Page 1


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

ƒƒ 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. ƒƒ 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. ƒƒ 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. ƒƒ Glazer’s Wholesale Drug Co.: With more than a century in the market, the Dallas based company received $3 billion in annual sales. ƒƒ 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). ƒƒ 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 ƒƒ Part of Constellation Brands 12.8% market share (reference chart in appendix) ƒƒ Lower price point is more attractive to the target market ƒƒ Screw top for convenience ƒƒ Simplicity of wine names allows ease of choice for young consumers who might not possess in-depth knowledge about wine ƒƒ “No cellared in Canada wine”, meaning Strut is made from strictly Canadian grapes ƒƒ Good distribution channels in Canada, it is present in most provinces


17

Weaknesses ƒƒ The male market is excluded; it makes up close to half of the entire market ƒƒ Women wine drinkers over 35 are not targeted ƒƒ 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 ƒƒ Wine labels may be perceived as offensive ƒƒ Their marketing and promotion strategies, focused on Facebook and Twitter, are extremely poor and have been discontinued

Opportunities

ƒƒ Growing interest in wine in consumers 21-34 interested in lower priced wine ƒƒ The health conscious consumers market that perceives wine as a healthy choice ƒƒ Rising wine industry’s retail sales ƒƒ Strut targets a highly specific niche of consumers which leads to less competition ƒƒ High social activity and consumption of wine in area due to population of college students and young professionals. ƒƒ 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 ƒƒ Strut wine has growth opportunities as it has only been on the market for 4 years. ƒƒ Free trade agreement between Canada and the United States

Threats

ƒƒ Decrease in alcohol consumption due to economic recession in the United States ƒƒ Consumers preference towards domestic wine due to familiarity and perceived lower prices ƒƒ High unemployment rate in Boston ƒƒ Brand loyalty affected by low college graduate retainer rates. ƒƒ 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 ƒƒ To study the taste attributes young females in Boston. ƒƒ To measure the preferences, frequency and quantity of wine consumed by females in their 21-34 years of age. ƒƒ To study which occasions influence the consumption of wine. ƒƒ To evaluate how much the Boston female target would pay for wine. ƒƒ To learn whether consumers prefer to buy wine at big groceries or liquor stores, small retailers or online. ƒƒ To investigate which marketing and advertising mediums young females in Boston prefer. ƒƒ To measure our target audience knowledgeability of female-targeted wine. ƒƒ To test the concept of Strut wine between females ages 21-34 in Boston. ƒƒ To test the likelihood of purchasing Strut wine by females in the Boston market. ƒƒ To evaluate whether the target market finds the screw top as an appealing feature of Stut wine. ƒƒ To test the likeability of the Strut packaging. ƒƒ To investigate which social media networks are best suited for the Strut brand to penetrate the Boston female market. ƒƒ 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

ƒƒ Calories ƒƒ Recognizable/familiar ƒƒ Eye Catching label ƒƒ Knowledge of wine regions ƒƒ Knowledge of wine types ƒƒ Price ƒƒ Taste ƒƒ 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? ƒƒ 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. ƒƒ 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? ƒƒ 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

ƒƒ What advantages does ‘Strut’ have which none of the other contenders have… ƒƒ 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? ƒƒ Age ƒƒ Gender ƒƒ Occupation ƒƒ Hobbies ƒƒ Lifestyles 12. What comes to your mind when you hear “The wine with legs?” ƒƒ 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… ƒƒ 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

ƒƒ How to become more popular. ƒƒ 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

Strut Final Report  

Research Methods for Global Marketing and Advertising

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you