Table 3.
Australian consumers’ attitudes towards GL wine statements and their market expectations.
| Cluster 1 (n = 44) |
Cluster 2 (n = 28) |
Cluster 3 (n = 26) |
Cluster 4 (n = 26) |
p-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Std. Error | Mean | Std. Error | Mean | Std. Error | Mean | Std. Error | ||
| I do not know about the GL wine but I think it is worth trying. | 6.2 | 0.35 | 6.0 | 0.44 | 5.5 | 0.46 | 5.3 | 0.46 | 0.381 |
| I would like to go to places where GL wines are served. | 5.0 | 0.31 | 4.6 | 0.38 | 4.7 | 0.40 | 5.0 | 0.40 | 0.766 |
| I would drink almost any GL wine. | 4.4 | 0.32 | 3.8 | 0.40 | 4.2 | 0.41 | 4.5 | 0.41 | 0.537 |
| At a social gathering, I will try GL wine. | 6.6 | 0.28 | 7.1 | 0.35 | 6.4 | 0.37 | 6.2 | 0.37 | 0.278 |
| I am keen on drinking GL wine if the price is reasonable | 5.9 a | 0.33 | 4.7 b | 0.42 | 5.6 ab | 0.43 | 5.8 ab | 0.43 | 0.020 |
| Not sound “romantic”. | 5.1 | 0.34 | 5.6 | 0.42 | 5.3 | 0.44 | 4.5 | 0.44 | 0.362 |
| Are not as socially acceptable or impressive. | 4.1 ab | 0.33 | 5.2 a | 0.42 | 4.8 ab | 0.43 | 4.0 b | 0.43 | 0.050 |
| Should have this information specified on the label. | 6.4 | 0.31 | 7.3 | 0.39 | 6.5 | 0.40 | 6.8 | 0.40 | 0.344 |
| Does not matter to me as long as GL wine tastes good. | 5.3 | 0.36 | 5.8 | 0.46 | 5.8 | 0.47 | 4.9 | 0.47 | 0.402 |
| Are the way of the future regarding health benefits | 5.9 a | 0.28 | 4.9 b | 0.35 | 5.3 ab | 0.37 | 5.6 ab | 0.37 | 0.030 |
| Have no influence on my purchase decision. | 5.2 a | 0.32 | 5.3 a | 0.40 | 4.0 b | 0.42 | 4.8 ab | 0.42 | 0.030 |
| Are cheap or of lower quality. | 5.0 | 0.25 | 5.0 | 0.32 | 4.4 | 0.33 | 4.7 | 0.33 | 0.481 |
Data presented are mean agreement scores; where 1 = highly disagree, 5 = neither agree nor disagree and 9 = highly agree. Different letters within a row indicate significant differences between wine hedonic clusters, data analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Fisher’s LSD with significant level at p < 0.05 indicated in bold.