sum up, restaurant owners must consider the abovementioned elements when designing a new menu, as they are a reection of the restaurants image (Bowen and Morris, 1995). However, even if wine consumption in restaurants and interest in wines are increasing, little attention has been paid to differentiation strategies adopted by restaurants based on their wine lists. In this sense, in order to assess if a wine list can be used as a differentiation strategy in upscale restaurants, the objective of this study is to answer the following research question: RQ1: Can listing of wines be used as differentiation strategies in upscale restaurants?

RQ2: Are there specic restaurant attributes, services and results related to each wine list management style? In other words, are wine list differentiation strategies affected by service attributes and ambience attributes in upscale restaurants?

88

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695

3. Methodology Classication plays a central role in the systematic understanding and prediction of any phenomenon (Singh, 1990) and in particular, it is essential for understanding and analyzing relationships in the service industry (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2001). Particularly as restaurants are heterogeneous in various aspects, such as size, services and competitive approach, it is essential to dene groups or clusters of restaurants in order to evaluate their strategies. Furthermore, positioning allows analysis of a companys situation in relation to a series of attributes in comparison with its competitors. The present paper aims at presenting wine lists as a differentiation tool for upscale restaurants, considering wine list characteristics as key variables. The positioning of the previously obtained groups of restaurants is also analyzed based on their service attributes. Thus, we carry out an inductive study, since we consider the empirical evidence, i.e. data collected from direct observation of the wine list and a questionnaire to the restaurant owner, sommelier and/or person in charge of wines, our nal aim being to obtain evidence in favour of wine lists as a differentiation tool for upscale restaurants and their positioning. 3.1. Qualitative and quantitative research In order to determine the relevant attributes for analyzing wine lists of upscale restaurants, qualitative research was developed based on two focus groups in which 15 and 11 experts took part respectively, i.e. sommeliers, wine makers, gourmets, restaurant owners and distributors selected and contacted by the Valencia Restaurant Federation. During these sessions participants were asked to write down the denition of a wine list and a list with the design and content attributes that an excellent wine list should have. Then, these denitions and the relevance of these attributes, as well as the expected benets of the wine list for the restaurant, were discussed in the group. They were also asked to list the features of an excellent or ideal wine list. The sessions were recorded and the information provided by the attendants was further analyzed. After processing the information collected in the focus groups, we constructed a questionnaire whose items were purged in order to propose an ad hoc measure to identify the main wine list management styles. The questionnaire included the respondents assessment of their wine list content and design, the relevance of different criteria for including new wines in the wine list, the assessment of the benets provided by the wine list and a set of restaurant classication items. Respondents were asked to rank different attributes regarding the design and the content of their wine lists on a 10-point scale ranging from not at all characteristic of my restaurants wine list (1) to extremely characteristic of my restaurants wine list (10). In particular, we asked respondents to assess the design of their wine lists and the ideal or excellent wine list in terms of a series of relevant attributes pointed out by the experts in the focus groups, i.e. avant-garde/traditional, discrete/ impressive, colourful, large format, voluminous, additional information, easy to use, easy to change and additions highlighted. Wine list content was also assessed through the attributes modern/classical, homogeneous/heterogeneous, imaginative/conventional, varied, extensive, specialized, discrete, selective and innovative. Additionally, respondents were asked to evaluate on a scale of 110 the importance of different factors when including a new wine on the list, as well as the benets they obtain from their wine lists and to what extent the wine list is useful in providing positive results for their companies. Among the criteria pointed out by the

literature and the participants of the focus groups, respondents were asked about the importance of personal taste, sommelier opinion, fashion, protability/rotation, consumer, distributor, wine quality, differentiation, wine and food pairing and others factors when introducing a new wine in the wine list. Regarding the benets of the wine list, respondents were asked to rank the importance of the wine list as an instrument for increasing the restaurants prestige, protability, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty and restaurant value as well as a marketing tool. The objective and subjective variables of the restaurant were also provided by the questionnaire. In particular, regarding the objective variables we collected information about total restaurant capacity measured in number of seats available, average price of the menu including meal, beverages, service charge and taxes, year of business and wine list creation, restaurant and cellar area, and availability of tasting menu, sommelier and parking. The subjective variables include the respondents perception of the importance of the wine list for the restaurant and the customer, as well as the percentage of loyal customers. These variables were expected to differ depending on the restaurants wine list strategy and management style. The eld work was developed through an objective analysis of the wine lists provided by the restaurants and a personal survey about the characteristics of the restaurant and the opinion of the interviewed person concerning the wine list in his/her restaurant. A researcher visited the restaurant to administer the questionnaire personally and to collect a copy of the restaurants wine list. This copy of the wine list allowed analysis of the objective variables of the wine list from direct observation of wine types, origin and prices, as well as several formal featuresi.e. the separation of the wine list from the dish list, the inclusion of illustrations and comments, list size, the versatility of the list to introduce changes and avant-garde design. The inclusion of illustrations and comments refers to additional information in the wine list such as grape varieties, sensory evaluation of the wines, tasting notes, general information about the region of origin, etc. In order to assess wine list size, the standard was DIN/A 4, classifying as normal or small format any which do not exceed this measurement, and the large format otherwise. DIN-A 4 is the most commonly used paper size in European countries, i.e. 210 mm 297 mm. This paper size is 6 mm narrower and 18 mm longer than the letter paper size, 8 1/2 11 in. (216 mm 279 mm), commonly used in North America. Furthermore, we considered that the wine list was versatile or easy to change when its pages are removable and it is easy to introduce or eliminate a reference. Finally, avant-garde or innovative design was assessed on the basis of shape, fonts, colours, illustrations and other graphic elements, as well as the structure or organization of the wine list. Regarding the latter, a wine list had an avant-garde structure if they were not organized by origin or wine style, which are the most commonly used structures in Spain, i.e. sensory characteristics, food association, vintage. The opposite of avantgarde or innovative design was traditional design. 3.2. Data analysis Data were analyzed through cluster and correspondence factor analysis as well as ANOVA. First, a k-means cluster analysis has been performed in order to dene restaurant proles that minimize intra-group differences and maximize inter-group differences (Punj and Stewart, 1983). For this analysis we have considered as relevant variables a series of objective wine list characteristics, obtained through direct observation. These characteristics refer to wine list content, i.e. total number of wines, number of countries and number of different designations of

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695

89

origin, and wine list design, i.e. the separation of the wine list from the dish list, the inclusion of illustrations and comments, list size, the versatility of the list to introduce changes and avant-garde design. Upon analysis of the resulting dendogram, the number of clusters is decided. This number of clusters is externally validated with a correspondence factor analysis and an ANOVA analysis. Taking into consideration the previously obtained types of restaurants, a correspondence factor analysis (CFA) is performed to explore the positioning of the three groups of establishments with respect to a series of restaurant attributes, services and results is analyzed, i.e. restaurant and cellar area, capacity, menu price, tasting menu, sommelier, parking, and customer loyalty. In this way, we aim at identifying restaurant characteristics related to the different wine list strategies, following Research Question 2. The CFA methodology provides information on the afnities between two sets of variables, i.e. restaurant attributes and clusters of restaurants grouped according to the design and content of their wine lists. CFA is used to identify groups of companies with similar behavior, since it allows analysis of the existing relationship between categories and the dimensional structure of the explanatory variables (Schaffer and Green, 1998; Iniesta and Sanchez, 2002). In this sense, this technique can be used to study both the typology of companies based on their common characteristics, and the interrelation between these characteristics by means of a simple graphical representation (Servera et al., 2006). Thus, the points (rows or columns) that near the origin of the graphical representation are points with proles similar to the average or expected value, and thus, have little inuence on the dimension. Those far from the origin, therefore, will behave differently from the others. On the other hand, proximity between two row (or column) points means that they present similar proles (Grande and Abascal, 2006). Finally, the similarity between a row and column prole can be measured through the cosine of the angle between the point and the x-coordinate. Thus, restaurants with more similar proles will be nearer in the dimensional space. Finally, we perform a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). This method is used to compare the means of two or more independent groups and is instrumented through the F-statistic test. The higher the value of this test, the more evident the existence of differences between the means of the groups and, thus, the lower the probability of rejecting the hypothesis of means equality when this hypothesis is actually true, i.e. the lower the signicance level. The external validation of the cluster solution through ANOVA analysis consists of comparing the average values of clusters through other measures different from the clustering variables. In this way, we try to determine whether the subjects belonging to each group behave differently to variables that have not been included in the analysis, as it is expected that the differences between clusters involve different behaviors in several variables, such as wine list extension (number of pages) and variety in terms of product (number of countries and designations of origin) and prices (minimum, mean and maximum price). The distinguishing features of the clusters are identied, both regarding the grouping variable (objective characteristics of the wine list) and the variables for their characterization (restaurant characteristics, own wine list evaluation and ideal wine list criteria). In this way, we aim at dening restaurant proles that minimize intra-group differences and maximize inter-group differences in order to differentiate from competitors and obtain sustainable competitive advantages. 4. Sample and databases Our sample is formed by upscale restaurants due to different reasons. First, the literature pays little attention to the study of

upscale restaurants. Although several studies analyze the positioning of quick service restaurants (Kara et al., 1996; Verma et al., 1999; Knutson, 2000), upscale restaurants have not been a common object of study. In this sense, a series of studies has pointed out the importance of positioning for prioritizing and designing alternative marketing strategies (Burns, 1986). In particular, perceptual maps have been considered highly important for the hotel and catering sector in general (Dev et al., 1995) and especially for restaurants (Mazanec, 1995). Upscale restaurants offer high quality dishes, complex menus with exclusive specialties, a careful presentation of their dishes and high customization (Muller and Woods, 1994). The operational keys of these establishments focus on customization of the experience, ownership pride and uniqueness within standard systems, whereas the strategic approach concentrates on product differentiation, quality, image and price as a selection variable (Muller and Woods, 1994). Thus, we understand that the strategies followed by upscale restaurants can serve as a model for others of inferior category. In order to elaborate our sample of restaurants in the city of Valencia and its region, ve Web sites of directories or restaurant guides were accessed i.e. http://www.laotraguia.com; http:// www.verema.com; http://www.guiacampsa.com; http://www. viamichelin.es; http://www.guiasrestaurantes.com as well as Gua Vergara (Vergara, 2006). We selected the second and thirdcategory of Valencia and its metropolitan area. Seventy restaurants met the above criteria, and 52 of them agreed to participate in our research, representing 74.3% of the total number of upscale restaurants in the region under study. In order to characterize the restaurants in our sample, the frequencies and percentage in the total sample for each category of the variables describing the establishment are shown in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the restaurants in our sample are mainly medium-sized (between 70 and 120 m2), with a small cellar (less than 20 m2), a sommelier, up to 75 seats, a tasting menu, an average price of between 31 and 50 euros and no parking. In
Table 1 Characteristics of the restaurants in the sample Variable Restaurant surface <70 m2 70120 m2 >120 m2 Cellar surface <20 m2 2040 m2 >40 m2 Capacity (number of seats) <50 5175 >75 Parking Yes No Sommelier Yes No Tasting menu Yes No Frequency %

6 29 15

12.0 58.0 30.0

21 15 12

43.8 31.3 25.0

18 17 16

35.3 33.3 31.4

35 16

68.6 31.4

22 29

56.9 43.1

33 18

64.7 35.3

Average menu price (meal, beverages, service charges and taxes included) <30 euros 5 3150 euros 19 >50 euros 9

15.2 57.6 27.3

90 Table 2 Analysis of clustering variables Variables Number of references Comments Illustrations Format size Separate wine list Versatility Avant-garde Number of cases %

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695

Selection 256.50 0.25 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.83 0.67 12 24

Specialization 827.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 2 4

Complementarity 86.36 0.05 0.14 0.33 0.81 0.64 0.44 36 72

F 224.61 3.25a 1.08 0.49 0.22 2.94c 45.62a

a

Differences between groups* 12; 12; 23 12; 12; 13; 23 13; 23

23 13

Statistically signicant at a1%, b5% and c10%.

particular, it is important to point out that 56.9% of the restaurants in our sample have a wine steward. According to the comments from questionnaire respondents, and the results of the qualitative research, it is inferred that a good wine service is even more important than the wine list. In this sense, the gure of the sommelier is vital for optimal management of a good Wine List. 5. Results 5.1. Wine list management styles In order to identify wine list management styles we perform a k-means cluster analysis. As a hierarchical method, this analysis provides a dendogram or tree diagram representing the resulting groups and, in this case, three clusters are identied through this technique. In Table 2 Panel A we show the average values of the variables in each cluster and the F-statistic for the ANOVA analysis,
Table 3 Correspondence factor analysis results Dimension Singular value Inertia

as well as the statistically signicant differences between clusters at the 5% level for the Tukey post hoc multiple comparison test. The clusters obtained show signicant differences in the variables relative to number of references, comments, versatility and avant-garde character for 99%, 99%, 90% and 99% condence levels, respectively. In particular, the second cluster shows a higher number of wine references and comments on the wine list, while on the other hand, the wine list is more difcult to change than in the other establishments. The restaurants included in this second cluster also show a higher number of illustrations, larger format and a separate wine list, independent from the dish list, even if the differences between groups are not signicant for the latter variables. This could be explained by the fact that the restaurants included in the second group pay special attention to wines. The most avant-garde wine list is that of the establishments in cluster 1. Cluster 3 shows the lowest values for all the variables except versatility. This may indicate that the establishments included in

x2

Signicance

Proportion of inertia Accounted for Cumulative

Condence singular value S.D. Correlation

Panel A: Dimensions description 1 0.737 2 0.151 Total Cluster

0.543 0.023 0.566 Mass 166.418 Score in dimension 0.000

0.960 0.040 1.000 Inertia

0.960 1.000 1.000 Contribution of point to inertia of dimension

0.054 0.052

0.006

Contribution of dimension to inertia of point 1 2

1 Panel B: Row and column points Row points Selection Specialization Complementarity Column points Low surface Intermediate surface High surface Parking No parking Sommelier No sommelier Tasting menu No tasting menu Low menu price Intermediate menu price High menu price Low loyalty Intermediate loyalty High loyalty

0.218 0.126 0.656

0.341 2.263 0.321

0.720 0.010 0.241

0.036 0.475 0.055

0.034 0.874 0.092

0.748 0.000 0.252

0.523 1.000 0.896

0.477 0.000 0.104

0.020 0.095 0.051 0.051 0.119 0.095 0.071 0.105 0.061 0.126 0.003 0.041 0.044 0.082 0.034

0.440 0.318 0.441 0.444 0.340 0.319 0.273 0.442 0.441 2.120 3.070 0.733 0.439 0.297 0.443

0.534 0.283 0.322 0.527 0.274 0.511 0.303 0.048 0.180 0.134 0.066 1.041 0.615 0.331 0.315

0.004 0.008 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.011 0.005 0.015 0.009 0.417 0.024 0.023 0.009 0.007 0.005

0.005 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.019 0.013 0.007 0.028 0.016 0.768 0.043 0.030 0.012 0.010 0.009

0.039 0.051 0.035 0.094 0.059 0.164 0.043 0.022 0.013 0.015 0.000 0.293 0.111 0.059 0.022

0.768 0.860 0.902 0.776 0.883 0.656 0.799 0.906 0.967 0.999 1.000 0.708 0.713 0.797 0.906

0.232 0.140 0.098 0.224 0.117 0.344 0.201 0.094 0.330 0.001 0.000 0.292 0.287 0.203 0.094

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695

91

this cluster have a discrete wine list, designed as a mere complement to the dish list. Thus, we call the rst cluster selection, since it includes restaurants with an intermediate number of wines in the list and continuously renewed wine lists. The second cluster, called specialization, contains the restaurants with the highest number of labels, as well as the widest information about wines. Finally, most of the restaurants of our sample are in third cluster, which includes establishments with the lowest number of labels, countries of origin and designations of origin, and the lowest number of pages and comments. We have denominated this cluster complementarity, since the wine list seems to play a secondary role in comparison to the gastronomical supply in this type of establishments. 5.2. Restaurant positioning Considering the sample of restaurants represented by the three clusters dened above, in this section we explore the positioning of upscale restaurants from a series of attributes related to the service offered by excellent restaurants. In particular, we considered the following relevant attributes: sommelier availability, restaurant size (measured as restaurant area), availability of parking, existence of tasting menu, mean menu price and customer loyalty. Table 3 shows the dimensions as well as the row points i.e. clusters of restaurants and the column points attributes obtained by the correspondence factor analysis. The three wine list management styles conjointly explain 56.6% of the variability of wine list attributes, being this a good result. The proportion of explained inertia indicates the percentage value of the inertia provided by each dimension. In particular, the rst dimension explains 96% of the information and the second explains the remaining 4%, with the total information explained by these two dimensions being 100%. Fig. 1 shows the three row points representing the clusters, and the column points for restaurant attributes, i.e. restaurant area and parking facilities. In order to facilitate graph analysis, two vectors have been drawn up from the origin of coordinate axes to each of the points that represent the two types of companies. Fig. 1 shows that the restaurants included in cluster selection are associated to parking availability and intermediate restaurant surface, whereas those included in the group labelled under the name of

Fig. 2. Restaurant strategy, sommelier and menu characteristics.

complementarity are associated to large restaurant surface and the absence of parking facilities. The former address a more select and demanding target market than the latter, where restaurant capacity is lower and additional services, such as parking facilities, more important. Fig. 2 shows the correspondence factor analysis results for menu and wine service, i.e. sommelier availability, intermediate menu price and tasting menu. As can be observed, the winespecialist restaurants are associated to an intermediate menu price, the restaurants in the selection cluster are associated with sommelier availability, and the restaurants in the complementarity cluster are associated with the absence of a sommelier and tasting menu. In order to analyze the relationship between wine list strategies and restaurant results, Fig. 3 shows clusters of restaurants and results in terms of customer loyalty. It can be seen that the restaurants in the selection cluster are associated with an intermediate level of loyalty, whereas the restaurants where the wine list plays a secondary or complementary role are associated to low loyalty.

Fig. 1. Restaurant strategy, restaurant area and parking.

Fig. 3. Restaurant strategy and customer loyalty.

92

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695 Table 4 Analysis of wine list attributes Variables Panel A: Objective variables Number of countries Number of designations of origin Minimum price Mean price Maximum price Number of pages Panel B: Subjective variablesdesign Avant-garde Colourful Discrete Large format Voluminous Additional information Easy to use Traditional Impressive Easy to change Additions highlighted Panel C: Subjective variablescontent Modern Varied Extensive Specialized Classical Discrete Homogenous Imaginative Selective Heterogeneous Conventional Innovative Number of cases % Selection Complementarity F 34.76a 48.73a 8.90a 10.36a 15.88a 38.67a

From the above gures, it can be inferred that the three points representing the clusters are very distant from each other, each located in a different quadrant and far away from the origin of coordinate axes. This result supports the existence of important differences between the restaurants in the three clusters. If we consider conjointly attributes and clusters of restaurants, we can draw conclusions about each type of restaurant positions in comparison to the other restaurants. It can be stated that the winespecialized restaurants are strongly associated with an intermediate menu price; the selective restaurants, that pay attention to wines as well as food, are associated with sommelier availability, parking facilities, intermediate restaurant surface and intermediate customer loyalty; and nally the restaurants in which the wine list plays a complementary role are associated with no sommelier, no parking facilities and no tasting menu, high restaurant surface and low customer loyalty. Thus, it can be inferred from these results that each wine list strategy is associated to specic restaurant attributes, services and results in terms of customer loyalty. 5.3. Wine list and restaurant attributes, wine list decisions and expected benets In order to enhance the characterization of the three clusters and to test statistically the results of the previous exploratory correspondence factor analysis, we perform an ANOVA (analysis of variance). In this way, we test the existence of signicant differences between the clusters of restaurants identied through their wine list management styles. Nevertheless, the specialization cluster only gathers two restaurants. The inclusion of this small segment results in large differences in group sizes between the three segment (ranging from N = 2 to N = 36). Since this fact might have consequences for the statistical analyses of the differences through ANOVA, the two restaurants in the specialization cluster have been considered as outliers and eliminated from the sample to be analyzed. In the ANOVA we have considered as dependent variables those used to classify the elements of the sample and as a factor the belonging to each cluster. The signicance of the differences between the two remaining clusters, i.e. selection and complementarity, is tested for different objective variables. These objective variables are obtained from direct observation of the wine list. The results are shown in Table 4 Panel A, that exhibits signicant differences between the two clusters for all the variables. In particular, the selection cluster shows a higher number of countries and designations of origin on the wine lists, as well as the highest prices and the highest number of pages. This evidence seems to conrm the high degree of wine specialization in these establishments, since they have a voluminous wine list with a wide and varied number of references in terms of prices. The complementarity cluster shows the lowest mean values in all the variables, which conrms the less relative importance these restaurants grant to their wine lists and their low specialization in wines. Furthermore, in the questionnaire the respondents were asked to rank the design of their current wine lists on a scale from 1 to 10. As it can be seen in Table 4 Panel B, only the features related to voluminous and additional information show signicant differences between different clusters for condence levels of 90% and 95%, respectively. In particular, the restaurants in selection cluster consider that their wine list is more voluminous and offers more additional information in comparison to the second cluster. The restaurants included in the selection cluster present higher scores than the complementarity cluster as far as avant-garde,

6.50 28.92 13.40 56.44 670.11 25.17

2.44 13.86 10.03 26.58 171.29 5.53

6.67 3.67 6.92 6.50 4.92 6.17 8.33 4.33 6.17 8.91 3.08

5.78 4.24 7.32 5.81 3.68 4.38 8.51 5.41 4.95 8.51 3.22

1.02 0.43 0.30 0.94 3.02c 4.39b 0.10 1.03 1.96 0.20 0.02

5.92 8.92 8.25 7.42 5.25 6.17 5.50 7.17 8.33 7.67 4.33 7.83 12 25

5.97 7.95 6.57 5.57 5.22 6.65 6.05 5.16 6.86 5.73 5.70 5.89 36 75

0.01 8.96a 8.08a 5.13b 0.00 0.55 0.39 7.05b 4.81b 6.89b 3.30c 7.13c

Statistically signicant at a1%, b5% and c10%.

large format, impressive and easy to change are concerned. The latter cluster describes its wine list as colourful, discrete, traditional, easy to use and with highlighted information on new additions. Thus, whereas the selection cluster considers that a showy design for the wine list is very important, the complementarity group points to conventionalism and practicality. However, the differences between clusters for these variables are not signicant. Respondents were also asked to evaluate the content or wine supply of their wine lists on the basis of different factors. The results are shown in Table 4 Panel C. In this case, there are signicant differences between the two clusters for the analyzed variables. In this sense, the restaurants in the rst cluster describe their wine supply as more varied, extensive, specialized, imaginative, selective, heterogeneous and innovative than the restaurants in the other cluster. The restaurants in the rst cluster describe their wine supply as more specialized, selective and more On the other hand, the restaurants in the second cluster point out that their supply of wines is more conventional. The questionnaires also provide measures for diverse objective variables that characterize a restaurant. Results in Panel A of Table 5 show the existence of signicant differences between clusters for cellar surface and average menu price for a condence level of 99%. In particular, the restaurants included in the rst cluster are those with the biggest cellar area and the highest average menu price, as is to be expected from a very selective restaurant. Additionally, in the questionnaire the respondents are asked to evaluate a series of subjective issues regarding their restaurants

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695 Table 5 Analysis of restaurant management variables, criteria for including a new wine on the wine list and expected benets Selection Panel A: Objective variables Restaurant surface Cellar surface Capacity (number of seats) Parking Sommelier Tasting menu Average menu price Panel B: Subjective variables Percentage of loyal customers Importance of wine list (customer) Importance of wine list (restaurant) Panel C: Criteria for including new wines Personal taste Sommelier opinion Fashion Protability/rotation Consumer Distributor Wine quality Differentiation Wine and food pairing Others Panel D: Expected benets Prestige Marketing tool Protability Customer satisfaction Customer loyalty Restaurant value Complementarity F

93

mentarity cluster show the lowest values for all the benets. This evidence supports the emphasis on wines of the rst cluster and the secondary role of the wine list in the establishments of latter cluster. 5.4. Excellence in a wine list In order to identify the criteria of excellence of a wine list, our respondents are asked to rank on a scale from 1 to 10 a series of attributes regarding design and content of an excellent or ideal wine listthat might differ from the current wine list of their restaurants because of budget or managerial restrictions. The results are shown in Table 6. The only design feature that presents signicant differences between the different clusters is discrete (condence level: 90%). This may reect the high degree of agreement between the different experts regarding the criteria that must inspire the elaboration of an excellent wine list. In particular, the restaurants in the second cluster emphasize to a greater extent that the list must be discrete, which is coherent with the greater discretion in their wine lists. Most of the mean values are around the midpoints of the scale, which would indicate the preference of the experts for a certain balance in the design of the ideal wine list. Regarding the results for the content or supply of an excellent wine list, the clusters differ signicantly in their valuations of the degree to which the wine list must be varied, extensive, specialized, imaginative and selective. In particular, the restaurants in cluster 1 appreciate to a greater extent the importance of all these variables in comparison to the restaurants in cluster 2. As for the design attributes, most of the valuations are around the midpoint of the scale, which would indicate the preference of the experts for a certain balance in the classicmodern combination of wines included in the list. Thus, whereas there are signicant differences in several design and content variables of the current wine lists of the restaurants included in the three clusters, there is a wide consensus about the attributes of an excellent or ideal wine list and there are only signicant

103.5 51.60 48.00 0.42 0.75 0.67 46.67

104.5 36.60 64.63 0.27 0.50 0.62 40.80

0.02 7.58a 0.58 0.89 2.58 0.08 10.86a

74.58 8.00 9.08

66.62 6.67 8.30

1.24 6.82a 2.51

7.67 7.56 5.33 6.25 9.00 6.17 9.67 7.58 8.08 4.50

6.84 7.19 5.70 6.57 8.43 5.51 9.03 5.17 6.35 8.50

0.98 0.15 0.16 0.14 0.89 0.59 2.74 4.76b 4.36b 0.71

8.25 7.87 8.08 8.75 8.00 8.67

7.46 7.03 7.38 8.27 7.38 7.76

2.68 0.86 1.31 1.65 0.69 2.40

Statistically signicant at a1%, b5% and c10%.

and their wine lists. The results are shown in Panel B of Table 5, where only the variable related to the importance of the wine list for the customer presents signicant differences between the two clusters for a condence level of 99%. In particular, the restaurants in the selection cluster consider that their clients accord the greatest importance to the wine list, whereas the restaurants in the complementarity cluster consider that for their clients the wine list has an importance above the midpoint score (i.e. 5), but lower than the restaurants included in the rst cluster. Regarding the wine list decisions, we ask the respondents to evaluate on a scale of 110 the importance of diverse factors when including a new wine on the list. This provided the statistics shown in Panel C of Table 5. According to these results, the only criteria with signicant differences for the two clusters are wine and food pairing and differentiation from competitors for a condence level of 95%. In particular, the selective restaurants attach the greatest importance to differentiation and wine and food pairing, whereas the establishments in the complementarity group pay less attention to both criteria. This can be explained by the nature of the restaurants in the latter cluster, where food is the essence of their establishments, and wines play a secondary role. Not wine but food is considered as relevant to differentiate the restaurant in the complementarity cluster from competitors. Finally, the respondents are asked about the benets that they obtain from their wine lists or to what extent the wine list is useful in providing positive results for their companies. In particular, they must rank the benets that the wine list provides to the restaurant on a scale from 1 to 10. The results are also shown in Table 5 (Panel D), where none of the variables show signicant differences between clusters. Nevertheless, the restaurants in the selection cluster assess more positively the importance of the expected benets of the wine list, while the restaurants in the comple-

Table 6 Analysis of attributes of an excellent or ideal wine list Variables Design Avant-garde Colourful Discrete Large format Voluminous Additional information Easy to use Traditional Impressive Easy to change Additions highlighted Content Modern Varied Extensive Specialized Classical Discrete Homogenous Imaginative Selective Heterogeneous Conventional Innovative Selection Complementarity F

7.08 3.75 4.42 5.17 5.50 6.75 9.58 3.67 6.75 9.50 4.50

6.62 4.86 6.51 5.27 4.59 5.70 9.25 5.08 6.49 9.65 5.19

0.23 1.58 5.51c 0.02 1.21 1.26 1.55 2.00 0.08 0.27 0.36

5.83 9.33 8.64 8.64 4.42 4.92 4.75 8.50 8.75 7.33 4.75 7.75

5.89 8.57 7.35 6.19 4.84 5.84 5.46 7.16 7.73 6.49 4.51 7.35

0.01 3.30c 4.00c 7.83a 0.55 1.67 0.68 3.63c 4.84b 1.36 0.15 0.38

Statistically signicant at a1%, b5% and c10%.

94

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695

differences for discrete design and extensive, specialized and imaginative content. This evidence supports the existence of the concept of an ideal wine list common to almost all experts and the use of the wine list as a differentiation tool in accordance with the strategy followed by the restaurant. 6. Conclusions The preceding analyses have allowed us to identify a series of structural characteristics of upscale restaurants on the basis of both objective and subjective information on the wine list. The evidence obtained is a rst approach to sector description that supports the use of the wine list by restaurant owners as a differentiation instrument. Thus, we consider that our results shed light on the situation of a sector characterized by highly heterogeneous companies regarding gastronomical supply, establishment characteristics and competitive approach. The grouping process provides two main clusters that signicantly differ in wine list and establishment characteristics, as well as in the importance granted to diverse aspects of the design and supply of their wine lists. As a conclusion of the cluster analysis, we can state that the greater the number of labels and wine origins, the greater the wine specialization. The graphical representation of the correspondence factor analysis shows the existence of a strong relationship between the restaurants (classied on the basis of wine list characteristics) and their attributes, conrming the existence of three differentiated restaurant proles based on wine list characteristics and the support provided by restaurant attributes and services to the wine list strategy. Additionally, it can be pointed out that the restaurants in our sample have very personal wine lists, mainly elaborated by the owner of the restaurant with low inuence of independent professionals. The owners love for wines or their qualication as sommeliers are usually the factors that justify this decision. As in Johnson et al. (2005), we consider that restaurants, as enterprise organizations, must become knowledge-based systems that accumulate and maximize intellectual capital. In this sense, and following Balasz (2001), we understand that restaurant owners must assume the double role of creative and business manager, trying to create a differentiated product to satisfy the needs of its segment of users in the most appropriate way (Kara et al., 1996). Nevertheless, this originality does not guarantee sustainability of the comparative advantage over time, especially in frequently consumed products or services. In this sense, we consider that the present work offers important implications for the development of consumer oriented marketing strategies and promotional actions to improve restaurant competitiveness, i.e. the wine list can be a communication, information and sales instrument for the restaurant. 7. Limitations and further research The limitations of the present paper include the characteristics of the restaurants in the sample. In this sense, the present study does not try to be an exhaustive description of wine list characteristics in upscale restaurants, but an exploratory analysis of the actions taken by restaurants valued as very good in the metropolitan area of the city of Valencia. Thus, we understand that the results obtained offer a rst approach that could be completed by extending the sample of restaurants. The present paper provides a new point of view for three research lines. First, the effectiveness of the clustering process could be tested in other geographic contexts. Second, the analysis should be completed with the guest perspective. As in Angulo et al.

(2001) and Smith and Mitry (2007), we understand that socioeconomic variables play an important role in explaining consumer wine purchase and consumption decisions and their interaction with wine lists should be analyzed. Additionally, wine means different things to different people and, thus, the same wine selection can have different levels of importance for each customer segment (Aune, 2002). Thus, the results of the present study should be completed with an analysis of customer perception and preferences about restaurants and their wine lists. Finally, the relationship between the type of restaurant and performance should be studied. Unfortunately, restaurant secondary data are not available, as independent restaurants are SME and they are not obliged to show publicly their nancial statements under Spanish legislation. Additional data on restaurant characteristics and performance can provide valuable information to dene more clearly the classication of upscale restaurants. Acknowledgement ` This research has been nanced by Agencia Valenciana del Turisme (Generalitat Valenciana) through its Center of Tourism Development (CdT Valencia), and has been supported by Feria Valencia through its trade fair Vinoelite. References
Angulo, A.M., Gil, J.M., Gracia, A., 2001. The demand for alcoholic beverages in Spain. Agricultural Economics 26 (1), 7183. Asenjo, J., 2000. Como confeccionar las cartas de vinos. Internet: http://elmundovino.elmundo.es/elmundovino/noticia.html?vi_seccion=3&vs_fecha=200012 &vs_noticia=977094359 (accessed on 05.12.06). Asenjo, J., 2006. Las 20 mejores cartas de vinos de Espana. Magazine El Mundo 4448. Aspler, T., 1991a. The silent wine steward: a successful wine list ensures increased wine sales. Foodservice and Hospitality 24, 4243. Aspler, T., 1991b. Wine stewards: a necessity of a upscale? Foodservice and Hospitality 24, 4143. Aune, L., 2002. The use of enchantment in wine and dining. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 (1), 3437. Balasz, K., 2001. Leadership lessons from Frances Great Chefs. Organizational Dynamics 30 (2), 134148. Bell, R., Meiselman, H.L., Pierson, J.P., Reeve, W.G., 1994. Effects of adding an Italian theme to a restaurant on the perceived ethnicity, acceptability, and selection of foods. Appetite 22, 1124. Bowen, J.T., Morris, A.J., 1995. Menu design: can menus sell? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 7 (4), 49. Brown, D., 2003. The Restaurant Managers Handbook: How to Set up, Operate and Manage a Financially Successful Foodservice Operation. Atlanta Publishing, Ocala, FL. Bucklin, L.P., 1963. Retail strategy and the classication of consumer goods. Journal of Marketing 27 (1), 5055. Burns, A.C., 1986. Generating marketing strategy priorities based on relative competitive position. Journal of Consumer Marketing 3 (4), 4956. Charters, S., Pettigrew, S., 2005. Is wine consumption an aesthetic experience? Journal of Wine Research 16 (2), 121136. Conant, J.S., Mokwa, M.P., Varadarajan, P.R., 1990. Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal 11, 365383. Dev, C.S., Morgan, M.S., Shoemaker, S., 1995. A positioning analysis of hotel brands based on travel-manager perceptions. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36 (6), 4855. Dez, J.L., 2007. El Brandy: Cuando el problema es el valor de la categora. Investiga cion y Marketing 95, 611. Dodd, T., 1997. Techniques to increase impulse wine purchases in a restaurant setting. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing 2, 6373. Dube, L., Renaghan, L.M., Miller, J.M., 1994. Measuring customer satisfaction for strategic management. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 35 (1), 3947. Dulen, J., 1998. Dazzling by design. Restaurants and Institutions 108 (30), 4049. Durham, C.A., Pardoe, I., Vega, E., 2004. A methodology for evaluating how product characteristics impact choice in retail settings with many zero observations: an application to restaurant wine purchase. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29 (1), 112131. Entenberg, R.D., 1959. Suggested changes in census classications of retail trade. Journal of Marketing 24 (1), 3943. Gault Millau, 2008. http://www.gaultmillau.de/bewertung/kriterien.htm.

G. Berenguer et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 28 (2009) 8695 Grande, I., Abascal, E., 2006. Fundamentos y tecnicas de investigacion comercial, 8th ed. ESIC, Madrid. Granucci, P., Huffman, V., Couch, A., 1994. Effect of wine training on restaurant sales of wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing 6, 1119. Hochstein, M., 1994. Bottom line: how much is a wine steward worth? Nations Restaurant News 28, 33. Iniesta, M.A., Sanchez, M., 2002. Segmentando el mercado de servicios en funcion del compromiso de los consumidores. Revista Espanola de Investigacion de Marketing ESIC 6 (1), 85106. Johnson, C.M., Masotti, R.M., 1990. Suggestive selling by waitstaff in family-style restaurants: an experiment and multisetting observations. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 11 (1), 3554. Johnson, C., Surlemont, B., Nicod, P., Revaz, F., 2005. Behind the stars: a concise typology of Michelin Restaurants in Europe. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46 (2), 170187. Kara, A., Kaynak, E., Kucukemiroglu, O., 1996. Positioning of fast-food outlets in two regions of North America: a comparative study using correspondence analysis. Journal of Professional Services Marketing 14 (2), 99119. Kasavana, M., Smith, D.I., 1982. Menu Engineering: A Practical Guide to Menu Pricing. Hospitality Publications, Lansing, MI. Keyt, J.C., Yavas, U., Riecken, G., 1994. Importance-performance analysis: a case study in restaurant positioning. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 22 (5), 3540. King, S.C., Weber, A.J., Meiselman, H.L., Lv, N., 2004. The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Quality and Preference 15, 645653. Knutson, B.J., 2000. College students and fast foodhow students perceive restaurant brands. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41 (3), 68 74. Lewis, P., Thomas, H., 1990. The linkage between strategy, strategic groups and performance in the UK retail grocery industry. Strategic Management Journal 11, 385397. Manske, M., Cordua, G., 2005. Understanding the sommelier effect. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (6/7), 569576. Martn, V.J., 2006. Consumo de vinos: principales caractersticas y distribucion comercial. Distribucion y Consumo 85, 60101. Martnez, F., 2007. La investigacion de mercados en el sector de las bebidas alcoholicas: singularidades frente a los estudios en gran consumo. Investigacion y Marketing 95, 1622. Mazanec, J.A., 1995. Positioning analysis with self-organizing maps. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 36 (6), 8095. Miller, J., 1980. Menu Pricing and Strategy. CBI, Boston, MA. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion (MAPA), 2006. La Alimentacion en Espana 2006. Internet: http://www.mapa.es/alimentacion/pags/consumo/ 2006/panel-06.pdf (accessed on 11/06/07). Morrison, P., 1997. Menu engineering in upscale restaurants. British Food Journal 99 (10), 388395. Muller, C.C., Woods, R.H., 1994. An expanded restaurant typology. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 35 (3), 2737. Naipaul, S., Parsa, H.G., 2001. Menu price endings that communicate value and quality. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42 (1), 2637.

95

National Restaurant Association, 2008. Designing Menus that Sell. http://www.restaurant.org/rusa/magArticle.cfm?ArticleID=370. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2001. Services: Statistics on value added and employment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Washington, D.C. Pavesic, D.V., 1983. Cost/margin analysis: a third approach to menu pricing and design. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2 (3), 127134. Punj, G., Stewart, D.W., 1983. Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research 20, 134148. Ralis, M., OBrien, R., 1986. Prompts, goal setting and feedback to increase suggestive selling. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 8, 518. Ribeiro, D., 2002. Customers expectations factors in restaurants: the situation in Spain. International Journal of Quality/Reliability Management 19 (8/9), 1055 1067. Robinson, C., Abbott, J., Shoemaker, S., 2005. Recreating cheers: an analysis of relationship marketing as an effective marketing technique for quick-service restaurants. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 17 (6/7), 590599. Ruiz, A., Olarte, C., Huarte, M., Munoz, R., Calderon, M.E., Izquierdo, A., San Martn, S., 2004. Las denominaciones de origen vitivincolas espanolas: Percepcion de bodegas, distribuidores y lderes de opinion. Distribucion y Consumo 76, 4551. Schaffer, C.M., Green, P.E., 1998. Cluster based market segmentation: some further comparisons of alternative approaches. Journal of Market Research Society 40, 155163. Servera, D., Fuentes, M., Gil, I., Berenguer, G., 2006. Tecnologas de la informacion y la comunicacion y calidad de servicio logstico: Una aproximacion para el analisis de grupos. Libro de Actas XVIII Encuentro de Profesores Universitarios de Marketing. Almera. Singh, J., 1990. A typology of consumer response styles. Journal of Retailing 66 (1), 5799. Smith, D.E., Mitry, D.J., 2007. Cultural convergence: consumer behavioral changes in the European wine market. Journal of Wine Research 18 (2), 107112. Susskind, A.M., Chan, E.K., 2000. How restaurant features affect check averages. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41 (6), 5663. Vergara, A., 2006. Anuario gastronomico de la Comunidad Valenciana 2007. Edicions Gratacels, Valencia. Verma, R., Pullman, M.E., John, C., Goodale, J.C., 1999. Designing and positioning food services for multicultural markets. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 40 (6), 7687. Wansink, B., Painter, J.M., Van Ittersum, K., 2001. Descriptive menu labels-effect on sales. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrativeQuarterly 42, 6872. Wansink, B., Van Ittersum, K., Painter, J.E., 2005. How descriptive food names bias sensory perceptions in restaurants. Food Quality and Preference 16, 393400. Wansink, B., Cordua, G., Blair, E., Payne, C., Geiger, S., 2006. Wine promotions in restaurants: do beverage sales contribute or cannibalize? Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 47 (4), 327336. Yuan, J., Cai, L.A., Morrison, A.M., Sally Linton, S., 2005. An analysis of wine festival attendees motivations: a synergy of wine, travel and special events? Journal of Vacation Marketing 11 (1), 4158. Yuksel, A., Yuksel, F., 2002. Measurement of tourist satisfaction with restaurant services: a segment-based approach. Journal of Vacation Marketing 9 (1), 5268.