GM 604 Research Methods for Global Marketing and Advertising Erica Olmstead | Ashley Poage | Max Rivera | Yona Weisleder Prof. Seounmi Han (Katie) Youn Fall 2013
Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................6 Literature Review....................................................................................................................................................................8 Internal Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................................................5 External Analysis....................................................................................................................................................................................................10 SWOT Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Research Objectives..........................................................................................................................................................18 SWOT Strategy.....................................................................................................................................................................................................19 General Research Objective................................................................................................................................................................19 Specific Research Objective................................................................................................................................................................21 Methodology............................................................................................................................................................................22 Focus Group Interview...................................................................................................................................................................................23 Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Results.............................................................................................................................................................................................26 Focus Group Interview...................................................................................................................................................................................27 Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 Conclusion And Recommendations.........................................................................................................................44 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 Recommendations.............................................................................................................................................................................................47 References..................................................................................................................................................................................51 Appendix......................................................................................................................................................................................54
eXECUTIVE Summary
5
Executive Summary Strut wine is currently produced and available exclusively in Canada. In the future. Strut may want to look into expanding their line by bringing their product to the United States. The young and vibrant Boston market is an potential fit for a wine that targets the female market. The objectives of the current research are to measure the marketability of Strut specific to the city of Boston and determine the positioning and consumer acceptance of Strut wine in the target market of women aged 21-34. In order to achieve this goal, two research methods were implemented: Focus Group interview (FGI) and survey. The survey used a non-probability sampling method with convenience samples. The FGI session had seven young women. The FGI findings showed likability of Strut wine, especially when wine varieties are offered and at the standard price. The survey was given to 100 female Bostonians who met the drinking age criteria of 21 years of age and older. The survey results demonstrated that there was a positive level of acceptance of Strut wine that exceeds the predetermined top 2 box % of 50 percent and the action standard of 3.30. Based on these findings, it is recommended that Strut wine enter the Boston market as a way to expand its reach and grow its business. The optimal entry mode for Strut would be direct exports with a distribution agreement with supermarket chains and wine boutiques in the Greater Boston Area. The price should be kept the same and the brand should invest in advertising, especially in magazines and in-store wine-tastings. Strut’s screw top was not a popular feature among female Bostonias, especially those in the older categories; therefore, the brand might consider having a separate cork line, that is usually associated with better wine quality and for which, consumers are more willing to pay more.
Introduction
7
Introduction Strut is a chic stylish Canadian wine that is produced and sold in Canada. The Strut brand is fairly young being launched less than four years ago. Strut wine labeling features women’s legs. Its tagline is “The Wine with Legs”. Strut is marketed towards the on the go multitasking woman. Through Strut’s variety of wines, its mission is to appeal to the many trends of a woman. Strut wine targets the Internet savvy generation who are stylish, sophisticated fun and flirty. Strut wine personality is what caught our attention in the first place. With a unique tagline, sassy names and distinctive packaging, Strut appeals to a niche market that we are thrilled to explore, mainly because it is targeted to our generation and we ourselves are wine consumers. Moreover, the success of the brand in Canada, makes the introduction of this product into the Boston market an exciting challenge. In a college town like Boston, where many people turn 21 and start experiencing with alcoholic beverages, a wine that requires little or no knowledge from the consumer could be an interesting alternative. Hence, this project would assess the marketability of Strut wine in Boston, and examine consumer acceptance of Strut wine in the target market of women aged 21-34, through both secondary and primary research analysis (Focus Group interviews and surveys). In order to paint a clear panorama of the Boston’s young female market, we would investigate their preferences in taste, price, packaging, advertising and distribution. Additionally, a deeper understanding of the consumer’s motivations, lifestyles, attitudes and opinions is key to the evaluation process of introducing a new brand into a foreign market.
Literature Review
9
Internal Analysis Vincor, now merged with Constellation Brands, launched Strut Wine in May of 2009 (Wine Align, 2009). Strut wine is produced and sold in Canada. With a simple labeling strategy, women can buy this wine depending on their mood and do not need a wealth of knowledge about wine to make a selection. With fashionable wine names, labeling and tagline, this product is marketed towards stylish young female wine lovers. (Strut Wine, 2013). Strut Wine is prominently promoted to the young women of generation Y and millennial women who are Internet savvy. Wine Align (2009). In order to reach their targeted demographic of young multi tasking women, Strut wine markets through social media tools such as Twitter (@strutwines) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/strutwines). The five distinct wines strive to embody a woman’s individual style and to appeal to all the roles women play in life. Each wine selection matches a trend from sophisticated ingÊnue to fun and flirty (Strut Wine, 2013) . There are five wines all with fashionable names. Local grapes make up Cab Couture, which is a blend of Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot. Red Over Heels is a Merlot. Well-Heeled White is a Riesling and Gewurztraminer blend. Risque Rose is a Gamay-Riesling-Viognier-Sauvignon Blanc and Savvy Blanc is a Sauvignon Blanc. (Wine Align, 2009). Strut wine is available in the Canadian provinces of: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, PEI, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (Strut Wine, 2013). In Canadian provinces Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and PEI, the wine is made from the local grapes of Niagara Peninsula region in Ontario Canada. For Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, the grapes come from the Okanagan Valley region. The product is 100% VQA (Vintners Quality Alliance) meaning it is a No cellared in Canada wine. Wine Align (2009). In other words, there are no foreign contents in this product. It is available and sold at Wine Rack stores. The bottles are secured with an easy to open aluminum Stelvin closure, which reduces wine spoilage. The retail price of this product is 11.95 CAD, which at the current exchange rate is about 11.62 USD. (Strut Wine, 2013).
10
Environmental Analysis
External Analysis
Economy Unemployment rates: Compared to the national rate, which as of July 2013 is 7.7, the average unemployment rate for the greater Boston area is at 6.6. All of the major cities in the area remain below the national rate, Cambridge and Newton being the cities with less unemployment with 4.9 and 5.2 respectively. The city of Boston has the highest unemployment rate at 7.6. (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013) Employment, Wages and Income: The largest non-farm industries in terms of employment are Education & Health Services, Professional and Business Services, Trade, Transportation and Utilities. Average hourly and weekly wages are higher than the nation’s average for all occupations (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). In 2010, Massachusetts ranked as one of the highest Per Capita Income in the region and in the nation, being number two after Connecticut. The New England region also ranked higher on the national Per Capita Income. (Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, 2010, p. 2) Conclusion. As it relates to Strut Wines, both the state of Massachusetts and the Boston market are relatively healthy in terms of economy in comparison to the average national economy. While some unemployment rates might be high and this may affect consumption, there are also higher wages and per-capita income that show us that this market is economically healthy.
Geography & Population Boston has an area of 89.6 square miles, and is surrounded by the “Greater Boston” region and the New England City and Town Area (NECTA), is contiguously bordered by many different states, cities and towns. In 2012, Boston was estimated to have 636,479 residents with a +3.1 growth rate from 2010. The Greater Boston Area as a commuting region is home to 7.6 million people, making it the sixth-largest Combined Statistical Area in the United States (United States Census Bureau, 2012). Geography is definitely an opportunity for Strut wines, as this market is extremely diverse in terms of territorial expansion. It belongs to several major geographical divisions/regions as well as connects to many other cities/
11
towns/counties that are in close proximity. Targeting this market means also reaching other potential sub-markets.
Regulations The state of Massachusetts has many regulations for the sale of alcoholic beverage, both for the consumers and businesses. The law prohibits any discounts on alcohol such as “happy hours”, free drinks, and fixed-price open-bars or all-you-can-drink. Customers can only purchase and consume alcohol with a valid Massachusetts identification card or driver’s license, a military id, or a US or foreign passport. State Law says that restaurants cannot be barred from serving alcohol between 11:00 a.m.-11:00 p.m.. In no event can sales be made between 2:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. (Massachusetts Government, 2013). Such strict regulations present a threat for Strut and the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Consumption of wine is directly impacted by these regulations, in which the purpose is to decrease the consumption of alcohol both at-home and out of home.
Education Boston is the location for 35 colleges, universities, and community colleges and there are about 152,000 students at Boston’s institutions of higher learning. Boston’s colleges, universities, and community colleges employ over 42,600 people. (Boston Redevelopment Authority, 2010, p. 1) Boston has more highly educated 25 to 34 year-old’s than any other large city in the US. (BostonIndicators.com, 2010) New England acts as a relatively high share of non-native students, many of whom leave the region when they graduate - the numbers are lower than other competing cities across the nation and this is a problem the city is trying to address and improve upon (Alissia Modestino, 2013, p. 2). This market has a large influx of older students and young and mid level professionals, which present an opportunity for Strut Wines. These demographics are known to consume more wine compared to others. With wine being a very social, casual, intimate and passive beverage, it sure appeals to this large demographic that is present in the Boston market. However, to the younger majority of the students in the market, wine is not their beverage of choice and it will be a bigger challenge to tap into that larger demographic. The fact that Boston has a changing population presents both an opportunity and challenge for Strut, who could expand as consumers move to other markets, but faces the challenge of continuously acquiring consumers who are new in the market.
12
Industry Analysis Canadian brand Strut belongs to the vast industry of Food & Beverages, also known as Food & Drink. Specifically, to the Wine industry, that is a segment of the Alcoholic Beverages category. Although, sometimes Wine is included as part of the Drink and Tobacco industry, due to similarities in regulations. The U.S. Census Bureau (as cited in Gale, 2012) estimated a total of 2,121 wine and distilled alcoholic beverages wholesalers in the United States in 2009. Moreover, the industry’s estimated value in 2011 is $64 billion dollars. According to Mintel’s Food and Drink analyst, Beth Bloom (2012), total retail sales of wine would reach $40 billion in 2012, which represents a major growth from previous years, a 19% rise since 2007. Wines & Vines 2012 report (as cited in Gale, 2012) shows that as of 2010, the United States is the world’s largest wine-consuming country with an estimated 345 million cases of wine consumed in 2011, of which only one-third was imported. “An increasing role for wine in Americans’ lifestyles and media, plus a staggering diversity of wine choices available to consumers” (para. 7) is the underlying cause of the growth in the wine market. Mintel’s Alcohol Consumption at Home report (2012) shows that 37% alcoholic beverages consumers are drinking less at home due to a reduce in their drinking patterns (56%) or the economic crisis (31%). However, wine consumption has remained somewhat steady, with very few decreases and no significant losses. Furthermore, American consumers prefer domestic wines to imported ones, for its sense of familiarity and perceived lower prices. The increase in low-price wines relates to the rising trend of drinking wine in casual settings. Nonetheless, the recovering economy has slightly boosted the consumption of higher-priced wines (Bloom, 2012). The market is divided primarily into two large segments: small establishments (20 workers or less) and large companies. The former represent about 63 percent of the industry, whereas the later take most of the revenues in the category, up to 75 percent. Towards the end of the first decade of the 2000s, the wine market in the United States started experiencing some important changes: first, new small wineries were establish; second, wholesale distributors adhered to large wineries and third, small wineries began to ship their own products as distributors focused on managing more brands than selling individual brands. (Bloom, 2012; Gale, 2012). Gale’s Encyclopedia of American Industries (2012) presented a list of the top 50 wineries in the United States in 2011. This list included:
13
Republic National Distribution Co. (RNDC): A joint venture of Atlanta’s National Distributing Company, Inc. and Republic Beverage operates in 20 states and saw annual sales of approximately $4.5 billion in 2011. Southern Wine & Spirits of America: A Miami based company with over 1,600 distributors and service in 35 states, closed 2011 with sales of $946 million and more than 90 million cases of wine and spirits shipped. The Charmer-Sunbelt Group: A New York City company, whose sales reached $3.7 billion through their net of ten subsidiaries and eight joint ventures. Glazer’s Wholesale Drug Co.: With more than a century in the market, the Dallas based company received $3 billion in annual sales. E.&J. Gallo: The largest wine supplier attained 25.5% of volume sales in 2011, turning remained the largest wine supplier, claiming 25.5% of volume sales in 2011 (Mintel, 2012). The Wine Group and Constellation: Ranked second and third in volume sales (Mintel, 2012). Strut wine is part of Constellation brands.
Competitor Analysis Strut Wine faces two types of competitors: brands that compete directly by marketing specifically to millennial women; and those brands which compete by marketing as a simple low cost table wine for any occasion. Strut’s major competitors for the female niche market are Cupcake Vineyards, Skinnygirl Wine, and Flirt. The major competitors in table wine brands with low price points and simple labels that aim to educate consumers are YellowTail and Barefoot. Cupcake Vineyards was introduced to the market in 2008, in three varieties: chardonnay, merlot, and cabernet (Mintel, 2012). Cupcake’s parent company, The Wine Group, is the second ranked wine company in 2011 with a market share of 21.8%. From 2010 to 2011, Cupcake’s market share increased by 140%, from 0.5 % to 1.1% (Mintel, 2012). Since its launch, Cupcake has become the Wine Group’s top selling brand and is currently available in ten varieties. Few wines have received as widespread acclaim as rapidly as Cupcake. In 2011, Cupcake received the Leaders Choice Award for Wine Brand of the year by Market Watch (Mintel, 2012). The Symphony IRI Group ranked Cupcake the No. 1 brand in 2011 in its annual Top 30 Momentum Table Wine Brands analysis,
14
according to an article in Wines & Vines (March 4, 2011). With such acclaim and rapid growth in market share, Cupcake is the leader in wines targeted specifically to millennial women. The Cupcake brand is value-priced, at $11.00 USD per bottle retail. Cupcake branding is contemporary and promotes the image of fun. With varieties such as Red Velvet and Angel Food, and the tagline “live deliciously,” each Cupcake wine is intended to be a “sweet treat” for the female consumer to enjoy at any occasion (Cupcake Vineyards, 2013) Despite such rapid growth, Cupcake is still a relatively new brand to the wine market with a 1.1% market share as previously noted. Millennials and Gen Y female consumers prefer fruity and light flavour profiles (Mintel, 2012), which Cupcake branding does not fulfill. Although Cupcake wine is intended to be a table wine, cupcakes are generally associated with special occasions and may deter consumers from choosing it as an everyday wine for any occasion. The second major competitor for Strut wine in the millennial female market is Skinnygirl wine. The Skinnygirl brand, owned by premium distilled spirits company Beam, was originally introduced to the market in 2009 in the form of ready-to-serve cocktails (Wine Spectator Online, 2013). Selling more than 100,000 cases of its cocktail bottles per year, Skinnygirl entered the wine market in 2012 to capitalize on the brand’s established loyal consumers, according to Beam president Bill Newlands (Wine Spectator Online, 2013). Entering the wine market, Skinnygirl was able to leverage its brand awareness and an already established core of loyal customers. Another strength of the Skinnygirl brand is its appeal to health-conscious women and focus on convenience with screw caps (Mintel, 2012). Skinnygirl wine comes in seven varieties including red, white, rose, moscato and prosecco; the varieties are blends made with grapes from all over the world, for intended easy drinking (Skinnygirl Cocktails, 2013) However, as Skinnygirl uses grapes from all over the world, the brand cannot be associated with one wine region in particular, which may confuse young wine consumers who expect a brand to be associated with a region. Furthermore, Skinnygirl can easily be perceived as a “diet wine” , which may turn off young consumers who want to experience and learn about true wine flavour profiles. Lastly, the price point of $15.00 USD per bottle retail is high. Strut wine also faces competitors that do not only target women specifically, but that use similar strategy to target millennials and Gen Y consumers through simple wine labels and consumer education about wine. Yellow
15
Tail, owned by Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits and launched in 2001, currently dominates this larger market. The Australian import Yellow Tail leads the market in imported wine and table wine sales with a 12.5% market share (Mintel, 2012) . With low price points and fruity flavour profiles for easy drinking, Yellow Tail is, “touted as a modern, fun brand that can be enjoyed during any occasion, from holiday parties to weekday dinners with friends,” according to the Deutsch Family Wine and Spirits website (2013). Yellow Tail targets a larger market than Strut wine, which adds obvious strength to its brand power. Targeting young drinkers who are new to wine, the brand is active on social media to engage with potential consumers and educate them further about wine and the brand. Nevertheless, Yellow Tail is imported which is a disadvantage as the target consumers prefer domestic wines. Interestingly, the price point of $8.00 USD per bottle might be too low: according to Shanken News Daily, “wines retailing below $9 a bottle have experienced a volume decline in the first half of 2012” (para. 3). In contrast, Shanken News reported wines above $9 retail experienced an increase in volume sales (Mintel, 2012). Barefoot Cellars is another competitor to Strut as a top-selling table wine brand, commanding 5.7% of the market share (Mintel, 2012). Barefoot’s parent company, E&J Gallo, is the leading wine company, holding 25.5% of the market share in 2011 (Mintel, 2012). Made in California, Barefoot has light, fruity flavour profiles, intended as an easy to drink wine (Fox News Network LLC, 2012). Barefoot leverages social media to promote its product with millennials. Barefoot is priced at $8.00 USD per bottle; as previously mentioned in the case of Yellow Tail, this price point can be a brand weakness as wines below $9 recently experienced a decrease in volume sales.
Consumer Analysis Strut wine consumers are young women, both students and professionals, aged 21-34. According to MRI+ Mediamark Reporter, women in the local Boston market who consumed table wines in 2010 were 38% more likely to have graduated college, or to be in graduate school (Mediamark Reporter, 2010). Importantly, women between the ages of 21-24 are less likely to consume wine than women between the ages of 25-34; there is a 49% difference in consumption between these two extremely close age brackets (Mediamark Reporter, 2010). As Strut’s target niche includes both of these brackets, this difference should be kept in mind when conducting primary research.
16
Image consciousness is an important driver in purchase decisions for the millennials and Gen Y group; this consumer group prefers sophisticated labels that are still easy to understand for young wine drinkers (Mintel, 2012). Similarly, wine education is important to attract patronage and provide women with confidence in their purchase decisions. Young female consumers place importance on brands they know and they value the product recommendations of family and friends, indicating the important role that social media can have for developing brand awareness and recognition (Mintel, 2012). As this market segment is relatively young and has a lower income, price promotion can be a valuable tool to generate sales and grow a consumer base. From the VALS II Psychographics framework, Strut wine consumers are positioned in the “experiencers” category, meaning they are highly motivated by self-expression (Strategic Business Insights, 2013). This relates significantly to the way the wine labels help consumers make choice based on mood, as each wine has a name that might help with self expression, such as “Well-heeled White” or “Savvy Blanc”. According to VALS II, experiencers are young and full of energy, they are avid consumers, they enjoy social activity, and they are interested in new products (Strategic Business Insights, 2013). Strut can leverage these insights to be an exciting new brand that can be an everyday wine or a “girls night out” wine.
SWOT Analysis Strengths Part of Constellation Brands 12.8% market share (reference chart in appendix) Lower price point is more attractive to the target market Screw top for convenience Simplicity of wine names allows ease of choice for young consumers who might not possess in-depth knowledge about wine “No cellared in Canada wine”, meaning Strut is made from strictly Canadian grapes Good distribution channels in Canada, it is present in most provinces
17
Weaknesses The male market is excluded; it makes up close to half of the entire market Women wine drinkers over 35 are not targeted Wine quality is average due to the lack of aged wines as it is a new product and so are unable to have a premium product Wine labels may be perceived as offensive Their marketing and promotion strategies, focused on Facebook and Twitter, are extremely poor and have been discontinued
Opportunities
Growing interest in wine in consumers 21-34 interested in lower priced wine The health conscious consumers market that perceives wine as a healthy choice Rising wine industry’s retail sales Strut targets a highly specific niche of consumers which leads to less competition High social activity and consumption of wine in area due to population of college students and young professionals. New female wine drinkers are more likely to choose a wine brand that does not require knowledge of wine to purchase and are more likely to develop a long-term relationship with the brand Strut wine has growth opportunities as it has only been on the market for 4 years. Free trade agreement between Canada and the United States
Threats
Decrease in alcohol consumption due to economic recession in the United States Consumers preference towards domestic wine due to familiarity and perceived lower prices High unemployment rate in Boston Brand loyalty affected by low college graduate retainer rates. Strict selling and purchasing regulations on alcohol
Research Objectives
19
SWOT Strategy The major marketing problem that Strut faces is competing with well-established domestic brands, including wines from Napa Valley, the home of some of the world’s best vineyards. There is the potential for taste preferences or consumer bias to California wines. Additionally, domestic wines are generally perceived to be cheaper than imported and consumers are less likely to choose imported wine. Canadian wines are virtually unknown by wine drinkers and lack of Strut brand awareness in comparison to its competitors poses an additional potential risk. An opportunity for Strut is that the target market has a growing interest in wine consumption and there is a need to educate young wine drinkers, which Strut does very well through “mood” labelled wines. Strut consumers are the “ experiencer” types, concerned with self expression and more willing to try new things. Strut labels offer a means of self expression and a reason for young consumers to trying a new brand. Strut can take advantage of the growth in consumption of table wines by educating young consumers through simple and appealing wine labels. In Boston, there is a large population of students and young professionals, which creates an opportunity for increased consumption of Strut due nightlife and social events - settings where the brand fits nicely. The last major opportunity for Strut is to take advantage of social media as a means to build brand awareness with the millennials and Gen Y consumers.
General Research Objective The general research objective of this study is to assess the marketability of Strut wine in Boston through secondary and primary research methods. The study will examine consumer acceptance of Strut wine in the target market of women aged 21-34.
20
21
Specific Research Objective To study the taste attributes young females in Boston. To measure the preferences, frequency and quantity of wine consumed by females in their 21-34 years of age. To study which occasions influence the consumption of wine. To evaluate how much the Boston female target would pay for wine. To learn whether consumers prefer to buy wine at big groceries or liquor stores, small retailers or online. To investigate which marketing and advertising mediums young females in Boston prefer. To measure our target audience knowledgeability of female-targeted wine. To test the concept of Strut wine between females ages 21-34 in Boston. To test the likelihood of purchasing Strut wine by females in the Boston market. To evaluate whether the target market finds the screw top as an appealing feature of Stut wine. To test the likeability of the Strut packaging. To investigate which social media networks are best suited for the Strut brand to penetrate the Boston female market. To evaluate early perceptions of Strut wine from the target market.
Methodology
23
Focus Group Interview Participants Recruitment and Profiles Our methods for recruiting participants for our FGI included directly asking females who fit our age criteria (21 and older), by word of mouth and email. We approached age appropriate females around the Emerson Campus as well as GMCA classmates, co-workers and our contacts friends or roommates who fit our criteria. We ended up with a total of seven participants all Emerson College students from different programs. Participants all fell within the age range of 22-27 years old. We had two international participants, one from Venezuela and Greece and the rest were from the United States.
Procedures The Focus Group was scheduled on Wednesday, November 6, 2013 from 6 pm – 7 pm at Emerson College in Boston, MA and took place in the FGI room on the 6th floor of the Walker building. As participants arrived, they were each given an informed consent form, which they read and signed before the Focus Group commenced. Participants were served pizza, sparkling grape juice in wine glasses, and chocolates. Once all participants arrived, signed their forms, and received food and drink, the moderator began the discussion with a round of introductions and questions to understand the group’s attitudes towards wine. To introduce the Strut brand and product varieties, a concept slideshow was prepared in advance, which included product images and descriptions. The concept was revealed in two parts: the first concept featured the Strut brand name, description and benefits, while the second concept featured the varieties and price of the wine. The intent of the two part concept board was to gauge the overall response and perception of the brand first, followed by gathering more specific impressions regarding varieties and pricing strategy. At the end of the discussion, the moderator thanked and debriefed the participants.
24
Key Questions The discussion questions were structured to go from general attitudes about wine buying and drinking, to specific questions about attitudes regarding the Strut product concept. To begin the discussion, participants were asked about the , Key questions – what qualities to consider when buying wine; “Fears in a hat” question to reveal underlying concerns about wine in general. What are the important qualities you consider when shopping for wine (purchase decision) Product concept questions: Asked participants to describe their reaction and think about how they would describe it to a friend – gain a sense of brand personality (describe the type of person who would buy this product? / if strut turned into a person, who would it be?) Opinion about the label. Opinion about the price. How would they market Strut and how would they price it.
Survey Data Collection Method A total of 100 surveys were conducted in a period of two weeks in the Greater Boston Area. The data was collected through personal interviews in diverse locations including: malls, food-courts and Emerson College. All the participants were asked to sign a consent form that would allow the use of their information.
Sampling Method and Samples The sampling method used was non probability with convenient sampling. Samples were collected from females 21 years of age and older. Our sampling method was broken down into three age groups among women: ages 21-24, 25-29, 30 and older. Our highest response rate of sampling came from the first two younger brackets 21-24 and 25-29 who were our target market.
Measures The surveys attempted to measure a series of attributes, perceptions and evaluations. Specifically, the samples were surveyed on the following regarding Wines: frequency of consumption, quantity per glass consumed in a
25
single occasion, drinking location, purchase location, price point, preferred wine types, attitudes towards wine drinkers, attitudes towards wine, preferred wine taste qualities, knowledge of competition, usage of competition, and motivation for purchasing wine. Moreover, the survey measure the samples on the following regarding the Strut Brand after analyzing the concept board: overall brand evalution, evaluation of packaging appeal to women, evaluation of packaging offense to women, evaluation of the selection offered, evaluation of drinking occasion and ability to drink, brand perception, likes, dislikes, likelihood of purchase, preferred price point, preferred purchasing location, preferred sampling occasion, preferred advertising channel and social media network. Finally, the sample was surveyed on the following demographic information: education level, age, gender, work type, income level, place of origin and marital status.
Data Analysis The survey output was inputted into IBM SPSS Statistics software which was used for data analysis in the form of: frequency, cross-tabs and one-way ANOVA. The two independent variables (IV) used for analysis were age, divided into three segments (21-24, 25-29 and 30 and older) after recoding and income, divided into four segments (under $20,000, $20,000-$39,999, $40,000-$59,999 and over $60,000). The output from SPSS was summarized in a top-line report and 17 summary tables, which later were analyzed separately with the help of charts.
Action Standard The action standard chosen was 3.30 with a Top 2 box % of 50% because wine is a category of low brand loyalty. Aspects like taste, type, country of origin and price are more important in the selection and purchase of a wine than brands. Thus, a mid-level action standard is useful to assess the overall perception of Strut wine and likelihood of purchase by the target market. Additionally, the initial entry-mode would be exporting, which represents a low-cost and low-risk option for Strut.
Results
27
Focus Group Interview The Focus Group Interview (FGI) was a great source of insights into the consumers’ minds, mainly because the participants were probed about their answers to really understand their underlying motivations, attitudes and opinions towards wine and Strut as a brand. The findings from the FGI were clustered into six general themes.
Relationship Between Price and Quality Throughout the Focus Group discussion, the relationship between wine price and quality was a recurring theme as both price and quality are important factors for trusting a wine brand enough to make a purchase. While participants were concerned about the price of wine, they agreed that they would likely pay more to avoid drinking poor quality wine. P1: Obviously, price as we mentioned. And also quality. If it’s not good at all you won’t drink it, even if it’s cheap. To make a purchase decision among cheaper wines, participants would rather be familiar with the brand, knowing it is something that they can trust for a cheap price. P7: If I recognize it as something that’s cheap, but something that I can trust like YellowTail or Barefoot – if it’s something I can trust as not being some random sketchy cheap wine. One participant mentioned the price difference between purchasing wine on-premise, such as at restaurants, and purchasing wine for off-premise consumption. The participant expressed a preference to buy wine offpremise, noting that it is possible to get the same quality wine at a much cheaper price. P5: Buying any alcohol when you buy on your own is much cheaper than when you go out … I can go get a bottle of wine for like 6.99 somewhere or a bottle for like 35 dollars at a restaurant. Overall, participants agreed that, while price is a concern, they still like to find a balance between price and quality; they used the phrase “good wine for cheap” to describe this balance.
28
Wine Buying Behavior Typically, participants said they purchase wine at supermarkets, such as Trader Joe’s, and liquor stores. The type of wine purchased differs based on the drinking occasion. One participant who likes to drink one glass of wine with dinner, said she will purchase a few varieties of cheap wine from the supermarket:
P2: “I drink one glass of wine with my meal, I don’t have to pay twenty dollars. So I usually buy like uh once a month but I buy five bottles like different kinds so I have them.” In terms of making a purchase decision, participants said they focus on wine that is lower in price, wine that has good reviews, and wine origin. The phrase “three buck chuck” was used by several participants to describe the wine they frequently purchase at Trader Joe’s because it is decent quality but still low in price. One participant said she uses reviews to make a decision, saying that if she is unfamiliar with the brand, she will search for it on her phone before she buys it: P4: “When I look for a wine, I usually just look for well I look to see what’s cheap and then I put one into my phone you know and see what the reviews are and if it has good reviews and it’s cheap, then I’ll give it a try.” When asked if the wine label had an impact on purchase decision, participants did not have a strong opinion. However, they expressed the impact that the label can have on brand perception and quality; for example, some participants expressed that if the label is bright and colorful, the lack of subtly may lead them to think it is lower in quality. Participants agreed that they associate quality with subtle labels instead and are more likely to purchase wine with a simple and sophisticated label.
Positive Reactions to Strut When analyzing the Focus Group’s overall reaction to Strut, it was a predominantly positive response. Specifically, some participants mentioned several times how they liked the “legs and the logo” and thought the label was memorable, however some participants didn’t agree. They also as a whole had a generally positive perception of the variety of wine Strut offered. P2: Memorable. Because you think of wine you think of like legs and you are literally putting the legs right on there so I will remember this
29
Though not everyone agreed, the majority of the participants felt positive about the girly image of Strut and described it as a wine fitting for girls night tied in with the “Sex and the City” theme. P1: I like the legs and the logo, kind of reminds me of “Sex And The City”. P5: Girly, like she said I would describe it as a girly wine. P7: If there was a girls night I would be like ohhh Strut! In terms of age, gender, occupation and lifestyle, participants perception of Strut was mainly positive using descriptive adjectives such as young, professional and fun. Strut with human characteristics was favorably described as a Beyonce, powerhouse beautiful lawyer type of woman. Although participants initially leaned towards buying Strut at a reduced price, after some discussion and consideration during the Focus Group, the majority of participants thought that if Strut priced any lower it may decrease the perceived value of the brand and as a result participants felt that Strut had appropriate pricing as is. P4: I think pricing it at $12, makes people think that it’s better. P7: It could be really sophisticated or really tacky. And I feel that for me the price would differentiate it.
Negatives Reactions to Strut Despite the overall positive attitude towards Strut, some of the participants disliked the logo and the use of legs in the label and advertisements, because they felt it was sexist. Some participants even mentioned that feminists might find the brand offensive due to the sexual connotation of legs, especially how they are portrayed in the different bottles. P3: Yeah, but they are also ‘like I am sorry like you are going to put me on the label for my legs and that’s it?’ P5: Yeah, like “you don’t care about my personality?” On the other hand, some participants were not offended by the legs, but thought that the brand was too “gender specific” and “girly”. This was perceived as a disadvantage of Strut against its competitors because males would be drawn away from purchasing the brand, even if it would be to share it with their girlfriends. P2: I get the idea of the legs, but I don’t think if I saw it I would grab it because I don’t know usually buying wine its like hmmmm, for my boyfriend and I and the legs just seem kind of girly and maybe he wouldn’t like it.
30
P2: Not so gender specific, Yellowtail a guy would buy, this a guy probably wouldn’t. Moreover, Strut’s tagline was said to be unclear by one participant, whereas another one pointed out that people that actually know what a “wine with legs” means would probably buy another brand. P3: I feel like people that are looking for legs aren’t necessarily looking for a bottle with a label of some twenty-something in high heels. If feel there is a classier correlation with the slogan than there is with the label maybe. On several occasions, the participants mentioned the need to maintain a level of sophistication, because the brand image is situated in a very thin line that might appear chic and fashionable, but it can also turn tacky. The participants disliked the pink and turquoise colors of the Strut logo in some of the labels because it was not as classy as the original red one. P5: I think the colors of the labels, like the pink and the blue, should be more like muted. And not as bright, I think a more muted or more like dulled out color would seem more sophisticated almost than like a vibrant.. I mean it’s pretty and it stands out but it seems like too young almost or too like...it’s already crazy enough with the legs. Other disadvantages of Strut mentioned by the participants are: brand awareness of other wines in the Strut category –YellowTail, Barefoot, Cupcake and Skinny Girl– and the price. While most of the participants agreed or somewhat agreed with the proposed price-point, one person said that the price was too high for a wine which she did not know about. P2: I wouldn’t buy it. I mean in Trader Joes with $3 you have a decent wine. So for me to pay $12 for something I don’t know, and for me it seems weird. It’s like: no.
Brand Personality Offhand the Strut brand was perceived as a grily brand and a product for girls or young women. P5: Girly, like she said I would describe it as a girly wine. Moreover, there was a connection with the brand towards single working women and professionals. Relatable to famous beautiful women that are successful and get things done. Strut was perceived as empowering to women. P1: Like lawyer, like high rolling young pretty lawyer. That’s what I envision personally. P3: I see like an Elle Woods of Strut. Someone who can get stuff done but is also very like I wear red
31
high heels to work. Lastly, the Strut brand and product names were commonly perceived with a flirtatious sex-appeal, with words like ‘flirty’ coming up and relating it to the pop-culture film Sex & The City: P2: Let’s get crazy, kinda reminds me of “Sex & The City”, that kind of young professional... Maybe not professional. Kind of flirty not that serious in it to have fun. P3: I mean the names too just like Savvy Blanc, I feel like those would speak to the people that would buy it. P1: Young women who are fun and flirty.
Recommended Marketing Strategies The Focus Group participants expressed their opinions about marketing strategies such as pricing, place and marketing communications. In terms of pricing there was an open discussion and varied opinion on specific price points. It was recommended to have a subtle entry to market pricing strategy that rises over time as the market is established. P1: Maybe less at the beginning to see how it’s going to go and then introduce some more. P2: Maybe an introduction price like $5, like a promotion price, and then you can go $7 or $9. But I agree with her, under $10. Because it also has the lid, the lid is cheaper. It commonly agreed that there is a close relationship between price and quality when it comes to wine. The respondent felt that Strut should stride for the low end of medium quality wines priced around $10-$12 per bottle. P4: I think pricing it at $12, makes people think that it’s better. P3: Yeah, me too that’s what I was going to say. I wouldn’t put it under $9.95 because if it’s a cheap wine with that label I would be like no way. But the fact that it’s more money, means the quality is better. That makes me look at it in the sophisticated side instead of the trashy. In addition, it came up that giving out samples can allow Strut to better promote their wines. The respondents were willing to pay a higher price for a wine of good quality that appealed to their tastes. P3: I would like to try samples. Like at Trader Joe’s, they let you sample their wines. P3: If I tried it and I liked it, I would buy it because I don’t think 11.95 is unreasonable, because I always buy cheap wine. So, like I mean 11.95 is still inexpensive, so I think I would uhm, try it. I wanna try that rosé. I would love to.
32
For promotion strategies, the respondents suggested some ties activities that were related to the specific audience targeted by Strut. Some examples that came up were bachelorette parties and Zumba classes. P3: Maybe at like… I can say people tying it with like… like… You know like buy a bottle of Strut, you get like a free Zumba class or like I don’t know. I can see promotional ties with this because I feel like there’s a certain audience that this wine is trying to target, whereas like it be weird if you just buy “Yolitan” and got a free Zumba class. But, like I feel this would like make sense or like a Yoga class. P4: You could give like a promotional thing like for bridesmaids parties or… P3: Yeah. I could see Strut sponsoring bachelorette parties. Magazines and publications that are specific to women and lifestyle, such as Cosmopolitan and Vogue, were suggested for promotion and advertising communications. In addition, Social media networks such as Facebook and YouTube were suggested. Specifically for YouTube, it was recommended to look for endorsement from popular YouTube users. Moderator: A lot of brands have Facebook pages. P2: I can see, do you know Michelle Phan? (...) I can see this advertised and she be like your spokesperson. I can see…
33
Survey The survey was a good method to collect information about the target market’s wine consumption patterns and perspectives. Additionally, we were able to present them with a concept board about Strut and receive some early impressions about the brand, which would help us assess whether the brand should enter the Boston the market or not. The main findings of the survey are the following:
Attitudes and Behavior of Wine Consumption Wine Consumption Frequency The survey participants tend to drink wine between 2-3 times a week (30%) and once a week (27%). About 23% drink wine 2-3 times a month and less than 5% drink more than 3 times a week. For females in their 25-29s, the tendency is to drink wine once a week (36%), whereas the 30 years old and older, tend to drink between one and three times a week (35%). However, in the 21-24 age bracket, there are two different consumption patterns, 30% of the sample drinks wine 2-3 times a week and another 30% drinks once a month. Both females earning $20,000-$39,999 (35%) and over $60,000 (42%), tend to drink wine 2-3 times a week; while the under $20,000 (29%) and $40,000-$59,999 (33%) drinks wine once a week. Only people in the two higher income brackets drink wine 4-5 times a week and 14% of females with income under $20,000 drink wine less than once a month. (See table 1).
34
Wine Drinking Occasion
The sample’s favorite wine drinking occasions are casual gathering with friends (80%), dinner (72%), dinner party (69%) and special occasions (63%). Pre-game drinking (21%) is the least favorite occasion to drink wine, however, more than one-fifth of the respondents use this opportunity to drink wine. Per age, the preferred wine drinking occasions are casual gathering with friend (85%) for the 21-24 years old, dinner party (84%) for the 25-29 years old and dinner (86%) for the 30 years old and older. For the 21-24 females, girl’s night (63%) is also an important occasion for wine consumption; but its predilection decreases with age: 25-29 (48%) and 30 and older (45%). Per income level, all of the brackets except for the $40,000$59,999 prefer to drink wine during casual gatherings with friends, whereas this group lists dinner (89%) as their favorite. (See table 2).
Average Price for a Bottle In general, the respondents pay between $8-$11 for a bottle of wine (36%) and tend to pay a little more, $12-$15 (29%), than less, $12-$16 (21%), than that price range. Only 2% of the sample reported paying more than $20 for a bottle of wine; all of those respondents are between 21-24 years of age and have an income of $20,000-$39,999 or over $60,000. (See table 3). Women in their thirties’ (24%) are more willing to pay $16-$19 for a bottle of wine than women in their twenties’ (7% of 21-24 and 8% of 25-29), especially those women earning more than $60,000 a year.
35
Preferred Wine Type The preferences of the participants regarding wine types are red (69%), white (64%) and champagne (39%). However, the 30 or older females prefer white wine (76%) to red (66%), this situation is also common between females earning less than $20,000 (63% to 57% respectively). Sparkling wine (22%) is the least liked wine type of all the respondents, but rose is the least favorite wine type of the 25-29 (8%) and 30 and older (17%) age brackets. While the tendency of not liking rose and sparkling wines too much is consistent through the different income levels, the $60,000 or over category displays the lowest appreciation for sweet wines (15%). (See table 4).
Preferred Wine Taste Qualities The top preferred wine taste quality among participants was light (55%) amongst women in the 25-29 age range with incomes of $20,000-$39,999 (70%). Sweet (53%) was the next preferred taste quality, however women 30 years old and up and making $40,000 plus preferred the sweet (53%) taste quality least. To a lesser degree is fruity (48%), however women with incomes of $60,000 and up (65%) liked the fruity taste quality the most. Full-bodied (43%), refreshing (33%) and bold (31%) were the next preferred taste qualities. Women 25-29 years old preferred bold taste qualities the least at 20%. The least preferred taste qualities were spicy (11%) and bitter (2%). The differences among age found that participants 29 years old and under preferred sweet taste qualities over those 30 and over. While females 30 and over prefer full bodied and spicy wines over females 29 and under. (See table 5).
Brand Competitors Tasted The top two brands tried among participants of all ages are Yellow Tail (81%) and Barefoot (70%). Cupcake wine follows closely (56%) and lastly Skinny Girl (32%). Only 2% of the sample mentioned having tried Strut, which belong to the 25-29 (4%) and the 30 and older (3%) age brackets and to the over 60,000 income level (8%). Women whose incomes fall in between $40,000-$59,999 are the largest group to have tried Yellow Tail (93%) . A total of 10% of the sample have never tried none of the brands mentioned. Females in their 21-24 years old (15%) and women with income in the over $60,000 (15%) and $20,000-$39,999 (9%) categories are the largest groups that have never tried Strut or any of its direct competitors. (See table 6).
36
Deciding Factors for Purchase
When deciding to purchase wine, price (75%) was the biggest deciding factor among participants, the majority being 21-24 year olds (85%) with an income of under $39,999 (83-86%). The next deciding factor for purchase was whether the wine was recommended by a friend (59%), but this factor was least important to women between 25-29 (44%) and to those earning $60,000 and up (54%). Brand reputation (47%) follows being least important to women earning $29,000-$39,999 (26%). To a lesser degree, the country of origin (44%) was less important to income earners under $39,999 (39%). Lastly, on site promotions or sales (27%), instore tasting (25%) and advertisements (17%) were the least important deciding factors for purchase among survey participants. (See table 7).
37
Consumer Acceptability of Strut Brand Concept Overall Evaluation of Strut Wine Brand
The overall evaluation of Strut wine brand indicated that the majority of participants “slightly liked it” (37%), those earning $40,000-59,999 (33%) “slightly don’t like it” the most and those earning under $20,000 (9%) “don’t like it at all”. One quarter of the respondents were indifferent towards the brand, the majority of this response included respondents 30 years old and older (38%) and females whose income falls between $40.000-$59,999 (33%). “Like it a lot “ (20%) was a response favored by earners of $60,000 plus (31%) and females ages 30 and older (24%) and 21-24 (20%). The total mean score was 3.70 with a top 2 box % of 57%, well above the predetermined action standard and top 2 box %. The females in the $60,000 and over income level had the highest mean score of all (3.96), followed by females in their thirties’. (See table 8).
Likes and Dislikes of Strut Wine Brand In response to the open-ended question about what participants like and dislike about Strut, the most “likes” pertained to price (15%), fun (13%), tasty flavors (10%), and concept (10%). These attribute preferences are diverse in the sense that they range from price, to brand image, and product varieties, which suggests that Strut has a range of appealing attributes to the target demographic. The most common dislikes amongst participants related to the following attributes: too sexual (19%), label (18%), and anti-feminist (13%). In contrast to the “likes”
38
of Strut, the “dislikes” fall within a narrow theme, as they all relate to the use of a woman’s legs on the product label. (See table 9).
Evaluation of Strut Wine Brand Attributes
When evaluating Strut attributes, the survey results indicate that in total “variety of selection” received the most positive mean score (4.11) and “convenient screw top” received the second highest mean score (4.03), which were significantly higher scores than the action standard of 3.30. Responses to the other attributes were widely positive as all were above the action standard, except for “offensive packaging”, which received a mean score of 2.73. However, because this is a negative attribute, it can be interpreted as positive that it is below the action standard because the results suggest more respondents did not feel the packaging was offensive. The age group with the lowest mean score for “offensive packaging” is 21-24 year olds (2.63). Interestingly, “variety of selection” had an increasing significance with income: under $20,000 (3.97), $20,000 - $39,999 (4.00), $40,000 - $59,999 (4.33), and $60,000 (4.27). (See table 10).
39
Evaluation of Strut Wine Brand Image The survey results show a trend in positive responses to the Strut brand image. The most positive brand image attributes for Strut across the demographics were “boring vs. fun” with a mean score of 4.10, and “expensive vs. affordable” with a mean score of 3.86. Overall, responses tended to be above the action standard (3.30) except for “unrefined vs. elegant” which had a mean score of 3.00. Examining the specific demographic segments, the age segment 21-24 indicated high mean scores for “mature vs. youthful” (4.28), “boring vs. fun” (4.17), and “unfashionable vs. fashionable” (3.83). Within the 2529 age range, results indicate the highest mean score was also for “boring vs. fun” (4.00) however, within this segment, “ordinary vs. unique” (3.92) had a slightly stronger score than “mature vs. youthful” (3.88). In the 30 or older segment, the top results were “mature vs. youthful” (4.14), “expensive vs. affordable” (4.07) and “boring vs. fun” (4.04). The highest mean score for “mature vs. youthful” occurred in the 21-25 age range (4.28) and within the under $20,000 income segment (4.26). The most negative response, the lowest mean scores for “unrefined vs. elegant” occurred within the 25-29 age segment (2.84) and the $40,000 - $59,999 income range (2.93). (See table 11).
Purchase Intention of Strut Wine Brand
The survey results suggest that purchase intention for Strut is favorable, as 50% of respondents indicated they would be “likely” to purchase Strut, while 5% responded the would be “very likely” to purchase Strut; the mean
40
score for the top 2 box percent equalled the action standard in this case (3.30). When examining the responses amongst age groups, the results suggest that of the 21-24 segment, 46% are “likely” to purchase and 9% are “very likely” to purchase Strut. In the 25-29 segment, the results indicate that 60% are “likely” to purchase, however, no one was “very likely” to purchase Strut. Comparing the mean scores across the age segments, the youngest segment (age 21-14) meets the action standard (3.30), thus, this group is slightly more likely to purchase Strut than the other age segments. While responses to “likely” purchase Strut wine were overall positive, participants with the highest income ($60,000 and up) were the most likely to purchase with 62% of the responses and as the income level decreases, so does the likelihood of purchase. Participants within the $20,000 - 39,999 range responded most positively that they are “very likely” to purchase (13%); this segment had a top 2 box percent of 61% and the highest mean score of the income segments (3.48). (See table 12).
Desired Price Point
Overall, the desired price point for Strut is not extremely cheap, but slightly lower than the mid-level wine prices as more participants expressed a desired price point of $8-$11 (36%). Within the youngest segment, ages 2124, results show a stronger interest in a price point of $8-$11 (37%) versus $7 and under (26%) or $12-$15
41
(26%). In the slightly older segment, ages 25-29, the findings also show a preference for a price point between $8-$11 (36%), but in comparison to the younger segment, 32% showed interest in the $12-$15 price range. The desired price point across the income ranges above $20,000 suggests respondents prefer the $8-$11 price range, but some respondents were willing to pay more. Within the $20,000-$39,999 segment, 39% would likely pay $8-$11, and 30% would likely pay $12-15 for Strut. Within the $43,000 - $59,999 segment, 50% would likely pay $8-$11, and 20% would likely pay $12-15. In the highest income segment, over $60,000, respondents were most likely to pay the highest prices: $8-$11 (35%), $16-$19 (27%). (See table 13).
Purchase Location Liquor stores are the most popular a purchase location for Strut with over half (67%) of the sample responding positively. The second most popular was supermarkets (48%), followed by wine boutiques (26%), bars (15%) and clubs (14%). The least popular purchase locations were convenience stores (11%), wholesale (7%) and others (1%). Broken down by age, liquor stores were still the most popular across all ages 21-24 year olds (72%), 2529 year olds (60%) and 30 or older (64%). Among different income levels liquor stores was the most popular among all of the categories except for the $40,000-59,999 range, which preferred supermarkets (67%) for wine purchases. (See table 14).
Sample Location The most popular location for tasting Strut wine was at a friend’s house (74%), followed by in-store samples (51%) and in a restaurant (24%). At a bar /14%) and others (2%) were the least favorite locations for trying Strut. Per age group, at a friend’s house is still the most popular for 21-24 year olds (78%), 30 or older (71%) and 25-59 year olds (68%). In terms of income levels, at a friend’s house is still the preferred location, especially in the $20,000$39,999 range (78%). Without taking others into consideration, from the proposed locations at a bar had the lowest responses of all in the $40,000-$59,999 income bracket (7%). (See table 15).
42
43
Preferred Advertising Channel
Magazines was the most popular response (70%) for preferred advertising channel, followed by social media (43%), transit advertising (37%), television (27%), product demonstrations (25%); whereas newspaper (6%), radio (5%) and others (2%) were the least preferred options for advertising. Both by age and income, magazines were the favorite advertising channel, particularly in the 30 or older (86%) age group and the $20,000-39,999 (83%) income category. However, transit advertising topped magazine in the income level of $40,000-59,999 (67%). (See table 16).
Preferred Social Media Channel Facebook (46%), followed by Pinterest (37%), were the overall preferred social media channel for Strut to interact with its audience, while YouTube (12%), Blog (12%) and others (6%) were the least mentioned channels However, when the data is analyzed by age, the preferences are somewhat different. 21-24 years old prefer Facebook (63%) and Instagram (41%), while 25-29 years old are more inclined towards Pinterest (32%) and Twitter (28%) and 30 years old and older prefer Facebook (40%), Product Review Site (39%) and Pinterest (39%). By income, Facebook was most popular in the under $20,000 (66%) and $20,000-$39,999 (57%) ranges. Twitter had a 40% preference in the $40,000-$59,999 category and Pinterest, with a 42% of the responses, was the favorite social media channel amongst females whose earning surpass $60,000. YouTube had no responses in the 25-29 age group and among the two higher income levels. (See table 17).
Conclusion and Recommendations
45
Conclusion The objective of this market research study was to assess the marketability of Strut wine in Boston, specifically between females ages 21-34. The results from both the survey and the focus group interview showed a very good acceptance of the brand by the samples extracted from the target population. The majority of survey participants “slightly like” Strut wine brand (37%) and the likelihood of purchase surpassed our Top 2 Box % of 50%, with 55% of the respondents willing to buy Strut and from that 5% said that they would very likely purchase Strut. The mean score and the action standard for this measure were the same; thus, it can be concluded that Strut wine will have a good acceptance in the Boston market, particularly with the 25-29 age group (60%) and the over $60,000 income bracket (62%). Upon studying the taste attribute preferences of young females in Boston, differences in taste preference by age were found. The results suggest that participants under 29 years old prefer sweet taste qualities, whereas females 30 and over prefer full bodied and spicy wines. Variety in taste preference of Strut’s target demographic suggests the potential positive appeal of offering increased product varieties; an increase in product offerings would also allow Strut to reach a broader range of females within the target market. In terms of wine type preferences and consumption habits, the survey found that participants preferred red wine (69%) and white wine (64%) above the other wine types. Younger consumers tend to drink wine less frequently than older consumers: females aged 25-29 tend to drink wine once a week (36%), whereas those aged 30 and older tend to drink between one and three times a week (35%). This trend may indicate that younger consumers drink wine at social gatherings on weekends, while older consumers drink wine with dinner throughout the week. To further investigate this trend, results from the survey evidences that a variety of occasions may influence the consumption of wine. Girl’s night gatherings marked an important occasion for wine consumption in the younger age range of 21-24 year olds (63%), while this occasion was less popular for wine drinking within the older age groups. Thus, when targeting age segments specifically, the marketing strategy should consider the consumption habits as this could prove to be an opportunity for highly-targeted promotions.
46
When buying wine, in general survey respondents indicated they would pay between $8-$11 for a bottle of wine (36%) and some tend to pay a little more, $12-$15 (29%). Finding a balance between price and quality was an important discussion point in the FGI as participants mentioned they prefer to buy cheaper wine, but they would not mind paying a little bit extra to ensure quality. In order of preference, consumers purchase wine at liquor stores, supermarkets, and wine boutiques. FGI respondents indicated that they frequently purchase wine at Trader Joe’s, as they can find relatively decent quality wine for a cheap price, which they referred to as “three buck chuck”. “Three buck chuck” poses competition for Strut as the younger portion of the target demographic is very familiar with this type of wine and will shop specifically at Trader Joe’s to buy it. To measure the target audience’s knowledgeability of female-targeted wine, survey respondents were asked to indicate which wines they were familiar with from a list, followed by a question regarding which of those wines respondents had actually tried. Most respondents had tried Strut’s major competitors such as YellowTail (81%) and Barefoot (70%), however fewer respondents had tried the specifically female-oriented wines such as Cupcake (56%) and SkinnyGirl (32%) (see table 6). The results highlight a potential lack of knowledge regarding female-targeted wines in the market, which could pose an opportunity for Strut to target and penetrate the niche female market, provided adequate awareness is generated through marketing strategy. The likeability of Strut’s packaging was also assessed, including the screw top and the label. Results suggest that the screw top is perceived as “convenient” with a mean score of 4.03, significantly higher than the action standard of 3.30. However, FGI participants tended to associate screw tops with cheaper and lower quality wine. FGI participants also associated colorful labels with low quality wine. These factors should be considered when developing product positioning and marketing strategy for Strut in the Boston market. Preferred marketing and advertising mediums for the Boston market include magazines and transit. With regards to social media promotion, the research findings indicate that Facebook, Pinterest, and Instagram would be well received promotional avenues.
47
Recommendations Client Overall Marketability Research indicates that Strut should enter the Boston market as its overall marketability was assessed positively. Further understanding of the wine industry and consumers’ lack of brand loyalty leads us to recommend a careful low-risk approach for entry using exports from the country of origin, smart promotions and a powerful pricing strategy to position Strut in the market. Research amongst the study’s sample expressed an overall appeal towards to the Strut brand, especially the younger demographic ages 21-34, which positively perceived and embraced the brand and product concepts.
Positioning Strategy Based on the research, it is suggested that Strut embraces the gender-specific target market when entering the Boston market. It would be most effective for the brand to target young, professional, millennial women. In terms of brand personality, the research suggests that a “fun” and “flirty” approach would be well-received. However, the study demonstrated that it is important to keep in mind the risks of coming off as offensive, sexual and inappropriate, given the use of a woman’s legs on the label. All communication efforts should be careful and strategic to avoid being perceived as over-sexualized and offensive. While the brand is not appealing to men, even from a woman’s perspective, Strut should be confident to embrace this positioning as there is potentially a lack of awareness regarding female-oriented wines and this presents great market potential.
4 P’s Marketing Mix Strategies Survey samples and a Focus Group Interview indicate that when entering the Boston market, Strut should consider placing its product in supermarkets and liquor stores while keeping the price consistent with Canadian pricing at around $11.00. Research suggests that $8-$11 is the desired price range for Strut in the Boston market. This range is the right balance between price and quality to maintain the desired image of a quality wine.
48
49
Strut should focus on promoting their red and white wines in the Boston market to begin with and hold off on introducing the Rose initially. Participants in the FGI expressed they did not like the change in label colors throughout the variety of bottles. Thus, Strut should develop more consistency in packaging and keep the labels simple with the traditional muted colors of the Strut brand in order to provide more sophistication and to have a greater appeal. Strut may also offer some wine varieties with a cork to indicate a higher price and greater quality wine such as their red wines. Magazines that target the female audience specifically would be a good promotional fit for Strut. Research suggests Boston females would like to see Strut promoted in female-targeted magazines and social media such as Facebook, Pinterest and Instagram.Transit advertising was also mentioned as a well received promotional tactic for Bostonians.
Future Research For future research, it is recommended that Strut use a larger sample size for surveying to identify customer expectations, measure product satisfaction levels, and determine specific areas for improvement. Because of the mixed response to the screw top, Strut may also consider conducting further research to determine whether the cork or the screw top compliments its brand image. Blind taste testing could benefit Strut in terms of comparing the product to its top competitors to identify possible quality improvement or to identity taste differentiation or advantages. Strut should also conduct more focus group interviews targeting different age segments; specifically, it would be beneficial to conduct a focus group with the older segment of the 25-29 age group and the 30 and up age group in order to better understand the specific preferences across age segments.
References
51
References ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CONTROL COMMISSION MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. (n.d.). The Official Website of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Retrieved September 25, 2013, from www.
mass.gov/abcc/pdf/faqfinal_2013.pdf Beam Inc. (2010). Financial and Strategic Analysis Review. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://callisto.ggsrv.com/imgsrv/FastFetch/UBER1/300331_GDCPG29406FSA Bloom, B. (2012, October). Wine Executive Summary – US Retrieved September 23, 2013 from Mintel Reports database. Boston, Massachusetts Economic Summary. (2013, August 28). US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from www.bls.gov/ro1/blssummary_boston.pdf Clifford, R., Coyne, D., Dennett, J., Elmatad, T., Kessler, R., & Tarquinio, L. (n.d.). An Overview of New England’s Economic Performance in 2010. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from www. bos.frb.org/economic/neei/articles/overview/oview10.pdf Cupcake Vineyards. (2013). About Us. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from http://www.cupcakevineyards.com/about Deutsch Family Wine & Spirits Ltd. (2013). Yellow Tail Facts. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from http://www. deutschfamily.com/our-brands-template-page/?brand_id=17&cat_id=66 Facebook. (2013) Strut Wine. Retrieved September 20, 2013 from https://www.facebook.com/strutwines Fox News Network LLC. (2013). Barefoot Wine’s ‘Get Rich Slow’ Scheme. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/entrepreneurs/2013/04/22/barefoot-wine-cofounders-success-story/
52
Gale. (2012). Wine and Distilled Alcoholic Beverages. Encyclopedia of American Industries. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from Business Insights. Howard, P.; Bogart, T.; Grabowski, A.; Mino, R.; Molen, N. & Schultze, S. (2012) U.S. Wine Market Share, 2011 Retrieved September 23, 2013 from Michigan State University, https://www.msu.edu/~howardp/winemarket.pdf Lima, A., Melnik, M., Perkins, G., Blake, N., & Borella, N. (n.d.). Boston By the numBers Colleges and Universities Enrollment, Employment and Economic Impact. Boston Redevelopment Authority. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/PDF/ResearchPublications/BBNCollegesUniversities.pdf Middlesex County QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. (n.d.). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/25017.html Mintel. (2012, October). Wine Executive Summary – US. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from Mintel Reports database. Modestino, A. (n.d.). Retaining Recent College Graduates in New England: An Update on Current Trends. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from www.bos.frb.org/economic/neppc/ briefs/2013/briefs132.pdf MRI+ Mediamark Reporter, Mediamark Research, Inc. (2010). Local Market 2010 - Boston Domestic Dinner/Table Wines Drank in Last 6 Months Total Women 18+ .Retrieved September 23 2013 from MRI+ Internet Reporter database. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN PRACTICES. (n.d.). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from http://www.mass.gov/abcc/regs/reg2040403.htm Sector:. (n.d.). Education. Boston Indicators. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from http://www.bostonindicators. org/indicators/education#sthash.PoasxECd.dpuf Skinnygirl Cocktails. (2013). About Us. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://skinnygirlcocktails.com/aboutus#content
53
Strategic Business Insights. (2013). US Frameworks and VALS Types. Retrieved September 23, 2013 from http:// www.strategicbusinessinsights.com/vals/ustypes.shtml Strut Wine (2013, September) Strut Your Stuff. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/strutwines Wine Align (2009) Vincor Launches Strut & Open Wine. Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://winealign. wordpress.com/2009/07/06/vincor-launches-strut-open-wines/ Wine Spectator Online. (2013). Beam’s Skinnygirl Brand Enters Wine Market. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://www.winespectator.com/webfeature/show/id/46413
APPENDIX
55
U.S. Wine Market Share, 2011 Data: Euromotor International, 2012.II. Focus Group Interview
Focus Group Interview FGI Discussion Guide and FGI Concept Good evening everyone. My name is Erica and I am an Emerson Graduate Student. I would like to thank all of you for coming here today. Today’s discussion is going to revolve around general topics of alcoholic beverages and wine in particular. I urge all of you to speak your minds as all your opinions are very important to us. There are no right or wrong answers. We will be recording this session to prevent loss of information and everything you say will remain confidential.
Introduction 1. Let’s begin with a round of introductions. I’d like each of you to introduce yourself and tell me, what are your favorite types of alcoholic beverages and what are your least favorite alcoholic beverages…
Understanding Attitudes Towards Wine 2. Let’s talk about shopping for wine. How often do you shop? Where do you shop? 3. When you buy wine, what are the important qualities you consider? (If prompting is needed: What helps you make your decision / what are determining factors of choice)
Moderator To Allow Responses And Add The Following If Not Mentioned
56
Calories Recognizable/familiar Eye Catching label Knowledge of wine regions Knowledge of wine types Price Taste Flavor 4. Imagine I put a hat in the middle of this table and you could put all of your concerns regarding wine in the hat to make them go away. What would you put in the hat? Why are these so important? 5. Now that we know all our concerns, imagine we were running a hurdle race where each of concerns were hurdles. How would you overcome each of these concerns?
Moderator To Note If Wine Is…Cue If Not Mentioned 6. What kinds of wine do you like to drink and how do you select a wine type?
Concept Evaluation 7. I have something to show to you today. MODERATOR TO EXPOSE CONCEPT BOARD WITH PRODUCT NAME, DESCRIPTION, BENEFITS. What thoughts, images, moods come to your mind on seeing this? 8. Imagine you are back home now and you are telling your roommate about this product. How would you describe it? MODERATOR TO HIDE THE CONCEPT BOARD PRIOR TO ASKING QUESTION. 9. Let’s take a look at the concept board again. Imagine if this company were to put up a stall in an exhibition. What kind of people would go to this stall to look at the product? Could you describe these people in terms of age, gender, occupation, lifestyles, or personality? Could you also please describe the person who would buy this product? Why do you say so? 10.
Imagine ‘Strut’ was running a marathon. Who would be its toughest competitor? Why?
57
What advantages does ‘Strut’ have which none of the other contenders have… What disadvantages does ‘Strut’ have which none of the other contenders have…
Moderator To Repeat A & B For Strut Competitors (SkinnyGirl Wine, Cupcake, Barefoot, and YellowTail) Now let’s take some of Strut’s competitors, such as SkinnyGirl Wine, Cupcake, Barefoot, and YellowTail -- are you familiar with these brands? What are some advantages that these brands have? Disadvantages? 11. Imagine Strut magically turns into a human being. What kind of a person would it be? Age Gender Occupation Hobbies Lifestyles 12. What comes to your mind when you hear “The wine with legs?” Can ‘Strut’ credibly own this tag line? Why? Why not? 13. What is your opinion of the brand name, ‘Strut’? 14. Imagine there is a girl, Sarah who dislikes Strut. Why do you think she doesn’t like it? According to you, what are her concerns regarding Strut? Why? 15. I have another concept for you…MODERATOR TO EXPOSE CONCEPT WITH VARIETIES FIRST… What is your opinion about the available varieties of ‘Strut’? Why? Should there be more or less? 16. What do you think of the labels on the bottle of ‘Strut? Now I have some more information to share with you.... MODERATOR TO EXPOSE CONCEPT WITH PRICE. 17. What is your opinion about the price of Strut? Why? 18. If you had to market ‘Strut’ how much would you price it? Why? 19. Which types of stores would you find Strut in? 20. What would encourage you to try Strut? 21. Where would you expect to find information about Strut? 22. Do you have any recommendations for Strut?
58
How to become more popular. How to reach its target audience.
Thank & Debrief Any questions?
59
Concept Board
THE WINE WITH LEGS
THE WINE WITH LEGS
Fashionable Bold
Young
Fruity
THE WINE WITH LEGS
Canadian wine from Niagara Peninsula Uses only local grapes (VQA certified) Sold in 10 provinces across Canada
Elegant
Multi-tasking
“the Chic Canadian wine you can pour with confidence” THE WINE WITH LEGS
Convenient Screw Top
Types
60
Price $11.95
61
Transcript Strut Wine Focus Group 6pm on November 6th, 2013 | 7 participants Moderator: Okay let’s get started. I’m Erica in the Global Marketing Communications and Advertising program. Thank you so much for being here and taking part in our Focus Group for our research methods class. We really appreciate your time, hence the pizza and sparkling juice. So today we’re going to talk about alcoholic beverages and wine in particular. Please speak your mind and your opinion. Your opinions are very important to us and there are no right or wrong answers so please just say whatever. Also we are recording the session to prevent loss of information. So everything you say is recorded but it will be confidential – it is just for our study. Okay, so I’m Erica and now we can go around and do some introductions. Tell us about yourself and what are your favourite types of alcoholic beverages and what are your least favourite types of alcoholic beverages. Participant 1 (P1): I like wine and beer and other types I also like them but mostly those two. Participant 2 (P2): Hi, my favorite is gin and I don’t know if I have any least favorites Participant 3 (P3): (mouthful of food) Participant 4 (P4): (mouthful of food) Participant 5 (P5): My favourite alcoholic beverage is wine and beer and I really like Cabernet sauvignon . And least favourite is vodka. I hate vodka. Can’t drink it. P4: I’m a huge red wine fan. My favourite it’s hard to say but usually when I’m at restaurants I’ll order Malbec. I’m also a huge Tequila fan. Least favourite is probably gin. Gin and tonic – can’t get me to drink that. And cheap vodka. P3: I’m a big tequila fan. And for white wines, I’m very girly – I like moscato because it’s very sweet. And I do not like red wines at all because I don’t like warm drinks. And I don’t like vodka either. Participant 6 (P6): I’m not a big wine drinker. When I drink wine, I prefer white wine over red wine, but my favorite alcoholic beverage is vodka and my least one is whisky. Participant 7 (P7): My favorite is definitely red wine. And I also really like gin. I hate cheap vodka and I can’t really drink whisky. Moderator: Okay thanks guys. Now let’s talk about shopping for wine – so I’m glad all of you included wine in your introductions. How often do you shop for wine and where do you usually stop. Anyone can talk, just say whatever. P5: Often. Too often. More often than I should. Well actually, maybe not so much this year because of the work that we’re doing. But in undergrad, once a week easily. From grocery stores that would sell it or convenience stores that would sell it. And the same goes for Walgreen or CVS P4: Probably once or twice a week. Yeah, alcohol or liquor stores. Trader Joe’s.
62
P1: Trader Joe’s. P3: Yeah Three buck chuck is a big thing um… P4: It’s a big thing. P6: ‘Cause it’s not terrible. P2: Yeah, it’s true. P1: Yeah. P3: There’s lots of variety. They have tons of different types and it’s only three dollars. P2: Yes, I also buy this one from Trader Joe’s. Like here I think I don’t know how much of the wine is so good. ‘Cause if I drink one glass of wine with my meal, I don’t have to pay twenty dollars. So I usually buy like uh once a month but I buy five bottles like different kinds so I have them Moderator: Stock up, right? P2: Yeah. Moderator: And when you buy wine, what are the important qualities that you consider in your choice? P1: Well obviously, price as we mentioned. And also quality. If it’s not good at all you won’t drink it, even if it’s cheap. P2: And if I want to drink a good wine, I would say the origin, like I would prefer European wine. P1: Or also, well I think Chilean wine is very good. P2: Yeah. P4: When I look for a wine, I usually just look for well I look to see what’s cheap and then I put one into my phone you know and see what the reviews are and if it has good reviews and it’s cheap, then I’ll give it a try. P5: Yeah, I think price for sure. And then I personally consider sweet versus dry. I like really dry wine over sweet. P6: I’m usually the opposite. Like a chardonnay, I usually won’t do because it’s too dry. I normally go towards a moscato or a Riesling cause that’s a lot sweeter. Moderator: What about the label – does that usually attract you at all? P7: Mm – if I recognize it as something that’s cheap, but something that I can trust like YellowTail or Barefoot – if it’s something I can trust as not being some random sketchy cheap wine… P5: Sometimes I feel like if the label isn’t subtle , it’s like, gunna be like some cheap bad like not that good. Like I feel like a wine should be sophisticated and like very like not formal but do you guys know what I mean? Like kind of like low key in how it looks. And if it’s some like crazy label that’s like bright and colorful or like weird or something I wouldn’t normally see I would probably be like mm…? P4: Elegant and simplicity. Moderator: What about calories? P7: No. (Agreement around the table) Moderator: So imagine that I put a hat in the middle of the table and you could put all of your concerns and fears about
63
wine into the hat and they could go away. P1: That it tastes like vinegar – that’s my biggest concern. If it’s tastes like vinegar, that would be horrible. P5: I don’t worry about this, but if I could get rid of calories, I would – but it’s not something I think about consciously when I’m shopping for wine. P6: Exactly. P4: I’m not a big fan of wine that’s too sweet. Because if I drink too much of it then I get really hung over. P3: I was just going to say, what I would get rid of is the wine hangover. Because you know, if you have the same amount of alcohol but in beer it won’t be as severe in the morning, whereas even if you just have a couple of glasses, but it’s like cheap box wine like Franzia or something, you never feel good the next day. P1: Yeah, that’s horrible! P2: For me, what I don’t like – maybe it’s only me, I don’t know – when I drink red wine usually my lips turn red – yeah I hate this. (Agreement around the table) P5: And the price too. Just for a quality wine usually costs more money so cheap wine, or good wine for cheap. P6: There are a lot of good wines that are cheap. P5: That’s true! P7: It’s hard ‘cause like um buying any alcohol when you buy on your own is much cheaper than when you go out, but wine especially is just like – I can go get a bottle of wine for like 6.99 somewhere or a bottle for like 35 dollars at a restaurant. I work at a restaurant and it is just ridiculous how much money people put out for a bottle that you can get the same exact bottle off the shelf for like a fourth of the price. So that’s something I would change. Moderator: Why do you guys think these concerns are so important? P3: For me it’s not that important. I mean, I still drink wine even though I know I will get the stain (Laughing all around) P5: And it’s important to save money too. And calories are important to look good. Look good, feel good for the hangover. Save money… Then again with the stain … Moderator: Okay so imagine we were running a hurdle race and each of these fears were hurdles that we could jump over and overcome. How would you overcome the hurdles? P4: What do you mean? Would we crash in them? How big would they be? Moderator: What would you do to get around them? P5: I don’t think there is any getting around them. For mine at least. P1: Don’t drink too much. P6: Don’t drink box wine. Moderator: Or for price? There are ways of getting around price. P7: I guess that’s true. P1: Buy cheaper wine.
64
P4: But then you have the problem of the taste and the hangover. Moderator: But if you were looking for a certain taste, if taste were a concern for you, what would you do? P2: Oh maybe um look up reviews and just make sure that the brand that you are buying because you don’t know before you buy it. P3: I would never buy more expensive wine personally, um because I feel like with other like, with other alcohol, I don’t like because wine sits on its own and when you buy a liquor you are normally mixing it with something, I feel like it’s a lot more important that the wine is a good quality than if your tequila is a good quality. Because you are still going to have like lemonade or whatever, I like lemonade in my tequila, so its not as important as it is with other liquors if the taste… Moderator: Yeah. Um ok, so now we are going to show you a concept for a new wine brand ..so we are just going to wait for the screen to come on, it’s going to come up on the board. So the wine is called Strut. The wine with legs. P6: Good varieties. Moderator: You guys are going a bit fast, ya… Red wine white wine and a rose. Fashionable, bold young fruity, multitasking. P4: I like it. Moderator: It’s Canadian wine from the Niagara Peninsula..uses only local grapes and its sold in 10 provinces across Canada. It’s the chic Canadian wine you can pour with confidence, has a convenient screw top. Ok guys that it for the concept for now. So after you have seen a few images what thoughts moods images that come to your mind. P4: For me a little bit of fashion and wine I cannot see the connection between them, for me that’s defeating. P5: I didn’t like the logo, the legs. P3: I thought it was really funny you look for legs with your wine. P5: For legs in your wine, how is it? P1: When a wine has legs. P3: Yeah, like when you have legs, I thought that was really funny. But the only thing is, even when there are nice wines with screw tops I normally associate a screw top with a cheaper wine so that is what I guess I would say. P1: I agree with the screw top as well, but I like the legs and the logo, kind of reminds me of “Sex And The City”. P5: Yeah. P1: Like the fun fashionable, like you wouldn’t associate that with... I feel like its chic or something like that and you want to drink it. I don’t know. P2: I get the idea of the legs, but I don’t think if I saw it I would grab it because I don’t know usually buying wine its like hmmmm, for my boyfriend and I and the legs just seem kind of girly and maybe he wouldn’t like it. P5: Exactly. We also like, maybe I don’t know about the brand but maybe like a cheaper brand of wine but I don’t know. But I would associate it like that. P2: Like a girly drink. But that’s kinda maybe what you are going for. But I don’t like the stigma of the girly drinks so I stay away from them personally. Moderator: Totally fine. Imagine you are back home and you are telling your roommate or your friend about Strut. How
65
would you describe it? You are telling a friend about Strut. So how would you describe the product to them? P4: I would say it is a weird bottle that has a weird label for me, the label has really nice for me doesn’t much in my mind so I don’t know I can not see them much there. P5: Girly, like she said I would describe it as a girly wine. P3: Yeah, I wouldn’t bring it to a party but if my friends were like.. P7: If there was a girls night I would be like ohhh Strut! P3: Well like I’m not going to probably going got have Strut before a night out or something. P1: Yeah, I would just say that I found a cool, cute like I don’t know new wine that has a really cool label. I would be like ya, look at this wine. Moderator: What about the region? Would that have anything to do with it? P3: I have never had a wine from Canada. P2: I went to Niagara on the lake and went to those…and I loved it so I you know what I mean. P5: Yeah, I have never heard of one from there.. P6: Yeah, me either.. P3: You have your California and your west coast wine and... P2: Canada has some really good wines. P3: I don’t think I have had a Canadian wine especially in the Niagara area. P5: They don’t market the fact that its from Canada. Moderator: Ok so lets take a look at the concept board again. Just go backwards. And just imagine that Strut were to put up a stall at an exhibition, like say they were at a wine and food show. What kind of people would go up to this stall to look at Strut? How would you describe these people in terms of age gender occupation lifestyle. P1: Young women who are fun and flirty. P5: Or young professionals. P1: Young professionals that don’t have to be single but I don’t know that’s the reason I would associate them with being single and being like YEAH. P2: Let’s get crazy, kinda reminds me of “Sex And The City”, that kind of young professional..maybe not professional. Kind of flirty not that serious in it to have fun. P3: I mean the names too just like Savvy Blanc, I feel like those would speak to the people that would buy it. Moderator: I don’t know if everyone can read those from here but those are the.. Red Over Heels, Savvy Blanc is the white, Risky Rose, Well Heeled White and Cab Couture. P1: Cab Couture.. P6: I will remember that one. P3: I know! Moderator: So imagine Strut was running a marathon..it’s kind of funny because it’s the wine with legs…who would be its
66
toughest competitor and why? P3: Skinny Girl Margaritas. P1: Do we know the price? Moderator: Not yet. Competitors like you mentioned. P5: Maybe the cheap wine like the cheap wine you mentioned. P1: Wines that were less expensive, I mean I don’t know how much it costs but wines less expensive. P3: Yeah, it looks like it would go with Barefoot and Yellowtail. P7: Yeah. P2: What are the calories like? P1:The same as most reds I think. P2: Skinny Girl Margarita might be like oh its girly I save calories and its tequila. So I think that might be your toughest competitor. P1: Or just any other wine that comes to mind. Moderator: What advantages might Strut wine have over competitors? P1: Their label. P4: They are girly. P3: The variety. I mean they have everything from like Rose to a Sauvignon Blanc so like... P1: And they are clever too. P2: Memorable. Because you think of wine you think of like legs and you are literally putting the legs right on there so I will remember this. Moderator: And you guys mentioned some of their competitors: Yellow Tail, Barefoot, Skinny Girl, uh there’s also Cupcake. P2: Oh yeah, I love Cupcake! Moderator: Are you familiar with any of the brands that I just mentioned at all? P4: No. Moderator: Just try to think of, I don’t know a wine brand you would typically buy that would be a fit with this wine and think of what advantages those others might have over Strut. P5: That they are already out there in the market and they know. P7: Like brand awareness type of thing. P2: Not so gender specific, Yellowtail a guy would buy, this a guy probably wouldn’t. P1: A guy would buy for his girlfriend. Moderator: Skinny Girl is gender specific. P3: Ya definitely, my parents buy Cupcake all the time. P2: I don’t think it really the same thing.
67
P5: The name Cupcake. P3: Personally I would say its gender specific. Just ‘cause the name. Moderator: So imagine Strut turned into a human being what kind of person would Strut be? P1: Some kind of powerhouse, beautiful... P6: Beyonce. P1: Like lawyer, like high rolling young pretty lawyer. That’s what I envision personally. P3: I see like an Elle Woods of Strut. Someone who can get stuff done but is also very like I wear red high heels to work. P7: Exactly, and pencil skirts. Moderator: What comes to your mind when you hear the slogan. The wine with legs. P3: That sounds sophisticated to me. P4: The phrase for me needs explaining so... P5: It wouldn’t mean anything yeah. P1: Without seeing the bottle, its like sophistication, I was like ahhh. P3: Yeah, I think that the wine with legs is really good but it kinda sounds like out of Struts league, not out of the league but a different category or audience trying to get maybe. P3: I think that is really good but it sounds like it would be outside of the category or for a different audience. P5: Oh, I guess ‘cause maybe that people who buy it wouldn’t now what that meant, you mean? P3: That and just like if you are buying a cheaper one you are not concerned about the legs as much as if you are buying a $30 bottle of wine. P4: But I think that the people that you are trying to sell this to, would be like kind of professional, kind of chic, kind of know about this kind of thing and also like wine with legs kind of implies that it moves things, it does things, and so does the young woman: “Sex And The City”... So I like your logo. Moderator: Do you think that Strut can credibly own this tagline? Why or why not? P4: I think they can because they literally put legs on their logo and so, I mean other wines can metaphorically have legs but they have legs - it’s a verifiable fact. So yeah, they can own it. P3: I would say no, just because of what I said before. I feel like people that are looking for legs aren’t necessarily looking for a bottle with a label of some twenty-something in high heels. If feel there is a classier correlation with the slogan than there is with the label maybe. P1: I agree with her. If someone is looking for legs, actual real legs in the wine, might not buy it with the legs on the label. P5: I kind of agree with both, just because like she said: if they are appealing to an audience who doesn’t even really care about or even know what legs are then reading there ‘the wine with legs’, its like yeah, its the wine with legs, there is legs on the logo. But, if there was someone who did know… I don’t know. I think they can own it, if there was someone who did know what legs means, like for wine to have legs, and they bought a red they can be like oh yea. P4: I think if you are buying cheap wine you are looking for it to be good you know, like wine is supposed to be classy. The classy alternative to beer, so if you see wine with legs you are like ‘yes it’s a classy thing’ - even if it’s not.
68
Moderator: What is your opinion of the Strut brand name? P1: I like it. P5: Yeah, I like it too. P3: Yea, I don’t see anything wrong with that at all. P2: I don’t like that you have different colors for the Strut label. I prefer the red one. P1: I like all the colors, also. P4: I feel like the different colors are good for flavors, I guess. P1: Exactly. Moderator: Imagine a girl named Sarah, Sarah doesn’t like Strut wine. Why do you think that she doesn’t like it? What do you think her concerns would be about Strut and why? P3: That she thinks she is better than that. I feel like if you are judging your wine then you are probably like, I don’t know, being kind of snobby about it. I don’t know, people are snobby about their wines. So I feel like you are not liking wine and is not a certain kind, it’s a whole brand then you are probably like... P5: Or you can have a feminist on your hands. P3: Yeah, I thought about the whole feminist thing too. P4: But Feminist might like it though. P3: I don’t think they would like it at all. P5: Feminists would be like, ‘What? I would never’ P4: I mean they are sensuality. P3: Yeah, but they are also ‘like I am sorry like you are going to put me on the label for my legs and that’s it?’ P5: Yeah, like “you don’t care about my personality?” P4: But it’s their thing you know, they can own that. P7: I agree with you, feminist definitely be like ‘not cool with you.’ P4: I don’t know. Moderator: Ok, so now we are just going to show you a more detailed concept board of the varieties of wine types. Red Over Heels, Cab Couture, Well-Heeled White, Risque Rose, and Savvy Blanc. What do you guys think about the available varieties of Strut? P2: It’s cool that they have a big variety. The variety is ok. P1: A couple of whites, also red, and rose. P5: I feel like they could, I don’t know like, Savy Blanc, is obviously Sauvignon Blanc. But like Well Heeled White, is that like a Pinot Grigio, a Chardonnay? P1: Exactly. Moderator: It is a Riesling. P5: Oh, it says on the bottom. Ok. Nevermind I take it all back.
69
Moderator: You just have to... it’s like smaller on the label. P1: But they have a funny way, creative way to say what type of wine it is. Which is good. Moderator: Should they have less varieties or more varieties? P5: Maybe more. P1: I think it’s ok. P4: I think its a good amount. P1: Maybe less at the beginning to see how it’s going to go and then introduce some more. P5: Crazy Chardonnay. Moderator: And what do you think about the labels on the bottles? P5: I think the colors of the labels, like the pink and the blue, should be more like muted. And not as bright, I think a more muted or more like dulled out color would seem more sophisticated almost than like a vibrant.. I mean it’s pretty and it stands out but it seems like too young almost or too like...it’s already crazy enough with the legs. P3: The one on the middle reminds me of like 18+ clubs. So like, people that are like that can be like “I’m going to have Strut with this” but it’s like too much and you are not quite there yet. I don’t the pink is just... P5: The white and the red are like more neutral kind of, like more standard, and the pink and the turquoise are a little more out there. Like too much. P4: I kind of like the turquoise, but I think the pink might clash. P1: Exactly yeah, me too. Moderator: now we have our last concept: it’s the price. It’s $11.95, just under $12. P5: I would buy it. Moderator: What do you think about the price? P2: I wouldn’t buy it. I mean in Trader Joes with $3 you have a decent wine. So for me to pay $12 for something I don’t know, and for me it seems weird. It’s like: no. P1: I might try it if I know it’s good, or maybe if they have a promotion. I could try it. But I don’t know. I’m not sure. P4: I think it’s best to keep it under $10. P1: Yeah, maybe. P5: I think that being in my current financial situation, as a grad student. I don’t think I would buy it - even though I would wanna buy it, cause it’s a really cute bottle. I might splurge at some point and just buy it because I would want to and like save the bottle. But like when I’m older and making money I think I would totally buy it for sure. P1: I also might buy it because it’s a Canadian wine and I haven’t tried any -I like trying new things with wine. Moderator: If you had to market Strut how would you price it and why? P2: Maybe an introduction price like $5, like a promotion price, and then you can go $7 or $9. But I agree with her, under $10. Because it also has the lid, the lid is cheaper. P4: I think pricing it at $12, makes people think that it’s better.
70
P3: Yeah, me too that’s what I was going to say. I wouldn’t put it under $9.95 because if it’s a cheap wine with that label I would be like no way. But the fact that it’s more money, means the quality is better. That makes me look at it in the sophisticated side instead of the trashy. P4: It could go either way, I see what you are seeing. P7: It could be really sophisticated or it could be tacky. And I feel that for me the price would differentiate it. Moderator: And the grapes are all local, they come from the same region so they are not being shipped in and blended. Moderator: What types of stores do you expect to find Strut in? P2: Wine stores. P6: Girl’s night out. P2: Yeah. P3: Like what kind of stores would sell it? P4: Any store that would sell regular wine. P3: Yeah. I would just see it in the wine aisle in the grocery store. Next to everything else. P5: Yeah. Moderator: Do you have wine boutiques? P2: Yeah. Moderator: Do you? Do you go to wine boutiques? P5: I would if I knew where one was. Moderator: What would you? What would encourage you to try Strut? P5: I wouldn’t need encouragement. P3: I would like to try samples. Like at Trader Joe’s, they let you sample their wines. P6: I : They do? P2: Yeah. P5: We should go there. P6: Yeah. P3: If I tried it and I liked it, I would buy it because I don’t think 11.95 is unreasonable, because I always buy cheap wine. So, like I mean 11.95 is still inexpensive, so I think I would uhm, try it. I wanna try that rosé. I would love to. P5: I wanna try the Cab Couture. Moderator: And where would you expect to find more information about Strut? P2: Maybe in a magazine. P3: Cosmo. P6: (Laughs) P5: Yeah. Or Vogue… Does Vogue ever talk about wine?
71
Moderator: What about online? P5: Like on websites or something? Or like if they would have a website. P1: Social media. P2: Yeah. P1: Facebook. P3: Do they advertise alcohol on Facebook? P1: Yeah, no. I don’t think so. Moderator: A lot of brands have Facebook pages. P6: Yeah. P2. Yeah, maybe there. P3: Maybe at like… I can say people tying it with like… like… You know like buy a bottle of Strut, you get like a free Zumba class or like I don’t know. I can see promotional ties with this because I feel like there’s a certain audience that this wine is trying to target, whereas like it be weird if you just buy “Yolitan” and got a free Zumba class. But, like I feel this would like make sense or like a Yoga class. P2: I can see, do you know Michelle Phan? Moderator: Yes. The artist? P2: I can see this advertised and she be like your spokesperson. I can see... Moderator: Interesting! On YouTube? P1: For YouTube yeah. P2: Michelle Phan. Moderator: Oh! It’s a make-up artist on YouTube. P2: And now she’s opening a store, so maybe she… Moderator: No… Sure! One of the top earning YouTube gurus. She makes millions. Anyways… Do you guys have any recommendations for Strut? As we wrap this up. How can Strut become more popular and what would be some good ways for Strut to reach its target audience? P7: Maybe, well, maybe. Place themselves in restaurants like high-end things. Well, maybe and also Trader Joe’s, which is now like or places like that. Wine boutiques. Start there. P5: Yeah. And do promotional prices P2: Yeah. P5: To start off and also so people can try it and not feel like they are paying a bunch. Like to show how much actually costs and them be like just so that they would knew they were doing it for a promotional thing. P4: You could give like a promotional thing like for bridesmaids parties or… P3: Yeah. I could see Strut sponsoring bachelorette parties. P4: What’s it called? Bachelorette parties.
72
P3: I can see that. P4: Make them wear Strut thing in exchange. (Laughs). Moderator: OK. Anything else you guys wanna add? No? Well that’s it for our questions about Strut. Thank you guys so much for participating and for all of you input. It was really interesting and you guys had a lot of great insights. Uhm… Do you have any questions about like the study? You might be wondering if Strut is real, it is a real product in Canada. P4: Really? Moderator: I brought a bottle from home. I have it here but I does not have any alcohol in it because they don’t allow alcohol on campus. P3: I was going to ask if you made it up. P6: Is it good? Moderator: Yeah, it’s pretty good. I like it for parties and stuff. P3: It’s a real thing! P5: I like the label too. P1: Let me see. P4: Yeah, I would have gotten Red Over Heels too. P5: Oh, it’s Merlot. Moderator: Yeah. P1: It look fancier. P3: And it’s green. They don’t have green bottles anymore. Are they all green? Moderator: No. The red ones are green and then, the white are just clear. So, yeah, part of the research was to take an international brand and try to bring it in the Boston market. Uhm, so… We chose this. So, that’s it. Thanks a lot!
73
Survey Strut Wine
24/10/13 13
Questionnaire Strut Wine Dear Participant,
I am a Graduate student of the Marketing Communication department at Emerson College. I am conducting this survey for my research method class and my primary research interest is to examine how you consume wine and what kinds of wine you like. This survey is strictly voluntary and will take about 10-15 minutes. Your answers are completely confidential. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or contact me at 857-389-1221 or erica_olmstead@emerson.edu. Thank you very much and I hope you enjoy filling this out! Erica Olmstead Ashley Poage Max Rivera Yona Weisleder
Attitudes and Usage Behavior 1. Age Range Mark only one oval. Under 21 (Stop filling out this survey)
After the last question in this section, stop filling out this
form. 21-24 25-29 30-34 35 or older 2. Do you drink wine? Mark only one oval. Yes No (Stop filling out this survey) 3. How many glasses, on average, do you consume on one drinking occasion? Mark only one oval. One glass Two glasses
2. Do you drink wine? Mark only one oval. 74
Yes No (Stop filling out this survey) 3. How many glasses, on average, do you consume on one drinking occasion? Mark only one oval. One glass Two glasses Three glasses Four or more glasses 4. How frequently do you consume wine? Mark only one oval.
Strut Wine
24/10/13 13:4
4-5 times a week https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform 2-3 times a week
Once a week 2-3 times a month Once a month Less than once a month 5. When do you drink wine? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Dinner A casual get-together with friends Dinner party (e.g. dinner at a friend's house or with friends in your own home) Pre-game drinking For a girls' night At a party (e.g. at a club) Special occasions (e.g. birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, holidays) Other: 6. Where do you buy wine? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Liquour store Wine boutique Supermarket Convenience store Bar Club Wholesale store (e.g. Costco)
Pรกgina 1 de 1
For a girls' night At a party (e.g. at a club) Special occasions (e.g. birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, holidays)
75
Other: 6. Where do you buy wine? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Liquour store Wine boutique Supermarket Convenience store Bar
45
Club Wholesale store (e.g. Costco)
10
Other: 7. How much do you usually pay for a bottle of wine? Mark only one oval. $7 or under $8-$11 $12-$15 Strut Wine
$16-$19 Over $20
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
8. Which of the following do you usually drink? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Red White RosĂŠ Sparkling Sweet Champagne Sangria Other: 9. How would you describe "wine drinkers"? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Healthy Young Mature
24/10/13 13:4
PĂĄgina 2 de 1
Sweet Champagne
76
Sangria Other: 9. How would you describe "wine drinkers"? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Healthy Young Mature Refined Fun Elegant High Class Trendy Other: 10. What comes to your mind if I say "wine"? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Healthy A low-calorie beverage Enjoyable Fancy Expensive For women Sophisticated
Strut Wine
Relaxing For men
24/10/13 13:4
Other: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
11. What taste qualities of wine do you prefer? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Light Sweet Fruity Spicy Bold Bitter Full-bodied Refreshing
Pรกgina 3 de 1
45
10
77
Strut Wine
24/10/13 13
Other: 11. What taste qualities of wine do you prefer? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Light Sweet Fruity Spicy Bold Bitter Full-bodied Refreshing I don't know Other: 12. Which of the following wine brands do you know? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Cupcake Skinny Girl Yellowtail Barefoot Strut None of the above 13. Which of the following wine brands have you tried? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Cupcake Skinny Girl Yellowtail Barefoot Strut None of the above 14. When buying wine, what is your deciding factor? Select all that apply Check all that apply. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
Pรกgina 4 de
Yellowtail 78
Barefoot Strut None of the above
14. When buying wine, what is your deciding factor? Select all that apply Strut Wine Check all that apply. Price
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
Country of origin
Recommended by a friend Advertisement On site promotion or sale In store tasting Brand reputation Other:
Product Concept Test
Please read the concept board on the next page and answer the following questions. 15. After you read the concept board, what is your overall impression of Strut wine? Mark only one oval. I don't like it at all I slightly don't like it Neither don't like it or like it I slightly like it I like it a lot 16. What do you like about Strut wine?
17. What do you dislike about Strut wine?
24/10/13 13
Pรกgina 4 de
79
3:45
e 10
Strut, “the wine with legs”, celebrates the young, fashionable multi-tasking woman. Established in 2009, Strut is a bold, yet fruity and elegant Canadian wine from the Niagara Peninsula terroir. Strut is VQA certified, meaning each barrel uses only local grapes -- no imports here! Currently sold in ten provinces across Canada, each variety of Strut wine has its own flair, from the red wines called “Red Over Heels” and “Cab Couture”, to the rosé variety called “Risqué Rosé”, and the white wines called “Savvy Blanc” and “Well-Heeled White”. Like your favourite pair of shoes, you’ll be able to find a Strut wine to suit your style. At such a great price (just under $12.00 per bottle), and with a conveniet screw top, you can sip on Strut for any occasion: it’s “the chic Canadian wine you can pour with confidence”.
Brand reputation Other: 80
Product Concept Test
Please read the concept board on the next page and answer the following questions. 15. After you read the concept board, what is your overall impression of Strut wine? Mark only one oval. I don't like it at all I slightly don't like it Neither don't like it or like it I slightly like it I like it a lot 16. What do you like about Strut wine?
17. What do you dislike about Strut wine?
18. We would like to know how you evaluate Strut wine in terms of the following statements. Please select one oval that best represents your opinion. Mark only one oval per row.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
Pรกgina 5 de
81
18. We would like to know how you evaluate Strut wine in terms of the following statements. Please 24/10/13 13 select one oval that best represents your opinion. Mark only one oval per row.
Strut Wine
Strongly disagree
Strut wine packaging is
Disagree
Neither agree nor disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
appealing to women https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform Strut wine packaging is offensive to women Screw top is convenient Strut offers a good selection of varieties Strut wine is appropriate for any occasion Strut wine flavors are easy to drink 19. Please check one oval that best reflects your feelings about Strut wine for each adjective. Mark only one oval. 1
2
3
4
5
Unsophisticated
Chic
20. Mark only one oval. 1
2
3
4
5
Boring
Fun
21. Mark only one oval. 1
10
2
3
4
5
Expensive
Affordable
22. Mark only one oval. 1
2
3
4
5
Ordinary
Unique
23. Mark only one oval. 1
2
3
4
5
Pรกgina 5 de
22. Mark only one oval. 82
1
2
3
4
5
Ordinary
Unique
23. Mark only one oval. 1 Strut Wine
2
3
4
5
Unappealing
Appealing
24. Mark only one oval. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform 1
2
3
4
5
Unfashionable
Fashionable
25. Mark only one oval. 1
2
3
4
5
Unrefined
Elegant
26. Mark only one oval. 1
2
3
4
5
Mature
Youthful
27. How likely are you to purchase Strut wine if it were available in Boston? Mark only one oval. Very unlikely Unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Very likely 28. How much would you pay for a bottle of Strut wine? Mark only one oval. $7 or under $8-$11 $12-$15 $16-$19 Over $20 29. Where would you like to buy Strut wine?
24/10/13 13
Pรกgina 6 de
$7 or under $8-$11 $12-$15 Over $20 29. Where would you like to buy Strut wine? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Liquour store Wine boutique
3:45
e 10
83
$16-$19
Strut Wine
Supermarket Convenience store
24/10/13 13
Bar https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
Club
Wholesale store (e.g. Costco) Other: 30. Where would you be more likely to try Strut wine? Select all that apply Check all that apply. In-store sample At a friend's house In a restaurant At a bar Other: 31. Where would you like to see Strut wine advertised? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Television Radio Newspaper Magazine Guerrilla marketing (e.g. flashmobs, street marketing) Social media Transit advertising Product demonstrations Other: 32. Which of the following social media networks would you most likely use to interact with Strut wine? Select all that apply Check all that apply.
Pรกgina 7 de
Social media Transit advertising
84
Product demonstrations Other: 32. Which of the following social media networks would you most likely use to interact with Strut wine? Select all that apply Check all that apply. Facebook fanpage Twitter Instragram Pinterest YouTube
Strut Wine
Product review site Blog
24/10/13 13
Other: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
Demographics 33. Education Mark only one oval. Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Graduate (Masters) Graduate (PhD) None 34. Gender Mark only one oval. Female Male 35. I work Mark only one oval. Part time Full time I don't work 36. My annual personal income before tax is Mark only one oval.
Pรกgina 8 de
Part time Full time I don't work 36. My annual personal income before tax is Mark only one oval. Under $20,000 $20,000-$39,999 $40,000-$59,999 $60,000 or higher 37. I am from Mark only one oval. In state Out of state
3:45
e 10
85
Strut Wine
Another country
38. I am Mark only one oval.
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1wdu3YTMVz_e1yeGQg2XQl1vONWnDm7XzGLX0taDx8sc/printform
Married Single Other:
Powered by
24/10/13 13
Pรกgina 9 de
86
Top-Line Report (Action Standard: Mean Score 3.30, Top 2 box 50%) Total
21-24
25-29
30 or older
(No. of Respondents)
(100)
(46)
(25)
(29)
Overall Evaluation Top 2 box % Mean Scores
57% 3.55
59% 3.52
56% 3.40
55% 3.72
Brand Image Unsophisticated vs. Chic Boring vs. Fun Expensive vs. Affordable Ordinary vs. Unique Unappealing vs. Appealing Unfashionable vs. Fashionable Unrefined vs. Elegant Mature vs. Youthful
3.65 4.09 3.86 3.80 3.61 3.72 3.00 4.14
3.71 4.17 3.83 3.76 3.74 3.83 3.09 4.29
3.48 4.00 3.68 3.92 3.24 3.44 2.84 3.88
3.68 4.04 4.07 3.75 3.71 3.79 3.00 4.14
Evaluation by Attributes Appealing Packaging Offensive Packaging Convenient Screw Top Variety of Selection Appropriate for any Occasion Easy to Drink Flavors
3.61 2.73 4.03 4.11 3.40 3.70
3.65 2.63 3.91 4.04 3.33 3.72
3.48 2.84 4.04 4.12 3.40 3.48
3.64 2.79 4.21 4.21 3.54 3.86
Purchase Intention Top 2 box % Mean Scores
55% 3.30
54% 3.30
60% 3.12
50% 3.46
87
Overall evaluation: 1. I don’t like it at all, 2.I slightly don’t like it, 3. Neither don’t like it nor like it, 4. I slightly like it, 5. I like it a lot.
Brand image: 1= Unsophisticated, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Chic 1= Boring, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Fun 1= Expensive, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Affordable 1= Ordinary, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Unique 1= Unappealing, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Appealing 1= Unfashionable, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Fashionable 1= Unrefined, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Elegant 1= Mature, 2=2, 3=3, 4=4, 5= Youthful
Evaluation by attributes: 1. Strongly disagree, 2. Disagree, 3. Neither agree nor disagree, 4. Agree, 5. Strongly agree.
Purchase intention: 1. Very unlikely, 2. Unlikely, 3. Neither likely nor unlikely, 4. Likely, 5. Very likely
88
Summary Tables Attitudes and Behavior of Wine Consumption Table 1 Wine Consumption Frequency Age
(No. of Respondents) Wine Consumption Frequency 4-5 times a week 2-3 times a week Once a week 2-3 times a week Once a month Less than once a month --------------------------------Total
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
0 24 36 28 12 0 ----100
3 35 35 7 12 0 ----100
0 26 29 26 6 14 ----100
0 35 17 26 13 9 ----100
7 13 33 27 20 0 ----100
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
2 30 27 23 10 8 ----100
2 30 17 30 4 15 ----100
$60K (26) %
4 42 27 15 8 4 ----100
Table 2 Wine Drinking Occasion (Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Wine Drinking Occasion Dinner Casual gathering with friends Dinner party Pre-game drinking Girls’ night At a party Special occasions Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
59
80
86
60
70
80
85
80
85
80
72
74
87
67
92
69 21 54 36 63 4
67 30 63 37 63 2
84 20 48 28 60 8
59 7 45 41 66 3
57 26 54 40 71 0
83 39 52 43 52 4
47 0 40 13 27 7
89 12 65 39 85 8
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
72
$60K (26) %
89
Table 3 Average Price for a Bottle Age
(No. of Respondents) Average Bottle Price $7 or under $8-$11 $12-$15 $16-$19 Over $20 --------------------------------Total
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
24 36 32 8 0 ----100
10 35 31 24 0 ----100
34 29 34 3 0 ----100
13 39 30 13 4 ----100
20 53 20 7 0 ----100
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
21 36 29 12 2 ----100
26 37 26 7 4 ----100
$60K (26) % 12 35 23 27 4 ----100
Table 4 Preferred Wine Type (Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Wine Type Red White Rose Sparkling Sweet Champagne Sangria Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
72 68 8 16 20 48 44 0
66 76 17 24 28 28 28 0
57 63 26 29 37 43 40 0
74 62 22 22 22 35 30 0
73 60 27 13 40 33 60 0
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
69 64 23 22 28 39 36 0
70 54 35 24 33 41 37 0
$60K (26) % 81 69 19 19 15 42 23 0
90
Table 5 Preferred Wine Taste Qualities (Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Wine Taste Qualities Light Sweet Fruity Spicy Bold Bitter Full-bodies Refreshing I don’t know Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
60 60 44 0 20 0 44 32 0 4
55 35 57 21 35 3 52 31 0 10
43 60 40 9 29 0 37 40 3 9
70 57 48 13 30 4 48 26 4 9
67 47 40 13 33 0 47 33 0 7
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
55 53 48 11 31 2 43 33 2 9
52 61 44 11 35 2 37 35 4 11
$60K (26) % 50 46 65 12 35 4 46 31 0 12
Table 6 Brand Competitors Tasted (Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Brand Competitors Tasted Cupcake Skinny Girl Yellowtail Barefoot Strut None of the above
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
64 28 88 72 4 8
59 24 83 69 3 3
54 31 74 69 0 11
57 44 83 74 0 9
67 20 93 73 0 0
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
56 32 81 70 2 10
50 39 76 70 0 15
$60K (26) % 54 31 81 65 8 15
91
Table 7 Deciding Factors for Purchase (Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Deciding Factors Price Country of origin Recommended by a friend Advertisement On a site promotion or sale In-store tasting Brand reputation Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
85 35 65 13
76 40 44 24
59 62 62 17
86 31 60 20
83 39 61 9
67 60 67 27
62 54 54 15
27
35
20
21
29
30
33
19
25 47 11
30 44 9
28 48 20
14 52 7
31 49 6
17 26 13
40 53 13
15 58 15
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
75 44 59 17
$60K (26) %
Consumer Acceptability of Strut Wine Table 8 Overall Evaluation of Strut Wine Brand Age
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
4 17 20 39 20 ----100
8 16 20 40 16 ----100
0 7 38 31 24 ----100
9 9 25 43 14 ----100
4 17 26 30 22 ----100
0 33 33 20 13 ----100
0 8 19 42 31 ----100
[59] 3.5
[46] 3.4
[55] 3.7
[57] 3.46
[52] 3.48
[33] 3.13
[73] 3.96
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
Overall Evaluation I don’t like it at all I slightly don’t like it Neutral I slightly like it I like it a lot --------------------------------Total
4 14 25 37 20 ----100
Top 2 box % Mean Scores
[57] 3.70
(No. of Respondents)
Income $60K (26) %
92
Table 9 Likes and Dislikes of Strut Wine Brand (Multiple Responses: 2) Total (No. of Respondents)
(100) %
Likes Price Fun Female Oriented Tasty Flavors Creative Wine Names Bottle Local Grapes Concept Variety Fashionable Young Screw Top New Quality
15 13 7 10 8 7 3 10 9 5 3 2 3 7
Dislikes Label Too Sexual Low Quality Not Relatable Advertising Anti-Feminist Wine Names Unfamiliar Wine Origin Taste Price Not for Men Unavailable in the US Tag line
18 19 9 6 3 13 3 7 3 9 3 6 2
93
Table 10 Evaluation of Strut Wine Brand Attributes Age
(No. of Respondents) Evaluation by Attributes Appealing Packaging Offensive Packaging Convenient Screw Top Variety of Selection Appropriate for any Occasion Easy to Drink Flavors
Income
(25) Mean
30 or older (29) Mean
Under $20K (35) Mean
$2039K (23) Mean
$4059K (15) Mean
(26) Mean
3.65 2.63 3.91 4.04
3.48 2.84 4.04 4.12
3.64 2.79 4.21 4.21
3.45 3.06 3.06 3.97
3.47 2.74 2.74 4.00
3.73 2.27 2.27 4.33
3.84 2.54 2.54 4.27
3.40
3.33
3.40
3.54
3.26
3.35
3.73
3.46
3.70
3.72
3.48
3.86
3.34
3.87
3.87
3.92
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) Mean
(46) Mean
3.61 2.73 4.03 4.11
$60K
Table 11 Evaluation of Strut Wine Brand Image Age
(No. of Respondents) Evaluation by Attributes Unsophisticated vs Chic Boring vs Fun Expensive vs Affordable Ordinary vs Unique Unappealing vs Appealing Unfashionable vs Fashionable Unrefined vs Elegant Mature vs Youthful
Income
(25) Mean
30 or older (29) Mean
Under $20K (35) Mean
$2039K (23) Mean
$4059K (15) Mean
(26) Mean
3.72 4.17 3.82 3.76 3.74
3.48 4.00 3.68 3.92 3.24
3.68 4.04 4.07 3.75 3.71
3.57 4.14 3.71 3.71 3.46
3.65 4.13 4.00 3.74 3.57
3.73 4.27 3.93 4.13 3.80
3.69 3.88 3.88 3.77 3.73
3.71
3.83
3.44
3.79
3.66
3.78
3.67
3.77
3.00 4.14
3.09 4.28
2.84 3.88
3.00 4.14
2.94 4.26
3.17 4.22
2.93 4.07
2.96 3.96
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) Mean
(46) Mean
3.65 4.10 3.86 3.80 3.60
$60K
94
Table 12 Purchase Intention of Strut Wine Brand Age
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
7 20 20 46 9 ----100
20 8 12 60 0 ----100
0 7 43 46 4 ----100
14 17 23 40 6 ----100
4 17 17 48 13 ----100
7 7 33 53 0 ----100
4 8 27 62 0 ----100
[54] 3.30
[60] 3.12
[50] 3.46
[46] 3.06
[61] 3.48
[53] 3.33
[62] 3.47
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
Purchase Intention Very Unlikely Unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Very likely --------------------------------Total
8 13 24 50 5 ----100
Top 2 box % Mean Scores
[55] 3.30
(No. of Respondents)
Income $60K (26) %
Table 13 Desired Price Point (Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Desired Price Point $7 or under $8-$11 $12-$15 $16-$19 Over $20 --------------------------------Total
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
21 36 29 12 2 ----100
26 37 26 7 4 ----100
Income Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
$60K
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
24 36 32 8 0 ----100
10 35 31 24 0 ----100
34 29 34 3 0 ----100
13 39 30 13 4 ----100
20 53 20 7 0 ----100
12 35 23 27 4 ----100
(26) %
95
Table 14 Purchase Location (Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Purchase Location Liquor Store Wine Boutique Supermarket Convenience Store Bar Club Wholesale Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
60 20 48 4 16 12 4 0
64 29 43 7 11 14 11 0
66 17 43 14 26 20 9 0
74 39 57 17 13 17 13 4
47 7 67 7 7 7 0 0
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
67 26 48 11 15 14 7 1
72 28 50 17 17 15 7 2
$60K (26) % 73 39 35 4 8 8 4 0
Table 15 Sample Location
(Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Sample Location In-store sample At a friend’s house In a restaurant At a bar Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
56 68 16 4 4
54 71 36 18 0
57 69 29 14 3
39 78 17 22 4
40 73 27 7 0
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
51 74 24 14 2
46 78 22 17 2
$60K (26) % 58 77 23 12 0
96
Table 16 Preferred Advertising Channel
(Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Advertising Channel Television Radio Newspaper Magazine Guerilla marketing Social media Transit advertising Product demonstrations Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
24 0 0 56 16 32 44 20 4
27 4 11 86 11 29 32 32 0
26 9 6 74 26 51 31 17 3
39 9 4 83 30 65 26 35 4
20 0 0 33 7 20 67 7 0
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
27 5 6 70 18 43 37 25 2
30 9 7 70 24 59 37 24 2
$60K (26) % 23 0 12 77 4 27 39 39 0
Table 17 Preferred Social Media Channel
(Multiple Responses) Age
(No. of Respondents) Social Media Channel Facebook fan page Twitter Instagram Pinterest YouTube Product Review Site Blog Other
Income
(25) %
30 or older (29) %
Under $20K (35) %
$2039K (23) %
$4059K (15) %
24 28 8 32 0 24 12 8
40 18 18 39 4 39 7 11
66 29 40 43 20 26 17 6
57 26 26 30 22 26 17 9
7 40 13 27 0 27 7 0
Total
21-24
25-29
(100) %
(46) %
46 28 26 37 12 25 12 6
63 35 41 39 24 17 15 2
$60K (26) % 35 23 15 42 0 23 4 8
97
SPSS Output CROSSTABS /TABLES=NewAge BY Impression /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT ROW /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid NewAge * Impression
N
Percent
100
100.0%
Missing N
Total
Percent 0
0.0%
N
Percent
100
100.0%
NewAge * Impression Crosstabulation Impression I slightly dont like it
Neither dont like it or like it
2
8
9
4.3%
17.4%
19.6%
I dont like at all NewAge
21-24
Count
25-29
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge 30 or older
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
2
4
5
8.0%
16.0%
20.0%
0
2
11
0.0%
6.9%
37.9%
4
14
25
4.0%
14.0%
25.0%
NewAge * Impression Crosstabulation Impression I slightly like it NewAge
21-24
Count % within NewAge
25-29
Count % within NewAge
30 or older
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=NewAge /ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Ii like it alot
Total
18
9
46
39.1%
19.6%
100.0%
10
4
25
40.0%
16.0%
100.0%
9
7
29
31.0%
24.1%
100.0%
37
20
100
37.0%
20.0%
100.0%
% within NewAge 30 or older Total
16.0%
100.0%
9
7
29
31.0%
24.1%
100.0%
37
20
100
37.0%
20.0%
100.0%
Count % within NewAge
98
40.0%
Count % within NewAge
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=NewAge /ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies Page 1 Statistics NewAge N A N
Valid Missing
100 0 NewAge Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
21-24
46
46.0
46.0
25-29
25
25.0
25.0
71.0
30 or older
29
29.0
29.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
46.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=NewAge /STATISTICS=MEAN /ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies Statistics NewAge N A N
Valid Missing
Mean
100 0 1.8300 NewAge Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
21-24
46
46.0
46.0
46.0
25-29
25
25.0
25.0
71.0 100.0
30 or older Total
29
29.0
29.0
100
100.0
100.0
FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=NewAge Impression /STATISTICS=MEAN /ORDER=ANALYSIS.
Frequencies
Page 2
99
Statistics NewAge N
Valid
Impression
100
Missing Mean
100
0
0
1.8300
3.5500
Frequency Table NewAge Frequency Valid
Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Percent
21-24
46
46.0
46.0
46.0
25-29
25
25.0
25.0
71.0
30 or older
29
29.0
29.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
Total
Impression Frequency Valid
I dont like at all
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
4
4.0
4.0
4.0
14
14.0
14.0
18.0
25
25.0
25.0
43.0
I slightly like it
37
37.0
37.0
80.0
Ii like it alot
20
20.0
20.0
100.0
100
100.0
100.0
I slightly dont like it Neither dont like it or like it
Total
ONEWAY Impression BY NewAge /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway Descriptives IImpression i 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
21-24
46
3.5217
1.13017
.16664
3.1861
3.8574
25-29
25
3.4000
1.19024
.23805
2.9087
3.8913
30 or older
29
3.7241
.92182
.17118
3.3735
4.0748
100
3.5500
1.08595
.10860
3.3345
3.7655
Total
Page 3
100
Descriptives IImpression i
Minimum
Maximum
21-24
1.00
5.00
25-29
1.00
5.00
30 or older
2.00
5.00
Total
1.00
5.00 ANOVA
IImpression i Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
1.479
2
.739
Within Groups
115.271
97
1.188
Total
116.750
99
F .622
Sig. .539
ONEWAY Unsophisticated_Chic Boring_Fun Expensive_Affordable Ordinary_Unique U nappealing_Appealing Unfashionable_Fashionable Unrefined_Elegant Mature_Youth ful BY NewAge /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 4
101
Descriptives
N Unsophisticated_Chic
Boring_Fun
Expensive_Affordable
Ordinary_Unique
Unappealing_Appealing
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
21-24
46
3.7174
1.24120
.18301
25-29
25
3.4800
1.35769
.27154
30 or older
28
3.6786
.86297
.16309
1.17207
.11780
Total
99
3.6465
21-24
46
4.1739
.76896
.11338
25-29
25
4.0000
1.08012
.21602
30 or older
28
4.0357
.99934
.18886
Total
99
4.0909
.91575
.09204
21-24
46
3.8261
.87697
.12930
25-29
25
3.6800
.94516
.18903
30 or older
28
4.0714
.94000
.17764
Total
99
3.8586
.91484
.09195
21-24
46
3.7609
1.13890
.16792
25-29
25
3.9200
1.11505
.22301
30 or older
28
3.7500
1.00462
.18986
Total
99
3.7980
1.08778
.10933
21-24
46
3.7391
1.06322
.15676
25-29
25
3.2400
1.26754
.25351
30 or older
28
3.7143
1.04906
.19825
Total
99
3.6061
1.12321
.11289
Unfashionable_Fashionable 21-24
46
3.8261
1.08124
.15942
25-29
25
3.4400
1.38684
.27737
30 or older
28
3.7857
.95674
.18081
Unrefined_Elegant
Mature_Youthful
Total
99
3.7172
1.13426
.11400
21-24
46
3.0870
1.00722
.14851
25-29
25
2.8400
1.10604
.22121
30 or older
28
3.0000
.76980
.14548
.96890
.09738
Total
99
3.0000
21-24
46
4.2826
.83435
.12302
25-29
25
3.8800
1.05357
.21071
30 or older
28
4.1429
.70523
.13328
Total
99
4.1414
.86908
.08735
Page 5
102
Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Unsophisticated_Chic
Boring_Fun
Expensive_Affordable
Ordinary_Unique
Unappealing_Appealing
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum
21-24
3.3488
4.0860
1.00
5.00
25-29
2.9196
4.0404
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.3439
4.0132
2.00
5.00
Maximum
Total
3.4127
3.8802
1.00
5.00
21-24
3.9456
4.4023
2.00
5.00
25-29
3.5541
4.4459
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.6482
4.4232
1.00
5.00
Total
3.9083
4.2736
1.00
5.00
21-24
3.5657
4.0865
2.00
5.00
25-29
3.2899
4.0701
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.7069
4.4359
2.00
5.00
Total
3.6761
4.0410
1.00
5.00
21-24
3.4227
4.0991
1.00
5.00
25-29
3.4597
4.3803
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.3604
4.1396
1.00
5.00
Total
3.5810
4.0149
1.00
5.00
21-24
3.4234
4.0549
1.00
5.00
25-29
2.7168
3.7632
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.3075
4.1211
1.00
5.00
Total
3.3820
3.8301
1.00
5.00
Unfashionable_Fashionable 21-24
3.5050
4.1472
2.00
5.00
25-29
2.8675
4.0125
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.4147
4.1567
1.00
5.00
Unrefined_Elegant
Mature_Youthful
Total
3.4909
3.9434
1.00
5.00
21-24
2.7878
3.3861
1.00
5.00
25-29
2.3834
3.2966
1.00
5.00
30 or older
2.7015
3.2985
1.00
4.00
Total
2.8068
3.1932
1.00
5.00
21-24
4.0348
4.5304
3.00
5.00
25-29
3.4451
4.3149
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.8694
4.4163
3.00
5.00
Total
3.9681
4.3148
1.00
5.00
Page 6
103
ANOVA Sum of Squares Unsophisticated_Chic
Boring_Fun
Expensive_Affordable
Ordinary_Unique
Unappealing_Appealing
Between Groups
Mature_Youthful
Mean Square
.953
2
.477
Within Groups
133.673
96
1.392
Total
134.626
98
.609
2
.304
Within Groups
81.573
96
.850
Total
82.182
98
2.114
2
1.057
Within Groups
79.906
96
.832
Total
82.020
98
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
.500
2
.250
Within Groups
115.460
96
1.203
Total
115.960
98
Between Groups
4.493
2
2.246
Within Groups
119.144
96
1.241
Total
123.636
98
2.598
2
1.299
Within Groups
123.483
96
1.286
Total
126.081
98
.988
2
.494
Within Groups
91.012
96
.948
Total
92.000
98
Unfashionable_Fashionable Between Groups
Unrefined_Elegant
df
Between Groups
Between Groups
2.626
2
1.313
Within Groups
71.395
96
.744
Total
74.020
98
F .342
.358
1.270
.208
1.810
1.010
.521
1.765
Page 7
104
ANOVA Sig. Unsophisticated_Chic
Between Groups
.711
Within Groups Total Boring_Fun
Between Groups
.700
Within Groups Total Expensive_Affordable
Between Groups
.285
Within Groups Total Ordinary_Unique
Between Groups
.813
Within Groups Total Unappealing_Appealing
Between Groups
.169
Within Groups Total Unfashionable_Fashionable Between Groups
.368
Within Groups Total Unrefined_Elegant
Between Groups
.596
Within Groups Total Mature_Youthful
Between Groups
.177
Within Groups Total
ONEWAY PackagingAppealing PackagingOffensive ScrewTopConvenient GoodSelection AppropriateForAnyOccasion EasyToDrink BY NewAge /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 8
105
Descriptives
N PackagingAppealing
PackagingOffensive
ScrewTopConvenient
GoodSelection
AppropriateForAnyOccasio n
EasyToDrink
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
21-24
46
3.6522
1.11987
.16512
25-29
25
3.4800
1.04563
.20913
30 or older
28
3.6429
.78004
.14741
Total
99
3.6061
1.00831
.10134
21-24
46
2.6304
1.16158
.17127
25-29
25
2.8400
1.06771
.21354
30 or older
28
2.7857
.83254
.15734
Total
99
2.7273
1.04801
.10533
21-24
46
3.9130
.96208
.14185
25-29
25
4.0400
.88882
.17776
30 or older
28
4.2143
.78680
.14869
Total
99
4.0303
.89733
.09018
21-24
46
4.0435
.86811
.12800
25-29
25
4.1200
.88129
.17626
30 or older
28
4.2143
.73822
.13951
Total
99
4.1111
.83163
.08358
21-24
46
3.3261
1.17482
.17322
25-29
25
3.4000
.86603
.17321
30 or older
28
3.5357
.74447
.14069
Total
99
3.4040
.98891
.09939
21-24
46
3.7174
1.00362
.14798
25-29
25
3.4800
.96264
.19253
30 or older
28
3.8571
.65060
.12295
Total
99
3.6970
.90863
.09132
Page 9
106
Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for Mean PackagingAppealing
PackagingOffensive
ScrewTopConvenient
GoodSelection
AppropriateForAnyOccasio n
EasyToDrink
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum
21-24
3.3196
3.9847
1.00
5.00
25-29
3.0484
3.9116
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.3404
3.9453
2.00
5.00
Maximum
Total
3.4050
3.8072
1.00
5.00
21-24
2.2855
2.9754
1.00
5.00
25-29
2.3993
3.2807
1.00
5.00
30 or older
2.4629
3.1085
1.00
4.00
Total
2.5183
2.9363
1.00
5.00
21-24
3.6273
4.1987
2.00
5.00
25-29
3.6731
4.4069
2.00
5.00
30 or older
3.9092
4.5194
2.00
5.00
Total
3.8513
4.2093
2.00
5.00
21-24
3.7857
4.3013
2.00
5.00
25-29
3.7562
4.4838
2.00
5.00
30 or older
3.9280
4.5005
3.00
5.00
Total
3.9452
4.2770
2.00
5.00
21-24
2.9772
3.6750
1.00
5.00
25-29
3.0425
3.7575
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.2470
3.8244
2.00
5.00
Total
3.2068
3.6013
1.00
5.00
21-24
3.4194
4.0154
1.00
5.00
25-29
3.0826
3.8774
1.00
5.00
30 or older
3.6049
4.1094
3.00
5.00
Total
3.5157
3.8782
1.00
5.00
Page 10
107
ANOVA Sum of Squares PackagingAppealing
PackagingOffensive
ScrewTopConvenient
GoodSelection
AppropriateForAnyOccasio n
EasyToDrink
Between Groups
df
Mean Square
.533
2
.267
Within Groups
99.103
96
1.032
Total
99.636
98
.845
2
.422
Within Groups
106.792
96
1.112
Total
107.636
98
1.583
2
.791
Within Groups
77.326
96
.805
Total
78.909
98
Between Groups
Between Groups
Between Groups
.510
2
.255
Within Groups
67.267
96
.701
Total
67.778
98
Between Groups
.765
2
.383
Within Groups
95.073
96
.990
Total
95.838
98
1.914
2
.957
Within Groups
78.995
96
.823
Total
80.909
98
Between Groups
F .258
.380
.982
.364
.386
1.163
Page 11
108
ANOVA Sig. PackagingAppealing
Between Groups
.773
Within Groups Total PackagingOffensive
Between Groups
.685
Within Groups Total ScrewTopConvenient
Between Groups
.378
Within Groups Total GoodSelection
Between Groups
.696
Within Groups Total AppropriateForAnyOccasio n
Between Groups
.681
Within Groups Total
EasyToDrink
Between Groups
.317
Within Groups Total
CROSSTABS /TABLES=NewAge BY LikelytoPurchase /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT ROW /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N NewAge * LikelytoPurchase
Missing
Percent 99
99.0%
N
Total
Percent 1
1.0%
N
Percent
100
100.0%
Page 12
109
NewAge * LikelytoPurchase Crosstabulation LikelytoPurchase Very unlikely NewAge
21-24
Count % within NewAge
25-29
Count
30 or older
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge Total
Neither likely nor unlikely
likely
3
9
9
21
6.5%
19.6%
19.6%
45.7%
5
2
3
15
20.0%
8.0%
12.0%
60.0%
0
2
12
13
0.0%
7.1%
42.9%
46.4%
8
13
24
49
8.1%
13.1%
24.2%
49.5%
Count % within NewAge
Unlikely
NewAge * LikelytoPurchase Crosstabulation LikelytoPurc... Very likely NewAge
21-24
Count % within NewAge
25-29
Count
30 or older
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge Total
4
46
8.7%
100.0%
0
25
0.0%
100.0%
1
28
3.6%
100.0%
5
99
5.1%
100.0%
Count % within NewAge
Total
ONEWAY LikelytoPurchase BY NewAge /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway Descriptives LikelytoPurchase Lik l t P h 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
.16112
2.9798
3.6289
.24712
2.6100
3.6300
.69293
.13095
3.1956
3.7330
1.03465
.10399
3.0967
3.5094
Std. Deviation
21-24
46
3.3043
1.09280
25-29
25
3.1200
1.23558
30 or older
28
3.4643
Total
99
3.3030
Std. Error
Page 13
110
Descriptives LikelytoPurchase Lik l t P h
Minimum
Maximum
21-24
1.00
5.00
25-29
1.00
4.00
30 or older
2.00
5.00
Total
1.00
5.00 ANOVA
LikelytoPurchase Lik l t P h Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
1.566
2
.783
Within Groups
103.343
96
1.076
Total
104.909
98
F .727
Sig. .486
DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1. SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\erica_olmstead\Desktop\Strut Wine-master.sav' /COMPRESSED. SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\erica_olmstead\Desktop\Strut Wine-master.sav' /COMPRESSED. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet2. DATASET CLOSE DataSet1. MULT RESPONSE GROUPS=$Like 'Like Point' (like1 like2 (1,100)) $Dislike 'Disli ke Point' (dislike1 dislike2 (1,100)) /FREQUENCIES=$Like $Dislike.
Multiple Response [DataSet1] C:\Users\erica_olmstead\Downloads\Strut Wine-Master-with-Open Ende d.sav
Page 14
111
Case Summary Cases Valid N
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
$Likea
69
69.0%
31
$Dislikea
58
58.0%
42
N
Percent
31.0%
100
100.0%
42.0%
100
100.0%
a. Group $Like Frequencies Responses N Like Pointa
Percent of Cases
Price
15
14.7%
21.7%
Fun
13
12.7%
18.8%
7
6.9%
10.1%
Female Oriented Tasty Flavors
10
9.8%
14.5%
Creative Wine Names
8
7.8%
11.6%
Bottle
7
6.9%
10.1%
Local Grapes
3
2.9%
4.3%
Concept
Total
Percent
10
9.8%
14.5%
Variety
9
8.8%
13.0%
Sassy
1
1.0%
1.4%
Fashionable
3
2.9%
4.3%
Young
2
2.0%
2.9%
Relatable
1
1.0%
1.4%
Trendy
1
1.0%
1.4%
Screw Top
3
2.9%
4.3%
Fancy
1
1.0%
1.4%
New
7
6.9%
10.1%
Quality
1
1.0%
1.4%
102
100.0%
147.8%
a. Group
Page 15
112
$Dislike Frequencies Responses N Dislike Pointa
Percent
Percent of Cases
Label
12
17.6%
20.7%
Too Sexual
13
19.1%
22.4%
Low Quality
6
8.8%
10.3%
Not Relatable
4
5.9%
6.9%
Advertising
2
2.9%
3.4%
Anti-Feminist
9
13.2%
15.5%
Wines Name
2
2.9%
3.4%
Unfamiliar wine origin
5
7.4%
8.6%
Taste
2
2.9%
3.4%
Price
6
8.8%
10.3%
Not for men
2
2.9%
3.4%
Unavailable in the US
4
5.9%
6.9%
Tag line Total
1
1.5%
1.7%
68
100.0%
117.2%
a. Group
RECODE Like1 Like2 (1=1) (2=2) (3=3) (4=4) (5=5) (6=6) (7=7) (8=8) (9=9) (10= 10) (11=11) (12=12) (14=10) (17=17) (18=10) (16=10) (13=10) (15=15) INTO NewL ike1 NewLike2. EXECUTE. DATASET ACTIVATE DataSet1. SAVE OUTFILE='C:\Users\ashley_poage\Downloads\Strut Wine-Master-with-Open End ed.sav' /COMPRESSED. MULT RESPONSE GROUPS=$Likes (newlike1 newlike2 (1,100)) /FREQUENCIES=$Likes.
Multiple Response [DataSet1] C:\Users\ashley_poage\Downloads\Strut Wine-Master-with-Open Ended. sav
Page 16
113
Case Summary Cases Valid N $Likesa
Missing
Percent 69
69.0%
N
Total
Percent 31
31.0%
N
Percent
100
100.0%
a. Group $Likes Frequencies Responses N $Likesa
Percent
Percent of Cases
Price
15
14.7%
21.7%
Fun
13
12.7%
18.8%
Female Oriented
7
6.9%
10.1%
10
9.8%
14.5%
Creative Wine Names
8
7.8%
11.6%
Bottle
7
6.9%
10.1%
Tasty Flavors
Local Grapes
3
2.9%
4.3%
10
9.8%
14.5%
Variety
9
8.8%
13.0%
Others
5
4.9%
7.2%
Fashionable
3
2.9%
4.3%
Young
2
2.0%
2.9%
Screw Top
3
2.9%
4.3%
New
7
6.9%
10.1%
102
100.0%
147.8%
Concept
Total a. Group
ONEWAY Frequency BY NewAge /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway ANOVA Frequency F Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.880
2
1.440
Within Groups
159.230
97
1.642
Total
162.110
99
ONEWAY Frequency BY NewAge /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES
F .877
Sig. .419
Page 17
114
/MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway Descriptives Frequency F 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
21-24
46
3.5000
1.42595
.21024
3.0765
3.9235
25-29
25
3.2800
.97980
.19596
2.8756
3.6844
29
3.1034
1.26335
.23460
2.6229
3.5840
100
3.3300
1.27964
.12796
3.0761
3.5839
30 or older Total
Descriptives Frequency F
Minimum
Maximum
21-24
1.00
6.00
25-29
2.00
5.00
30 or older
1.00
6.00
Total
1.00
6.00 ANOVA
Frequency F Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.880
2
1.440
Within Groups
159.230
97
1.642
Total
162.110
99
F .877
Sig. .419
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Frequency BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 18
115
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Frequency * NewAge Frequency * Income
Missing N
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
100
100.0%
0
Percent 0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Frequency * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Frequency
4-5 times a week
Count % within NewAge
2-3 times a week
Count % within NewAge
Once a week
Count % within NewAge
2-3 times a month
Count % within NewAge
Once a month
Count % within NewAge
Less than once a month
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
1
0
1
2
2.2%
0.0%
3.4%
2.0%
Total
14
6
10
30
30.4%
24.0%
34.5%
30.0%
8
9
10
27
17.4%
36.0%
34.5%
27.0%
14
7
2
23
30.4%
28.0%
6.9%
23.0%
2
3
5
10
4.3%
12.0%
17.2%
10.0%
7
0
1
8
15.2%
0.0%
3.4%
8.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 19
116
Frequency * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Frequency
4-5 times a week
Count % within Income
2-3 times a week
Count
Once a week
Count
% within Income % within Income 2-3 times a month
Count
Once a month
Count
% within Income % within Income Less than once a month
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 0
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
9
8
25.7%
34.8%
10
4
28.6%
17.4%
9
6
25.7%
26.1%
2
3
5.7%
13.0%
5
2
14.3%
8.7%
35
23
100.0%
100.0%
Frequency * Income Crosstabulation Income $40,000-$59,00 0 Frequency
4-5 times a week
Count
2-3 times a week
Count
% within Income % within Income Once a week
Count
2-3 times a month
Count
% within Income % within Income Once a month
Count
Less than once a month
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
Total
1
1
2
6.7%
3.8%
2.0%
2
11
30
13.3%
42.3%
30.3%
5
7
26
33.3%
26.9%
26.3%
4
4
23
26.7%
15.4%
23.2%
3
2
10
20.0%
7.7%
10.1%
0
1
8
0.0%
3.8%
8.1%
15
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Dinner Casual DinnerParty Pregame GirlsNight Party SpecialOccasion Other5 BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN Page 20
117
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Dinner * NewAge Dinner * Income Casual * NewAge Casual * Income DinnerParty * NewAge DinnerParty * Income Pregame * NewAge Pregame * Income GirlsNight * NewAge GirlsNight * Income Party * NewAge Party * Income SpecialOccasion * NewAge SpecialOccasion * Income Other5 * NewAge Other5 * Income
Missing
N
Percent
N
100
100.0%
0
99
99.0%
100
Total
Percent
N
Percent
0.0%
100
100.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Dinner * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Dinner
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
27
20
25
72
58.7%
80.0%
86.2%
72.0%
Total
19
5
4
28
41.3%
20.0%
13.8%
28.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 21
118
Dinner * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 Dinner
Yes
Count % within Income
No
21
16
12
22
60.0%
69.6%
80.0%
84.6%
14
7
3
4
40.0%
30.4%
20.0%
15.4%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Dinner * Income Crosstabulation
Total Dinner
Yes
Count
71
% within Income No
Count
28
% within Income Total
71.7%
Count
28.3% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Casual * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Casual
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
39
20
21
80
84.8%
80.0%
72.4%
80.0%
7
5
8
20
15.2%
20.0%
27.6%
20.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Casual * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Casual
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
26
20
10
24
74.3%
87.0%
66.7%
92.3%
9
3
5
2
25.7%
13.0%
33.3%
7.7%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 22
119
Casual * Income Crosstabulation
Total Casual
Yes
Count
80
% within Income No
80.8%
Count
19
% within Income Total
19.2%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
DinnerParty * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge DinnerParty
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
31
21
17
69
67.4%
84.0%
58.6%
69.0%
15
4
12
31
32.6%
16.0%
41.4%
31.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
DinnerParty * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 DinnerParty
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
20
19
7
57.1%
82.6%
46.7%
15
4
8
42.9%
17.4%
53.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
DinnerParty * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher DinnerParty
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
23
69
88.5%
69.7%
3
30
11.5%
30.3%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 23
120
Pregame * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Pregame
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
14
5
2
21
30.4%
20.0%
6.9%
21.0%
32
20
27
79
69.6%
80.0%
93.1%
79.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Pregame * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Pregame
Yes
Count
9
0
3
25.7%
39.1%
0.0%
11.5%
26
14
15
23
74.3%
60.9%
100.0%
88.5%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
9
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Pregame * Income Crosstabulation
Total Pregame
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
21 21.2% 78 78.8% 99 100.0%
GirlsNight * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 GirlsNight
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
29
12
13
54
63.0%
48.0%
44.8%
54.0%
17
13
16
46
37.0%
52.0%
55.2%
46.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 24
121
GirlsNight * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 GirlsNight
Yes
Count % within Income
No
19
12
6
17
52.2%
40.0%
65.4%
16
11
9
9
45.7%
47.8%
60.0%
34.6%
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
54.3%
Count % within Income
Total
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
GirlsNight * Income Crosstabulation
Total GirlsNight
Yes
Count
No
Count
54
% within Income
45
% within Income Total
54.5% 45.5%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
Party * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Party
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
17
7
12
36
37.0%
28.0%
41.4%
36.0%
29
18
17
64
63.0%
72.0%
58.6%
64.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Party * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Party
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
14
10
2
10
40.0%
43.5%
13.3%
38.5%
21
13
13
16
60.0%
56.5%
86.7%
61.5%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 25
122
Party * Income Crosstabulation
Total Party
Yes
Count
36
% within Income No
Count
63
% within Income Total
36.4%
Count
63.6% 99
% within Income
100.0%
SpecialOccasion * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge SpecialOccasion
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
29
15
19
63
63.0%
60.0%
65.5%
63.0%
17
10
10
37
37.0%
40.0%
34.5%
37.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
SpecialOccasion * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 SpecialOccasion
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
25
12
4
71.4%
52.2%
26.7%
10
11
11
28.6%
47.8%
73.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
SpecialOccasion * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher SpecialOccasion
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
22
63
84.6%
63.6%
4
36
15.4%
36.4%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 26
123
Other5 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Other5
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
1
2
1
4
2.2%
8.0%
3.4%
4.0%
45
23
28
96
97.8%
92.0%
96.6%
96.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Other5 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Other5
Yes
Count
1
1
2
0.0%
4.3%
6.7%
7.7%
35
22
14
24
100.0%
95.7%
93.3%
92.3%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
0
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Other5 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Other5
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
4 4.0% 95 96.0% 99 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Price BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 27
124
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Price * NewAge Price * Income
Missing N
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
100
100.0%
0
Percent 0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Price * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Price
$7 or under
Count % within NewAge
$8-$11
Count % within NewAge
$12-$15
Count % within NewAge
$16-$19
Count % within NewAge
Over $20
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
12
6
3
21
26.1%
24.0%
10.3%
21.0%
Total
17
9
10
36
37.0%
36.0%
34.5%
36.0%
12
8
9
29
26.1%
32.0%
31.0%
29.0%
3
2
7
12
6.5%
8.0%
24.1%
12.0%
2
0
0
2
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Price * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Price
$7 or under
Count % within Income
$8-$11
Count % within Income
$12-$15
Count % within Income
$16-$19
Count % within Income
Over $20
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
12
3
3
34.3%
13.0%
20.0%
10
9
8
28.6%
39.1%
53.3%
12
7
3
34.3%
30.4%
20.0%
1
3
1
2.9%
13.0%
6.7%
0
1
0
0.0%
4.3%
0.0%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 28
125
Price * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Price
$7 or under
Count % within Income
$8-$11
Count
$12-$15
Count
% within Income % within Income $16-$19
Count
Over $20
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
Count % within Income
Total
3
21
11.5%
21.2%
9
36
34.6%
36.4%
6
28
23.1%
28.3%
7
12
26.9%
12.1%
1
2
3.8%
2.0%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Red White Rose Sparkling Sweet Champagne Sangria Other8 BY NewAge I ncome /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 29
126
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Red * NewAge Red * Income White * NewAge
Missing N
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
100
100.0%
0
Percent 0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
White * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Rose * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
Rose * Income Sparkling * NewAge Sparkling * Income Sweet * NewAge Sweet * Income Champagne * NewAge Champagne * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
Sangria * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Other8 * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Sangria * NewAge
Other8 * Income
Red * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Red
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
32
18
19
69
69.6%
72.0%
65.5%
69.0%
14
7
10
31
30.4%
28.0%
34.5%
31.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Red * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Red
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
20
17
11
21
57.1%
73.9%
73.3%
80.8%
15
6
4
5
42.9%
26.1%
26.7%
19.2%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 30
127
Red * Income Crosstabulation
Total Red
Yes
Count
69
% within Income No
Count
30
% within Income Total
69.7%
Count
30.3% 99
% within Income
100.0%
White * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge White
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
25
17
22
64
54.3%
68.0%
75.9%
64.0%
21
8
7
36
45.7%
32.0%
24.1%
36.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
White * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 White
Yes
Count
14
9
18
62.9%
60.9%
60.0%
69.2%
13
9
6
8
37.1%
39.1%
40.0%
30.8%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
22
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
White * Income Crosstabulation
Total White
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
63 63.6% 36 36.4% 99 100.0%
Page 31
128
Rose * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Rose
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
16
2
5
23
34.8%
8.0%
17.2%
23.0%
30
23
24
77
65.2%
92.0%
82.8%
77.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Rose * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Rose
Yes
Count
5
4
5
25.7%
21.7%
26.7%
19.2%
26
18
11
21
74.3%
78.3%
73.3%
80.8%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
9
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Rose * Income Crosstabulation
Total Rose
Yes
Count
23
% within Income No
23.2%
Count
76
% within Income Total
76.8%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
Sparkling * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Sparkling
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
11
4
7
22
23.9%
16.0%
24.1%
22.0%
35
21
22
78
76.1%
84.0%
75.9%
78.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 32
129
Sparkling * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 Sparkling
Yes
Count % within Income
No
10
5
2
5
28.6%
21.7%
13.3%
19.2%
25
18
13
21
71.4%
78.3%
86.7%
80.8%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Sparkling * Income Crosstabulation
Total Sparkling
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
22 22.2% 77 77.8%
Count % within Income
99 100.0%
Sweet * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Sweet
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
15
5
8
28
32.6%
20.0%
27.6%
28.0%
31
20
21
72
67.4%
80.0%
72.4%
72.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Sweet * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Sweet
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
13
5
6
4
37.1%
21.7%
40.0%
15.4%
22
18
9
22
62.9%
78.3%
60.0%
84.6%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 33
130
Sweet * Income Crosstabulation
Total Sweet
Yes
Count
28
% within Income No
Count
71
% within Income Total
28.3% 71.7%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
Champagne * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Champagne
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
19
12
8
39
41.3%
48.0%
27.6%
39.0%
27
13
21
61
58.7%
52.0%
72.4%
61.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Champagne * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Champagne
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
15
8
5
42.9%
34.8%
33.3%
20
15
10
57.1%
65.2%
66.7%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Champagne * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Champagne
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
11
39
42.3%
39.4%
15
60
57.7%
60.6%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 34
131
Sangria * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Sangria
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
17
11
8
36
37.0%
44.0%
27.6%
36.0%
29
14
21
64
63.0%
56.0%
72.4%
64.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Sangria * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Sangria
Yes
Count
7
9
6
40.0%
30.4%
60.0%
23.1%
21
16
6
20
60.0%
69.6%
40.0%
76.9%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
14
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Sangria * Income Crosstabulation
Total Sangria
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
36 36.4% 63 63.6% 99 100.0%
Other8 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Other8
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 35
132
Other8 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Other8
No
Count % within Income
Total
$60,000 or higher
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Other8 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Other8
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
99 100.0% 99 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Light Sweet11 Fruity Spicy Bold Bitter FullBodied Refreshing Idontk now Other11 BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 36
133
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Light * NewAge Light * Income Sweet11 * NewAge Sweet11 * Income Fruity * NewAge Fruity * Income Spicy * NewAge
Missing N
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
100
100.0%
0
Percent 0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
Spicy * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Bold * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
Bold * Income Bitter * NewAge Bitter * Income FullBodied * NewAge FullBodied * Income Refreshing * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
Refreshing * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Idontknow * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Idontknow * Income Other11 * NewAge Other11 * Income
Light * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Light
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
24
15
16
55
52.2%
60.0%
55.2%
55.0%
22
10
13
45
47.8%
40.0%
44.8%
45.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 37
134
Light * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 Light
Yes
Count % within Income
No
15
16
10
13
42.9%
69.6%
66.7%
50.0%
20
7
5
13
57.1%
30.4%
33.3%
50.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Light * Income Crosstabulation
Total Light
Yes
Count
54
% within Income No
54.5%
Count
45
% within Income Total
45.5%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
Sweet11 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Sweet11
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
28
15
10
53
60.9%
60.0%
34.5%
53.0%
18
10
19
47
39.1%
40.0%
65.5%
47.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Sweet11 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Sweet11
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
21
13
7
12
60.0%
56.5%
46.7%
46.2%
14
10
8
14
40.0%
43.5%
53.3%
53.8%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 38
135
Sweet11 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Sweet11
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
53 53.5% 46 46.5%
Count % within Income
99 100.0%
Fruity * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Fruity
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
20
11
17
48
43.5%
44.0%
58.6%
48.0%
26
14
12
52
56.5%
56.0%
41.4%
52.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Fruity * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Fruity
Yes
Count
11
6
17
40.0%
47.8%
40.0%
65.4%
21
12
9
9
60.0%
52.2%
60.0%
34.6%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
14
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Fruity * Income Crosstabulation
Total Fruity
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
48 48.5% 51 51.5% 99 100.0%
Page 39
136
Spicy * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Spicy
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
5
0
6
11
10.9%
0.0%
20.7%
11.0%
41
25
23
89
89.1%
100.0%
79.3%
89.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Spicy * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Spicy
Yes
Count
3
2
3
8.6%
13.0%
13.3%
11.5%
32
20
13
23
91.4%
87.0%
86.7%
88.5%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
3
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Spicy * Income Crosstabulation
Total Spicy
Yes
Count
11
% within Income No
Count
88
% within Income Total
11.1%
Count
88.9% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Bold * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Bold
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
16
5
10
31
34.8%
20.0%
34.5%
31.0%
30
20
19
69
65.2%
80.0%
65.5%
69.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 40
137
Bold * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Bold
Yes
Count % within Income
No
10
7
5
9
30.4%
33.3%
34.6%
25
16
10
17
71.4%
69.6%
66.7%
65.4%
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
28.6%
Count % within Income
Total
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Bold * Income Crosstabulation
Total Bold
Yes
Count
No
Count
31
% within Income
68
% within Income Total
31.3%
Count
68.7% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Bitter * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Bitter
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
1
0
1
2
2.2%
0.0%
3.4%
2.0%
45
25
28
98
97.8%
100.0%
96.6%
98.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Bitter * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Bitter
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
0
1
0
1
0.0%
4.3%
0.0%
3.8%
35
22
15
25
100.0%
95.7%
100.0%
96.2%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 41
138
Bitter * Income Crosstabulation
Total Bitter
Yes
Count
2
% within Income No
2.0%
Count
97
% within Income Total
98.0%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
FullBodied * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge FullBodied
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
17
11
15
43
37.0%
44.0%
51.7%
43.0%
29
14
14
57
63.0%
56.0%
48.3%
57.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
FullBodied * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 FullBodied
Yes
Count
11
7
12
37.1%
47.8%
46.7%
46.2%
22
12
8
14
62.9%
52.2%
53.3%
53.8%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
13
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
FullBodied * Income Crosstabulation
Total FullBodied
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
43 43.4% 56 56.6% 99 100.0%
Page 42
139
Refreshing * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Refreshing
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
16
8
9
33
34.8%
32.0%
31.0%
33.0%
30
17
20
67
65.2%
68.0%
69.0%
67.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Refreshing * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Refreshing
Yes
Count
14
6
5
40.0%
26.1%
33.3%
21
17
10
60.0%
73.9%
66.7%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% within Income No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Refreshing * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Refreshing
Yes
Count
8
33
30.8%
33.3%
18
66
69.2%
66.7%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
% within Income No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
Idontknow * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Idontknow
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
2
0
0
2
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
44
25
29
98
95.7%
100.0%
100.0%
98.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 43
140
Idontknow * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Idontknow
Yes
Count
1
1
0
0
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
34
22
15
26
97.1%
95.7%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
2.9%
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Idontknow * Income Crosstabulation
Total Idontknow
Yes
Count
2
% within Income No
Count
97
% within Income Total
2.0%
Count
98.0% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Other11 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Other11
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
5
1
3
9
10.9%
4.0%
10.3%
9.0%
41
24
26
91
89.1%
96.0%
89.7%
91.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Other11 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Other11
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
3
2
1
3
8.6%
8.7%
6.7%
11.5%
32
21
14
23
91.4%
91.3%
93.3%
88.5%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 44
141
Other11 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Other11
Yes
Count
9
% within Income No
Count
90
% within Income Total
9.1% 90.9%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Cupcake13 SkinnyGirl13 YellowTail13 Barefoot13 Strut13 Noneoftheabo ve13 BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Cupcake13 * NewAge Cupcake13 * Income SkinnyGirl13 * NewAge SkinnyGirl13 * Income YellowTail13 * NewAge
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
N
Percent
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
YellowTail13 * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Barefoot13 * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Noneoftheabove13 * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
Noneoftheabove13 * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Barefoot13 * Income Strut13 * NewAge Strut13 * Income
Page 45
142
Cupcake13 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Cupcake13
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
23
16
17
56
50.0%
64.0%
58.6%
56.0%
23
9
12
44
50.0%
36.0%
41.4%
44.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Cupcake13 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Cupcake13
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
19
13
10
54.3%
56.5%
66.7%
16
10
5
45.7%
43.5%
33.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Cupcake13 * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Cupcake13
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
14
56
53.8%
56.6%
12
43
46.2%
43.4%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
Total
SkinnyGirl13 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 SkinnyGirl13
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
18
7
7
32
39.1%
28.0%
24.1%
32.0%
28
18
22
68
60.9%
72.0%
75.9%
68.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 46
143
SkinnyGirl13 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 SkinnyGirl13
Yes
Count % within Income
No
11
10
3
31.4%
43.5%
20.0%
24
13
12
68.6%
56.5%
80.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
SkinnyGirl13 * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher SkinnyGirl13
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
8
32
30.8%
32.3%
18
67
69.2%
67.7%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
YellowTail13 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge YellowTail13
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
35
22
24
81
76.1%
88.0%
82.8%
81.0%
11
3
5
19
23.9%
12.0%
17.2%
19.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
YellowTail13 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 YellowTail13
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
26
19
14
74.3%
82.6%
93.3%
9
4
1
25.7%
17.4%
6.7%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 47
144
YellowTail13 * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher YellowTail13
Yes
Count % within Income
No
21
80
80.8%
80.8%
5
19
19.2%
19.2%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Barefoot13 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Barefoot13
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
32
18
20
70
69.6%
72.0%
69.0%
70.0%
14
7
9
30
30.4%
28.0%
31.0%
30.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Barefoot13 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Barefoot13
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
24
17
11
68.6%
73.9%
73.3%
11
6
4
31.4%
26.1%
26.7%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Barefoot13 * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Barefoot13
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
17
69
65.4%
69.7%
9
30
34.6%
30.3%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 48
145
Strut13 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Strut13
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
0
1
1
2
0.0%
4.0%
3.4%
2.0%
46
24
28
98
100.0%
96.0%
96.6%
98.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Strut13 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Strut13
Yes
Count
0
0
2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
7.7%
35
23
15
24
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
92.3%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
0
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Strut13 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Strut13
Yes
Count
2
% within Income No
Count
97
% within Income Total
2.0%
Count
98.0% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Noneoftheabove13 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Noneoftheabove13
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
7
2
1
10
15.2%
8.0%
3.4%
10.0%
39
23
28
90
84.8%
92.0%
96.6%
90.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 49
146
Noneoftheabove13 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Noneoftheabove13
Yes
Count % within Income
No
4
2
0
11.4%
8.7%
0.0%
31
21
15
88.6%
91.3%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Noneoftheabove13 * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Noneoftheabove13
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
Count % within Income
Total
4
10
15.4%
10.1%
22
89
84.6%
89.9%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Price14 Countryoforigin RecommendedByFriend Advertisement OnsitePro mo InStoreTasting BrandReputation Other14 BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 50
147
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid Price14 * NewAge Price14 * Income Countryoforigin * NewAge Countryoforigin * Income
Missing N
Total
N
Percent
N
Percent
100
100.0%
0
Percent 0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
RecommendedByFriend * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
RecommendedByFriend * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Advertisement * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
Advertisement * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
OnsitePromo * NewAge
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
OnsitePromo * Income InStoreTasting * NewAge InStoreTasting * Income BrandReputation * NewAge BrandReputation * Income Other14 * NewAge Other14 * Income
Price14 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Price14
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
39
19
17
75
84.8%
76.0%
58.6%
75.0%
7
6
12
25
15.2%
24.0%
41.4%
25.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Page 51
148
Price14 * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 Price14
Yes
Count % within Income
No
30
19
10
16
85.7%
82.6%
66.7%
61.5%
5
4
5
10
14.3%
17.4%
33.3%
38.5%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Price14 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Price14
Yes
Count
75
% within Income No
24
% within Income Total
75.8%
Count
24.2%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
Countryoforigin * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Countryoforigin
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
16
10
18
44
34.8%
40.0%
62.1%
44.0%
30
15
11
56
65.2%
60.0%
37.9%
56.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Countryoforigin * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Countryoforigin
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
11
9
9
31.4%
39.1%
60.0%
24
14
6
68.6%
60.9%
40.0%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 52
149
Countryoforigin * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Countryoforigin
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
14
43
53.8%
43.4%
12
56
46.2%
56.6%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
RecommendedByFriend * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge RecommendedByFriend
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
30
11
18
59
65.2%
44.0%
62.1%
59.0%
16
14
11
41
34.8%
56.0%
37.9%
41.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
RecommendedByFriend * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 RecommendedByFriend
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
21
14
10
60.0%
60.9%
66.7%
14
9
5
40.0%
39.1%
33.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
RecommendedByFriend * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher RecommendedByFriend
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
14
59
53.8%
59.6%
12
40
46.2%
40.4%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 53
150
Advertisement * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Advertisement
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
6
6
5
17
13.0%
24.0%
17.2%
17.0%
40
19
24
83
87.0%
76.0%
82.8%
83.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Advertisement * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Advertisement
Yes
Count
7
2
4
20.0%
8.7%
26.7%
28
21
11
80.0%
91.3%
73.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% within Income No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Advertisement * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Advertisement
Yes
Count
4
17
15.4%
17.2%
22
82
84.6%
82.8%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
% within Income No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
OnsitePromo * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 OnsitePromo
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
16
5
6
27
34.8%
20.0%
20.7%
27.0%
30
20
23
73
65.2%
80.0%
79.3%
73.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 54
151
OnsitePromo * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 OnsitePromo
Yes
Count % within Income
No
7
5
30.4%
33.3%
25
16
10
71.4%
69.6%
66.7%
Count % within Income
Total
10 28.6%
Count % within Income
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
OnsitePromo * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher OnsitePromo
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
5
27
19.2%
27.3%
21
72
80.8%
72.7%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
InStoreTasting * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge InStoreTasting
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
14
7
4
25
30.4%
28.0%
13.8%
25.0%
32
18
25
75
69.6%
72.0%
86.2%
75.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
InStoreTasting * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 InStoreTasting
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
11
4
6
31.4%
17.4%
40.0%
24
19
9
68.6%
82.6%
60.0%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 55
152
InStoreTasting * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher InStoreTasting
Yes
Count % within Income
No
4
25
15.4%
25.3%
22
74
84.6%
74.7%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
BrandReputation * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge BrandReputation
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
20
12
15
47
43.5%
48.0%
51.7%
47.0%
26
13
14
53
56.5%
52.0%
48.3%
53.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
BrandReputation * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 BrandReputation
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
17
6
8
48.6%
26.1%
53.3%
18
17
7
51.4%
73.9%
46.7%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
BrandReputation * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher BrandReputation
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
15
46
57.7%
46.5%
11
53
42.3%
53.5%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 56
153
Other14 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Other14
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
4
5
2
11
8.7%
20.0%
6.9%
11.0%
42
20
27
89
91.3%
80.0%
93.1%
89.0%
46
25
29
100
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Other14 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Other14
Yes
Count
3
2
4
5.7%
13.0%
13.3%
15.4%
33
20
13
22
94.3%
87.0%
86.7%
84.6%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
2
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Other14 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Other14
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
11 11.1% 88 88.9% 99 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Impression BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 57
154
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid
Missing
N
Percent
N
Percent
100
100.0%
0
0.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Impression * NewAge Impression * Income
N
Total
Percent
Impression * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Impression
I dont like at all
Count % within NewAge
I slightly dont like it
Count % within NewAge
Neither dont like it or like it
Count % within NewAge
I slightly like it
Count % within NewAge
Ii like it alot
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
2
2
0
4.3%
8.0%
0.0%
8
4
2
17.4%
16.0%
6.9%
9
5
11
19.6%
20.0%
37.9%
18
10
9
39.1%
40.0%
31.0%
9
4
7
19.6%
16.0%
24.1%
46
25
29
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Impression * NewAge Crosstabulation Total Impression
I dont like at all
Count % within NewAge
I slightly dont like it
Count
Neither dont like it or like it
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge I slightly like it
Count % within NewAge
Ii like it alot
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
4 4.0% 14 14.0% 25 25.0% 37 37.0% 20 20.0% 100 100.0%
Page 58
155
Impression * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Impression
I dont like at all
Count % within Income
I slightly dont like it
Count
Neither dont like it or like it
Count
% within Income % within Income I slightly like it
3
1
8.6%
4.3%
3
4
8.6%
17.4%
9
6
25.7%
26.1%
15
7
42.9%
30.4%
Count % within Income
Ii like it alot
Count % within Income
Total
5
5
14.3%
21.7%
35
23
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 0
Impression * Income Crosstabulation Income $40,000-$59,00 0 Impression
I dont like at all
Count % within Income
I slightly dont like it
Count
Neither dont like it or like it
Count
% within Income % within Income I slightly like it
Count % within Income
Ii like it alot
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
Total
0
0
4
0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
5
2
14
33.3%
7.7%
14.1%
5
5
25
33.3%
19.2%
25.3%
3
11
36
20.0%
42.3%
36.4%
2
8
20
13.3%
30.8%
20.2%
15
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=PackagingAppealing BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs Page 59
156
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
PackagingAppealing * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
PackagingAppealing * Income
99
99.0%
1
N
Percent
1.0%
100
100.0%
1.0%
100
100.0%
PackagingAppealing * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge PackagingAppealing
Strongly disagree
Count % within NewAge
Strongly agree
Count % within NewAge
Total
1
1
0
2.2%
4.0%
0.0%
9
3
2
19.6%
12.0%
7.1%
6
8
9
13.0%
32.0%
32.1%
19
9
14
41.3%
36.0%
50.0%
11
4
3
23.9%
16.0%
10.7%
46
25
28
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within NewAge
Agree
30 or older
Count % within NewAge
Neither agree nor disagree
25-29
Count % within NewAge
Disagree
21-24
Count % within NewAge
PackagingAppealing * NewAge Crosstabulation Total PackagingAppealing
Strongly disagree
Count
Disagree
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge Neither agree nor disagree
Count % within NewAge
Agree
Count % within NewAge
Strongly agree
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
2 2.0% 14 14.1% 23 23.2% 42 42.4% 18 18.2% 99 100.0%
Page 60
157
PackagingAppealing * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 PackagingAppealing
Strongly disagree
Count % within Income
Disagree
Count
Neither agree nor disagree
Count
% within Income % within Income Agree
Count
Strongly agree
Count
% within Income
0 0.0%
7
4
20.0%
17.4%
5
7
14.3%
30.4%
15
9
42.9%
39.1%
6
3 13.0%
35
23
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
2 5.7%
17.1%
% within Income Total
$20,000-$39,00 0
PackagingAppealing * Income Crosstabulation Income $40,000-$59,00 0 PackagingAppealing
Strongly disagree
Count % within Income
Disagree
Count
Neither agree nor disagree
Count
% within Income % within Income Agree
Count
Strongly agree
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
1
2
6.7%
7.7%
5
6
33.3%
23.1%
6
12
40.0%
46.2%
3
6
20.0%
23.1%
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
Page 61
158
PackagingAppealing * Income Crosstabulation
Total PackagingAppealing
Strongly disagree
Count
2
% within Income Disagree
Count
Neither agree nor disagree
Count
14
% within Income
Count
Strongly agree
Count
23.2% 42
% within Income
42.4% 18
% within Income Total
14.1% 23
% within Income Agree
2.0%
Count
18.2% 99
% within Income
100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=LikelytoPurchase BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N LikelytoPurchase * NewAge LikelytoPurchase * Income
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
N
Percent
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Page 62
159
LikelytoPurchase * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 LikelytoPurchase
Very unlikely
Count % within NewAge
Unlikely
Count % within NewAge
Neither likely nor unlikely
Count % within NewAge
likely
Count % within NewAge
Very likely
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
3
5
0
6.5%
20.0%
0.0%
9
2
2
19.6%
8.0%
7.1%
9
3
12
19.6%
12.0%
42.9%
21
15
13
45.7%
60.0%
46.4%
4
0
1
8.7%
0.0%
3.6%
46
25
28
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
LikelytoPurchase * NewAge Crosstabulation Total LikelytoPurchase
Very unlikely
Count
Unlikely
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge Neither likely nor unlikely
Count % within NewAge
likely
Count % within NewAge
Very likely
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
8 8.1% 13 13.1% 24 24.2% 49 49.5% 5 5.1% 99 100.0%
Page 63
160
LikelytoPurchase * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 LikelytoPurchase
Very unlikely
Count % within Income
Unlikely
Count
Neither likely nor unlikely
Count
% within Income % within Income likely
5
1
14.3%
4.3%
6
4
17.1%
17.4%
8
4
22.9%
17.4%
14
11
40.0%
47.8%
Count % within Income
Very likely
Count % within Income
Total
2
3
5.7%
13.0%
35
23
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 0
LikelytoPurchase * Income Crosstabulation Income $40,000-$59,00 0 LikelytoPurchase
Very unlikely
Count % within Income
Unlikely
Count
Neither likely nor unlikely
Count
% within Income % within Income likely
Count % within Income
Very likely
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
1
1
6.7%
3.8%
1
2
6.7%
7.7%
5
7
33.3%
26.9%
8
16
53.3%
61.5%
0
0
0.0%
0.0%
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
Page 64
161
LikelytoPurchase * Income Crosstabulation
Total LikelytoPurchase
Very unlikely
Count % within Income
Unlikely
Count
Neither likely nor unlikely
Count
% within Income % within Income likely
Count % within Income
Very likely
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
8 8.1% 13 13.1% 24 24.2% 49 49.5% 5 5.1% 99 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=StrutLiquorStore SturtWineBoutique StrutSupermarket StrutConvenienc eStore StrutBar StrutClub StrutWholesaleStore StrutOther BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 65
162
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N StrutLiquorStore * NewAge
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
N
Percent
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutLiquorStore * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
SturtWineBoutique * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
SturtWineBoutique * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutSupermarket * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutConvenienceStore * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutConvenienceStore * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutBar * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutBar * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutClub * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutClub * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutWholesaleStore * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutWholesaleStore * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutOther * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutOther * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
StrutSupermarket * Income
StrutLiquorStore * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge StrutLiquorStore
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within NewAge % within NewAge Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
33
15
18
66
71.7%
60.0%
64.3%
66.7%
Total
13
10
10
33
28.3%
40.0%
35.7%
33.3%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 66
163
StrutLiquorStore * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 StrutLiquorStore
Yes
Count % within Income
No
23
17
7
65.7%
73.9%
46.7%
12
6
8
34.3%
26.1%
53.3%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
StrutLiquorStore * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher StrutLiquorStore
Yes
Count
No
Count
% within Income % within Income Total
19
66
73.1%
66.7%
7
33
26.9%
33.3%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
SturtWineBoutique * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge SturtWineBoutique
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
13
5
8
26
28.3%
20.0%
28.6%
26.3%
33
20
20
73
71.7%
80.0%
71.4%
73.7%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
SturtWineBoutique * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 SturtWineBoutique
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
6
9
1
17.1%
39.1%
6.7%
29
14
14
82.9%
60.9%
93.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 67
164
SturtWineBoutique * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher SturtWineBoutique
Yes
Count % within Income
No
10
26
38.5%
26.3%
16
73
61.5%
73.7%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
StrutSupermarket * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge StrutSupermarket
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
23
12
12
47
50.0%
48.0%
42.9%
47.5%
23
13
16
52
50.0%
52.0%
57.1%
52.5%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
StrutSupermarket * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 StrutSupermarket
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
15
13
10
42.9%
56.5%
66.7%
20
10
5
57.1%
43.5%
33.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
StrutSupermarket * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher StrutSupermarket
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
9
47
34.6%
47.5%
17
52
65.4%
52.5%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 68
165
StrutConvenienceStore * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 StrutConvenienceStore
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No Total
Total
8
1
2
11
4.0%
7.1%
11.1%
38
24
26
88
82.6%
96.0%
92.9%
88.9%
Count % within NewAge
30 or older
17.4%
Count % within NewAge
25-29
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
StrutConvenienceStore * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 StrutConvenienceStore
Yes
Count
5
4
1
14.3%
17.4%
6.7%
30
19
14
85.7%
82.6%
93.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
% within Income No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
StrutConvenienceStore * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher StrutConvenienceStore
Yes
Count
1
11
3.8%
11.1%
25
88
96.2%
88.9%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
% within Income No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
StrutBar * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 StrutBar
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
8
4
3
15
17.4%
16.0%
10.7%
15.2%
38
21
25
84
82.6%
84.0%
89.3%
84.8%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 69
166
StrutBar * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 StrutBar
Yes
Count % within Income
No
9
3
1
2
25.7%
13.0%
6.7%
7.7%
26
20
14
24
74.3%
87.0%
93.3%
92.3%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
StrutBar * Income Crosstabulation
Total StrutBar
Yes
Count
15
% within Income No
15.2%
Count
84
% within Income Total
84.8%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
StrutClub * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge StrutClub
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
7
3
4
14
15.2%
12.0%
14.3%
14.1%
39
22
24
85
84.8%
88.0%
85.7%
85.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
StrutClub * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 StrutClub
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
7
4
1
2
20.0%
17.4%
6.7%
7.7%
28
19
14
24
80.0%
82.6%
93.3%
92.3%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 70
167
StrutClub * Income Crosstabulation
Total StrutClub
Yes
Count
14
% within Income No
Count
85
% within Income Total
14.1%
Count
85.9% 99
% within Income
100.0%
StrutWholesaleStore * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge StrutWholesaleStore
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
3
1
3
7
6.5%
4.0%
10.7%
7.1%
43
24
25
92
93.5%
96.0%
89.3%
92.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
StrutWholesaleStore * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 StrutWholesaleStore
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
3
3
0
8.6%
13.0%
0.0%
32
20
15
91.4%
87.0%
100.0%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
StrutWholesaleStore * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher StrutWholesaleStore
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
1
7
3.8%
7.1%
25
92
96.2%
92.9%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 71
168
StrutOther * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 StrutOther
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
1
0
0
1
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
45
25
28
98
97.8%
100.0%
100.0%
99.0%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
StrutOther * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 StrutOther
Yes
Count
1
0
0
0.0%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
35
22
15
26
100.0%
95.7%
100.0%
100.0%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
0
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
StrutOther * Income Crosstabulation
Total StrutOther
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
1 1.0% 98 99.0% 99 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=InStoreSample FriendsHouse Restaurant AtAbar Other20 BY NewAge Inco me /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 72
169
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N
Missing
Percent
N
Total N
Percent
InStoreSample * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
Percent 1.0%
100
100.0%
InStoreSample * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
FriendsHouse * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
FriendsHouse * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Restaurant * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Restaurant * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
AtAbar * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
AtAbar * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Other20 * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Other20 * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
InStoreSample * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge InStoreSample
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
21
14
15
50
45.7%
56.0%
53.6%
50.5%
Total
25
11
13
49
54.3%
44.0%
46.4%
49.5%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
InStoreSample * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 InStoreSample
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
20
9
6
57.1%
39.1%
40.0%
15
14
9
42.9%
60.9%
60.0%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 73
170
InStoreSample * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher InStoreSample
Yes
Count % within Income
No
15
50
57.7%
50.5%
11
49
42.3%
49.5%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
FriendsHouse * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge FriendsHouse
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
36
17
20
73
78.3%
68.0%
71.4%
73.7%
10
8
8
26
21.7%
32.0%
28.6%
26.3%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
FriendsHouse * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 FriendsHouse
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
24
18
11
68.6%
78.3%
73.3%
11
5
4
31.4%
21.7%
26.7%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
FriendsHouse * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher FriendsHouse
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
20
73
76.9%
73.7%
6
26
23.1%
26.3%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 74
171
Restaurant * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Restaurant
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No Total
Total
10
4
10
24
16.0%
35.7%
24.2%
36
21
18
75
78.3%
84.0%
64.3%
75.8%
Count % within NewAge
30 or older
21.7%
Count % within NewAge
25-29
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Restaurant * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Restaurant
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
10
4
4
28.6%
17.4%
26.7%
25
19
11
71.4%
82.6%
73.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Restaurant * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Restaurant
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
6
24
23.1%
24.2%
20
75
76.9%
75.8%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
AtAbar * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 AtAbar
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
8
1
5
14
17.4%
4.0%
17.9%
14.1%
38
24
23
85
82.6%
96.0%
82.1%
85.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 75
172
AtAbar * Income Crosstabulation Income $20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Under $20,000 AtAbar
Yes
Count % within Income
No
5
5
1
3
14.3%
21.7%
6.7%
11.5%
30
18
14
23
85.7%
78.3%
93.3%
88.5%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
AtAbar * Income Crosstabulation
Total AtAbar
Yes
Count
14
% within Income No
Count
85
% within Income Total
14.1%
Count
85.9% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Other20 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Other20
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
1
1
0
2
2.2%
4.0%
0.0%
2.0%
45
24
28
97
97.8%
96.0%
100.0%
98.0%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Other20 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Other20
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
1
1
0
0
2.9%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
34
22
15
26
97.1%
95.7%
100.0%
100.0%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 76
173
Other20 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Other20
Yes
Count
2
% within Income No
Count
97
% within Income Total
2.0% 98.0%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=TV Radio Newspaper Magazine Guerilla SocialMedia Transit ProductDem os Other21 BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N
Missing
Percent
N
Total
Percent
N
Percent
1.0%
100
100.0%
1.0%
100
100.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Magazine * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Magazine * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Guerilla * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Guerilla * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
SocialMedia * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
SocialMedia * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Transit * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Transit * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
ProductDemos * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
ProductDemos * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Other21 * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Other21 * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
TV * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
TV * Income
99
99.0%
1
Radio * NewAge
99
99.0%
Radio * Income
99
Newspaper * NewAge Newspaper * Income
Page 77
174
TV * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 TV
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
14
6
7
27
30.4%
24.0%
25.0%
27.3%
32
19
21
72
69.6%
76.0%
75.0%
72.7%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
TV * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 TV
Yes
Count
9
3
6
25.7%
39.1%
20.0%
23.1%
26
14
12
20
74.3%
60.9%
80.0%
76.9%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
9
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
TV * Income Crosstabulation
Total TV
Yes
Count
27
% within Income No
Count
72
% within Income Total
27.3%
Count
72.7% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Radio * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Radio
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
4
0
1
5
8.7%
0.0%
3.6%
5.1%
42
25
27
94
91.3%
100.0%
96.4%
94.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 78
175
Radio * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Radio
Yes
Count
3
2
0
0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
32
21
15
26
91.4%
91.3%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
8.6%
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Radio * Income Crosstabulation
Total Radio
Yes
Count
No
Count
5
% within Income
5.1% 94
% within Income Total
94.9%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
Newspaper * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Newspaper
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
3
0
3
6
6.5%
0.0%
10.7%
6.1%
43
25
25
93
93.5%
100.0%
89.3%
93.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Newspaper * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Newspaper
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
2
1
0
5.7%
4.3%
0.0%
33
22
15
94.3%
95.7%
100.0%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 79
176
Newspaper * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher Newspaper
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
3
6
11.5%
6.1%
23
93
88.5%
93.9%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Magazine * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Magazine
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
32
14
24
70
69.6%
56.0%
85.7%
70.7%
14
11
4
29
30.4%
44.0%
14.3%
29.3%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Magazine * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Magazine
Yes
Count
19
5
20
74.3%
82.6%
33.3%
76.9%
9
4
10
6
25.7%
17.4%
66.7%
23.1%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
26
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Magazine * Income Crosstabulation
Total Magazine
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
70 70.7% 29 29.3% 99 100.0%
Page 80
177
Guerilla * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Guerilla
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
11
4
3
18
23.9%
16.0%
10.7%
18.2%
35
21
25
81
76.1%
84.0%
89.3%
81.8%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Guerilla * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Guerilla
Yes
Count
7
1
1
25.7%
30.4%
6.7%
3.8%
26
16
14
25
74.3%
69.6%
93.3%
96.2%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
9
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Guerilla * Income Crosstabulation
Total Guerilla
Yes
Count
18
% within Income No
18.2%
Count
81
% within Income Total
81.8%
Count % within Income
99 100.0%
SocialMedia * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 SocialMedia
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
27
8
8
43
58.7%
32.0%
28.6%
43.4%
19
17
20
56
41.3%
68.0%
71.4%
56.6%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 81
178
SocialMedia * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 SocialMedia
Yes
Count % within Income
No
18
15
3
51.4%
65.2%
20.0%
17
8
12
48.6%
34.8%
80.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
SocialMedia * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher SocialMedia
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
7
43
26.9%
43.4%
Count % within Income
19
56
73.1%
56.6%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Transit * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Transit
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
17
11
9
37
37.0%
44.0%
32.1%
37.4%
29
14
19
62
63.0%
56.0%
67.9%
62.6%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Transit * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Transit
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
11
6
10
10
31.4%
26.1%
66.7%
38.5%
24
17
5
16
68.6%
73.9%
33.3%
61.5%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 82
179
Transit * Income Crosstabulation
Total Transit
Yes
Count
37
% within Income No
Count
62
% within Income Total
37.4% 62.6%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
ProductDemos * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge ProductDemos
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
11
5
9
25
23.9%
20.0%
32.1%
25.3%
35
20
19
74
76.1%
80.0%
67.9%
74.7%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
ProductDemos * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 ProductDemos
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
6
8
1
17.1%
34.8%
6.7%
29
15
14
82.9%
65.2%
93.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
ProductDemos * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher ProductDemos
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
10
25
38.5%
25.3%
16
74
61.5%
74.7%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 83
180
Other21 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Other21
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
1
1
0
2
2.2%
4.0%
0.0%
2.0%
45
24
28
97
97.8%
96.0%
100.0%
98.0%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Other21 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Other21
Yes
Count
1
0
0
2.9%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
34
22
15
26
97.1%
95.7%
100.0%
100.0%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
1
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Other21 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Other21
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
2 2.0% 97 98.0% 99 100.0%
CROSSTABS /TABLES=Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest YouTube ProductReview Blog Oth er22 BY NewAge Income /FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES /CELLS=COUNT COLUMN /COUNT ROUND CELL.
Crosstabs
Page 84
181
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N
Missing
Percent
N
Total N
Percent
Facebook * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
Percent 1.0%
100
100.0%
Facebook * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Twitter * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Twitter * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Instagram * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Instagram * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Pinterest * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Pinterest * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
YouTube * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
YouTube * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
ProductReview * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
ProductReview * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Blog * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Blog * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Other22 * NewAge
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Other22 * Income
99
99.0%
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
Facebook * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Facebook
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
29
6
11
46
63.0%
24.0%
39.3%
46.5%
17
19
17
53
37.0%
76.0%
60.7%
53.5%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Facebook * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Facebook
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
23
13
1
9
65.7%
56.5%
6.7%
34.6%
12
10
14
17
34.3%
43.5%
93.3%
65.4%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 85
182
Facebook * Income Crosstabulation
Total Facebook
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
46 46.5% 53 53.5%
Count % within Income
99 100.0%
Twitter * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge Twitter
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
16
7
5
28
34.8%
28.0%
17.9%
28.3%
30
18
23
71
65.2%
72.0%
82.1%
71.7%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Twitter * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Twitter
Yes
Count
6
6
6
28.6%
26.1%
40.0%
23.1%
25
17
9
20
71.4%
73.9%
60.0%
76.9%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
10
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Twitter * Income Crosstabulation
Total Twitter
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
28 28.3% 71 71.7% 99 100.0%
Page 86
183
Instagram * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Instagram
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
19
2
5
26
41.3%
8.0%
17.9%
26.3%
27
23
23
73
58.7%
92.0%
82.1%
73.7%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Instagram * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Instagram
Yes
Count
6
2
4
40.0%
26.1%
13.3%
15.4%
21
17
13
22
60.0%
73.9%
86.7%
84.6%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
14
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Instagram * Income Crosstabulation
Total Instagram
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
26 26.3% 73 73.7% 99 100.0%
Pinterest * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Pinterest
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
18
8
11
37
39.1%
32.0%
39.3%
37.4%
28
17
17
62
60.9%
68.0%
60.7%
62.6%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 87
184
Pinterest * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Pinterest
Yes
Count % within Income
No
15
7
4
11
30.4%
26.7%
42.3%
20
16
11
15
57.1%
69.6%
73.3%
57.7%
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
42.9%
Count % within Income
Total
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Pinterest * Income Crosstabulation
Total Pinterest
Yes
Count
37
% within Income No
37.4%
Count
62
% within Income Total
62.6%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
YouTube * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge YouTube
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
11
0
1
12
23.9%
0.0%
3.6%
12.1%
35
25
27
87
76.1%
100.0%
96.4%
87.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
YouTube * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 YouTube
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
$60,000 or higher
7
5
0
0
20.0%
21.7%
0.0%
0.0%
28
18
15
26
80.0%
78.3%
100.0%
100.0%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 88
185
YouTube * Income Crosstabulation
Total YouTube
Yes
Count
12
% within Income No
Count
87
% within Income Total
12.1% 87.9%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
ProductReview * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge ProductReview
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
21-24
25-29
30 or older
8
6
11
25
17.4%
24.0%
39.3%
25.3%
38
19
17
74
82.6%
76.0%
60.7%
74.7%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
ProductReview * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 ProductReview
Yes
Count % within Income
No Total
9
6
4
25.7%
26.1%
26.7%
26
17
11
74.3%
73.9%
73.3%
35
23
15
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income Count % within Income
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
ProductReview * Income Crosstabulation Income $60,000 or higher ProductReview
Yes
Count % within Income
No
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
Total
6
25
23.1%
25.3%
20
74
76.9%
74.7%
26
99
100.0%
100.0%
Page 89
186
Blog * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Blog
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
7
3
2
12
15.2%
12.0%
7.1%
12.1%
39
22
26
87
84.8%
88.0%
92.9%
87.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Blog * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Blog
Yes
Count
4
1
1
17.1%
17.4%
6.7%
3.8%
29
19
14
25
82.9%
82.6%
93.3%
96.2%
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
6
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
Blog * Income Crosstabulation
Total Blog
Yes
Count
12
% within Income No
Count
87
% within Income Total
12.1%
Count
87.9% 99
% within Income
100.0%
Other22 * NewAge Crosstabulation NewAge 21-24 Other22
Yes
Count % within NewAge
No
Count % within NewAge
Total
Count % within NewAge
25-29
30 or older
Total
1
2
3
6
2.2%
8.0%
10.7%
6.1%
45
23
25
93
97.8%
92.0%
89.3%
93.9%
46
25
28
99
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Page 90
187
Other22 * Income Crosstabulation Income Under $20,000 Other22
Yes
Count
2
2
0
2
8.7%
0.0%
7.7%
33
21
15
24
94.3%
91.3%
100.0%
92.3%
Count % within Income
Total
Count % within Income
$60,000 or higher
5.7%
% within Income No
$20,000-$39,00 $40,000-$59,00 0 0
35
23
15
26
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Other22 * Income Crosstabulation
Total Other22
Yes
Count
No
Count
6
% within Income
93
% within Income Total
6.1% 93.9%
Count
99
% within Income
100.0%
ONEWAY Income BY PackagingAppealing /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway ANOVA IIncome Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
8.060
4
2.015
Within Groups
135.596
94
1.443
Total
143.657
98
F 1.397
Sig. .241
ONEWAY PackagingAppealing BY Income /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 91
188
Descriptives PackagingAppealing P k i A li 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Under $20,000
35
3.4571
1.17180
.19807
3.0546
3.8597
$20,000-$39,000
23
3.4783
.94722
.19751
3.0687
3.8879
$40,000-$59,000
15
3.7333
.88372
.22817
3.2439
4.2227
$60,000 or higher
26
3.8462
.88056
.17269
3.4905
4.2018
Total
99
3.6061
1.00831
.10134
3.4050
3.8072
Descriptives PackagingAppealing P k i A li
Minimum
Maximum
Under $20,000
1.00
5.00
$20,000-$39,000
2.00
5.00
$40,000-$59,000
2.00
5.00
$60,000 or higher
2.00
5.00
Total
1.00
5.00 ANOVA
PackagingAppealing P k i A li Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.894
3
.965
Within Groups
96.743
95
1.018
Total
99.636
98
F .947
Sig. .421
ONEWAY PackagingOffensive BY Income /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 92
189
Descriptives PackagingOffensive P k i Off i 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Under $20,000
35
3.0571
.90563
.15308
2.7460
3.3682
$20,000-$39,000
23
2.7391
1.17618
.24525
2.2305
3.2477
$40,000-$59,000
15
2.2667
1.03280
.26667
1.6947
2.8386
$60,000 or higher
26
2.5385
1.02882
.20177
2.1229
2.9540
Total
99
2.7273
1.04801
.10533
2.5183
2.9363
Descriptives PackagingOffensive P k i Off i
Minimum
Maximum
Under $20,000
1.00
5.00
$20,000-$39,000
1.00
5.00
$40,000-$59,000
1.00
5.00
$60,000 or higher
1.00
5.00
Total
1.00
5.00 ANOVA
PackagingOffensive P k i Off i Sum of Squares Between Groups Within Groups Total
df
Mean Square
7.921
3
2.640
99.715
95
1.050
107.636
98
F 2.515
Sig. .063
ONEWAY ScrewTopConvenient BY Income /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 93
190
Descriptives ScrewTopConvenient S T C i t 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Under $20,000
35
4.0571
.83817
.14168
3.7692
4.3451
$20,000-$39,000
23
3.8696
1.01374
.21138
3.4312
4.3079
$40,000-$59,000
15
4.0000
1.00000
.25820
3.4462
4.5538
$60,000 or higher
26
4.1538
.83390
.16354
3.8170
4.4907
Total
99
4.0303
.89733
.09018
3.8513
4.2093
Descriptives ScrewTopConvenient S T C i t
Minimum
Maximum
Under $20,000
2.00
5.00
$20,000-$39,000
2.00
5.00
$40,000-$59,000
2.00
5.00
$60,000 or higher
2.00
5.00
Total
2.00
5.00 ANOVA
ScrewTopConvenient S T C i t Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
1.030
3
.343
Within Groups
77.879
95
.820
Total
78.909
98
F .419
Sig. .740
ONEWAY GoodSelection BY Income /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 94
191
Descriptives GoodSelection G dS l ti 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Under $20,000
35
3.9714
.89066
.15055
3.6655
4.2774
$20,000-$39,000
23
4.0000
.95346
.19881
3.5877
4.4123
$40,000-$59,000
15
4.3333
.61721
.15936
3.9915
4.6751
$60,000 or higher
26
4.2692
.72430
.14205
3.9767
4.5618
Total
99
4.1111
.83163
.08358
3.9452
4.2770
Descriptives GoodSelection G dS l ti
Minimum
Maximum
Under $20,000
2.00
5.00
$20,000-$39,000
2.00
5.00
$40,000-$59,000
3.00
5.00
$60,000 or higher
3.00
5.00
Total
2.00
5.00 ANOVA
GoodSelection G dS l ti Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.358
3
.786
Within Groups
65.420
95
.689
Total
67.778
98
F 1.141
Sig. .337
ONEWAY AppropriateForAnyOccasion BY Income /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 95
192
Descriptives AppropriateForAnyOccasion A i t F A O i 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Under $20,000
35
3.2571
1.12047
.18939
2.8722
3.6420
$20,000-$39,000
23
3.3478
1.02730
.21421
2.9036
3.7921
$40,000-$59,000
15
3.7333
.88372
.22817
3.2439
4.2227
$60,000 or higher
26
3.4615
.81146
.15914
3.1338
3.7893
Total
99
3.4040
.98891
.09939
3.2068
3.6013
Descriptives AppropriateForAnyOccasion A i t F A O i
Minimum
Maximum
Under $20,000
1.00
5.00
$20,000-$39,000
1.00
5.00
$40,000-$59,000
2.00
5.00
$60,000 or higher
2.00
5.00
Total
1.00
5.00 ANOVA
AppropriateForAnyOccasion A i t F A O i Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
2.540
3
.847
Within Groups
93.298
95
.982
Total
95.838
98
F .862
Sig. .464
ONEWAY EasyToDrink BY Income /STATISTICS DESCRIPTIVES /MISSING ANALYSIS.
Oneway
Page 96
193
Descriptives EasyToDrink E T Di k 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Under $20,000
35
3.3429
.96841
.16369
3.0102
3.6755
$20,000-$39,000
23
3.8696
.81488
.16991
3.5172
4.2219
$40,000-$59,000
15
3.8667
.99043
.25573
3.3182
4.4151
$60,000 or higher
26
3.9231
.74421
.14595
3.6225
4.2237
Total
99
3.6970
.90863
.09132
3.5157
3.8782
Descriptives EasyToDrink E T Di k
Minimum
Maximum
Under $20,000
1.00
5.00
$20,000-$39,000
3.00
5.00
$40,000-$59,000
1.00
5.00
$60,000 or higher
3.00
5.00
Total
1.00
5.00 ANOVA
EasyToDrink E T Di k Sum of Squares Between Groups
df
Mean Square
6.835
3
2.278
Within Groups
74.074
95
.780
Total
80.909
98
F 2.922
Sig. .038
Page 97
194
Presentation Slides
THE WINE WITH LEGS
“the Chic Canadian wine you can pour with confidence”
Erica Olmstead | Ashley Poage | Max Rivera | Yona Weisleder
Internal Analysis Strengths
sITUATION anALYSIS
Part of Constellation Brands 12.8% market share Lower price point Convenient screw top
Simplicity of wine name Canadian grapes Good distribution channels in Canada
Weaknesses Male market excluded Missed target opportunities Average wine quality
Perceived offensive wine labels Poor marketing and promotions strategies
External Analysis Opportunities Growing interest in wine in consumers Wine perceived as a healthy choice Rising wine industry’s retail sales
Niche target market High social activity and consumption of wine in area Knowledge about wine not required for purchase
Threats Male market excluded Missed target opportunities Decrease in alcohol consumption Domestic wine preferences
High unemployment rate in Boston College graduate retainer rates Selling and purchasing regulations
maRKETING pROBLEM
195
Marketing Problem Well-established domestic brands
Unknown country of the origin
rESEARCH oBJECTIVES
Lack of Strut brand awareness
Specific Objectives
General Objective Assess the marketability of Strut wine in Boston through secondary and primary research methods. Examine consumer acceptance of Strut wine in the target market of women aged 21-34.
To study wine type preferences, consumption and purchase habits. To evaluate how much the Boston female target would pay for wine. To investigate which marketing and advertising mediums young females in Boston prefer. To measure our target audience knowledgeability of female-targeted wine. To test the concept of Strut wine between females ages 21-34 in Boston. To test the likelihood of purchasing Strut wine by females in the Boston market. To evaluate whether the target market finds the screw top and packaging appealing. To investigate which social media networks are best suited for the Strut brand to penetrate the Boston female market.
Focus Group Interview 7 Females 22-27, Emerson students
Method
Product Attributes & Brand Description
Varieties & Price Shopping habits First impression of Strut Strut brand personality Consumer profile Purchase factors Marketing strategy
196
Survey 100 surveys Greater Boston Area
Females 21+
Results
Ages 21-24, 25-29 & 30 and older Non-probability with convenience
Top 2 box % 50%
Action standard 3.30
Focus Group Interview Relationship between price and quality
Focus Group Interview Positive Reactions to Strut
“If it’s not good at all you won’t drink it, even if it’s cheap”
Overall positive
Good price point
“Good wine for cheap” Brand familiarity helps
Female appeal Logo
“If there was a girls’ night, I would be like ohhh Strut!
Wine buying behavior Supermarkets (Trader Joe’s) and liquor stores “Three Buck Chuck @ Trader Joe’s” Use reviews to make a decision
Focus Group Interview Brand Personality
Girly Flirty
Young Professional
Focus Group Interview Pricing $10-$12 per bottle In-store tastings
Lawyer Beautiful
Sexist and offensive label Gender specific Unclear tagline for target market
Recommended Marketing Strategies
Single
Powerhouse
Negative Reactions to Strut
Fun
Vogue and Cosmo Event involvement
197
Survey
Survey
Wine Consumption Frequency TextoOccasion Wine Drinking
2-3 times a week (30%) Once a week (27%) 2-3 times a month (23%) 3 times a week (2%)
Average Price for a Bottle $8-$11 (36%) $12-$15 (29%) $12-$16 (21%)
Survey
Survey Deciding Factors TextoFor Purchase
Survey Likes Price (15%) Fun (13%) Tasty flavors (10%) Concept (10%)
Dislikes Too sexual (19%) Label (18%) Anti-feminist (13%)
OverallTexto Evaluation
Survey Texto Evaluation of Attributes
198
Survey
Survey Desired Texto Price Point
TextoIntention Purchase
Survey
Survey Texto Preferred Advertising Channel
Preferred Social Media Channel Facebook (46%) Pinterest (37%) Twitter (28%) Instagram (26%) YouTube (12%) Blog (12%) Others (6%)
Conclusions
Conclusion and Recommendations
Good acceptance, particularly with the 25-29 age group (60%) and the over $60,000 income bracket (62%) Majority of survey participants “slightly like” Strut wine brand (37%). The likelihood of purchase surpassed the Top 2 Box % of 50%, with 55% of respondents willing to buy Strut (5% of which “very likely”) Girls’ night gatherings are more important wine drinking occasions for younger consumers than older Respondents indicated they would pay $8-$11 for a bottle of wine (36%) and some tend to pay a little more, $12-$15 (29%). Balance price and quality “Three Buck Chuck” poses competition Lack of knowledge regarding female targeted wine Screw top is convenient, but not necessarily positive
199
Recommendations Overall Marketability Assessed positively and leads us to recommend entering the Boston market Secondary research of the industry and the consumers' loyalty suggests a low-risk approach for entry using exports Overall appeal to the brand image and attributes, specially among the 21-24 age segment
Positioning Embrace gender-specific target market Target young, professional, millennial women Suggested brand personality: "fun" & "flirty"
THE WINE WITH LEGS
Recommendations 4 P’s Product Red and white wine Place Supermarkets and liquor stores Price $8-$11 USD Promotion Magazines targeting females, social media and transit advertising
Future Research Larger sample size Packaging considerations: labeling and screw top Blind taste testing Additional FGIs with different age segments