Master of Science thesis
MSc Business Administration: Entrepreneurship and Management in the creative industries University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business SchoolBRAND IDENTITY & STRATEGY IN THE BIO WINE INDUSTRY
June 2017 Student: Anna Thell, 11376554 1st Supervisor: Erik Dirksen msc., University of Amsterdam 2nd Supervisor: J. Rozentale msc., University of Amsterdam
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Anna Thell who declares to take full
responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original
and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its
references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and
Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the
work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Climate change has already had a fierce impact on the wine industry and will further affect the production of wine, which is why several wineries have already shifted their nature of viticulture to more sustainable practices as bio-organic and biodynamic winemaking. This paper aims to investigate the differences and similarities between these types of viticulture using qualitative data collected through ten semi-structured interviews with vintners from Austria running both bio & biodynamic and conventional wineries. The main objective of this research was to examine how these types of viticultures affect a vintners approach to branding and marketing. Prepositions have been established about differences related to brand identity and strategy among these types of viticulture. Findings have supported most of them, proving that the choice of viticulture directly affects how a vintner approaches branding. In addition, it demonstrated that bio and biodynamic vintners connect their brands with certain associations on a much deeper and emotional level than conventional vintners do. Overall, they follow a highly personality-focused brand strategy, while conventional vintners follow the more classic approach of connecting their brand to “Terroir”. The results of this study have value to vintners, wine consumers and marketing managers intending to work in the wine industry.Table Of Content
ABSTRACT 3
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1. A CHANGING WINE INDUSTRY 8
2.2. WINE BRANDING 10
2.3. BRAND STRATEGY 12
2.4. BRAND IDENTITY 13
2.5. WINE LABELLING 15
2.6. WINE MARKETING 18
2.7. BIO WINE & BIO BRANDING 19
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY 23
3.1. RESEARCH DESIGN & STRATEGY 23
3.2. UNIT OF ANALYSIS 25 3.3. SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION PROCESS 26 3.4. QUALITY OF RESEARCH 27 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS 29 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS 30 5.1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WINERIES 30
5.2. REASONS TO SHIFT TO BIO & BIODYNAMIC VITICULTURE 33
5.3. REASONS TO STICK TO CONVENTIONAL VITICULTURE 37
5.4. BRAND IDENTITY OF BIO & BIODYNAMIC WINERIES 42 5.5. BRAND STRATEGY OF BIO & BIODYNAMIC WINERIES 50
5.6. BRAND IDENTITY OF CONVENTIONAL WINERIES 55
5.7. BRAND STRATEGY OF CONVENTIONAL WINERIES 62
5.8. MARKETING & SOCIAL MEDIA 65
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION 71
6.1. SUMMARY & DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 72
6.2. BRANDING DIFFERENCES & SIMILARITIES 74
6.3. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS 77 6.4. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 78 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION 79 REFERENCES 81 JOURNALS 81 BOOKS 86 WEBSITES 86 APPENDICES: 87
APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR BIO & BIODYNAMIC VINTNERS 87
APPENDIX B - INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR CONVENTIONAL VINTNERS 88
TRANSCRIPT – RENNERSISTAS (WINERY RENNER) 90
TRANSCRIPT – WINERY LEO HILLINGER 98
TRANSCRIPT – WINERY HEINRICH 104
TRANSCRIPT – WINERY GUT OGGAU 112
TRANSCRIPT – WINERY PITTNAUER 117
APPENDIX D - TRANSCRIPTS OF INTERVIEWS WITH CONVENTIONAL VINTNERS 124
TRANSCRIPT – WEINGUT HANNES REEH 124
TRANSCRIPT – WEINGUT PÖCKL 128
TRANSCRIPT – WINERY GRASSL 132
TRANSCRIPT – WINERY MARKOWITSCH 138
TRANSCRIPT – WINERY SCHWARZ 140
Chapter 1: Introduction
“Save water, drink wine” -unknown The sentence above is solely a funny quote, usually printed on a kitchen poster, which you can buy on Amazon. However, the quote has been trending online and leads one to think: Why not do both? Sustainable practices in the wine industry have been emerging a while ago, which reduce their environmental footprint by not only decreasing the use of fossil fuels but also water in wine production. Therefore, one could say: Save water and drink wine! The Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner shared this view and introduced biodynamic agriculture in the 1920s, from which most methods have been adapted to the biodynamic viticulture, which is a subcategory of bio viticulture (Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014). The sustainable approach in winemaking depicts an interesting area of research, since a limited amount of literature and empirical research has been done so far.It is especially important to look at it from a supplier side, as much is known about consumers and the bio consumption trend in food and beverages (Barber, 2012). Not only the consumption of bio products has increased but also the demand to know what the products we eat and drink everyday contain and what they do to our health (Van Tonder & Mulder, 2015). However, this paper will not investigate what label regulations a winemaker must follow to communicate to the public that his products are bio, but look beyond those legal and administrative steps and explore how bio producers in the wine industry differ from conventional winemakers with regard to its brand identity and strategy. It will be interesting to explore to what extent bio wineries communicate their sustainable practices through branding and marketing.
Wine branding in general, has been discussed several times in peer reviewed articles, highlighting that European countries cannot keep up with New World wine countries, like Australia, in terms of branding and marketing (Campbell & Guibert, 2006). However, no empirical research has focused on European winemakers and their view on branding and marketing strategies. A few papers were found in which the differences in wine production between sustainable and conventional wineries were explained, however there is no comparison of sustainable and conventional wineries with regards to how their choice of viticulture affects their brand identity.
This study contributes to the knowledge of marketers aiming to enter the wine industry. Results will help understand how winemakers view branding and marketing their products and as these family-sized wineries will grow, marketers will be needed to help enhance and extend their brand. Even if the winemaker himself continues to take care of branding and marketing or if a young vintner is starting his business from the bottom, the findings of this paper can assist to comprehend how different vintners, bio and conventional, are approaching these business activities and what ideas and strategies lie behind a wine brand identity.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter will shortly introduce important facts about the overall wine industry and further examine existing literature about wine branding, including brand strategy and brand identity in general and related to the wine industry in particular. Moreover, wine labelling will be discussed as it plays a crucial part in wine branding and has been investigated by
several authors so far. Additionally this section will review what has been studied regarding wine marketing and finally describe what is known about several sustainable winemaking techniques with a focus on the biological viticulture. Based on these findings from existing literature the research question and four hypotheses will be created to investigate the detected research gap. 2.1. A changing Wine Industry Statistics of the European Commission on the European wine market show that in the years of 2009 and 2014 the average production per year was around 167 million hectolitres and that the European Union represents a total of 45% of the wine-growing areas in the world as well as 70% of global export (European Commission, 2017). European countries, especially Italy, France and Spain have always played a crucial role regarding wine production, however the last ten years globalization has had a great impact on the international competitive environment of this industry (Castaldi, Cholette & Frederick, 2005).
Wine countries like Chile, the US, Australia and South Africa, which are called the “New World” wine producers in contrast to the “Old World” wineries in European countries, have increased their share of the global wine market. The wine business does vary a lot between the Old World and the New World with respect to their winemaking as well as their wine marketing. While the Old World is still full of small family owned wineries, the New World is dominated by large, publicly traded wineries. European winegrowers mostly still pick their grapes manually whereas major wine businesses in the New World heavily rely on huge machines for their harvest (Roberto, 2011). Research shows that a major difference between these two wine worlds is their focus on marketing and branding. European wine
producers have difficulties to compete against the New World`s elaborate marketing strategies (Campbell & Guibert, 2006). Roberto (2011) clearly highlights that the Old World`s avoidance and lack of branding and marketing efforts gives the New World a huge competitive advantage on international markets and leads to a bigger rivalry among European producers, whose focus should lie on product differentiation. Globalisation has not only led to an increase in international competition but also aggravated the combat for retailers and suitable distribution channels (Campbell & Guibert, 2006).
Another trend, that the wine world has been facing for a few years now, besides higher competition, is a completely new target group with specific consumer preferences: the millennials also known as Generation Y, who were born between 1977 and 1999 (Nowak, Thach & Olsen, 2006). Magistris et al. (2011) suggests that wine consumption behaviour differs among different generations and the millennial generation represents a highly promising consumer segment for the wine industry. Millennials tend to be more brand conscious than previous generations and prefer innovative packaging and labels. This young generation is especially fond of brands that are environmentally sustainable and would even go as far as boycotting brands that are not (Nowak, Thach & Olsen, 2006).
This concern for the environment understandably developed in response to consequences of climate change, which also greatly affected the wine industry itself. Most people do not know which difficulties wineries are facing in their production as an effect of environmental changes. Rising temperatures have advanced harvest times for vintners and significantly increased the concentration of sugar in grapes, which leads to higher percentages of alcohol among other things (Orduña, 2010). Extreme weather conditions have a significant effect on wine quality, which is why vintners in the New World might not be able to produce premium wine for much longer (Hall & Jones, 2008). For European
wineries the concept of „Terroir“ might need to be adjusted, since the grape variety associated with a certain terroir might not fulfil the characterizations of that location anymore (Seguin & Garcia de Cortazar, 2005). Wineries worldwide have reacted to these environmental changes and threats and even restructured their whole nature of viticulture to reduce their environmental footprint to not further stimulate climate change (Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014), which will be discussed in a subsequent chapter. 2.2. Wine Branding As previously mentioned, wine branding has become especially common in the New World, while Old World wineries attempt to catch up and differentiate their wine businesses by building strong brands. Wine branding has also become a crucial topic for research and several authors have been investigating it. Lockshin et al. (2009) suggest that the wine brand is the most important factor influencing a consumer`s purchase decision and even ranks higher in importance than price and quality. Likewise, Mora (2006) shows that consumers use brands as reference points of what to buy, which simplifies their purchasing process, does not require them to have much wine knowledge and saves them the time searching for additional wine information. Nevertheless, David Higgins, Brown Forman Beverages Worldwide Wine Group President, claims that generally wineries do not understand the need to build brands (Westling, 2011), which might be a reason why research has mainly focused on examining wine branding from a consumer perspective.
The facts presented in the preceding chapter shall demonstrate how important the European wine market is and what a great amount of producers try to sell their wine. Since wine is an experience good whose quality can only be determined upon consumption,
consumers have to adopt different strategies to make the right wine choice. Besides the brand, that has already been mentioned as a crucial factor that helps wine consumers to make a choice many other aspects can be taken into consideration. One common approach is choosing a winery known for its quality which usually leads people to study the packaging and label design for quality cues (Sherman & Tuten, 2011). Many winemakers even consider their packaging to be the most influential tool to attract consumers (Gluckmann, 1990). It is therefore important to combine brand elements as name, symbol and design on a wine label to differentiate a wine from others (Elliot & Barth, 2012). In general a brand can be defined as a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that helps identify ones good or service as distinct from goods or services from other sellers (Bennett, 1988). A widespread term in the branding literature is called “brand equity” and Farquhar (1994) suggests that wineries aspire to build brand equity since it is the incremental value added to their products because of their brand name. Several authors have defined the term in different ways. Feldwick (1996) argues that brand equity is describing the associations and beliefs consumers have about a brand and measuring the strength of consumers` attachment to a brand, while it can also be defined as the total value of a brand stated on a balance sheet. According to Aaker (1996) brand equity can be understood as a multidimensional concept incorporating brand loyalty, brand personality, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations and other brand assets. Orth et al. (2005) claim that brand equity is a competitive asset for a winery and adds brand image and brand attitude to Aaker`s model.
Wine branding appears to play a crucial role in product differentiation and consumer loyalty enhancement and some authors suggest various possible brand strategies a winemaker can adopt, which will be described in the next chapter.
2.3. Brand Strategy
A branding strategy is an important part of a company`s overall marketing strategy, since strong brands help to create an identity consumers can relate to. Firms have to establish objectives of how to strategically use their specific brand elements within the marketplace (Douglas, Craig & Nijssen, 2001). One branding strategy that has been used widely in the wine industry is about associating the wine with its region of origin. Every place has an image, which is further used to form a brand image. For instance, place-based branding is a strategy that is still used by most wineries in France that employ regions as Burgundy and Bordeaux as indicators for quality (Bruwer & Johnson, 2010). Reviewing this topic in depth leads one to believe that creating associations between a wine and the specific attributes inherent in a location`s image seems to be a widespread and traditional brand strategy of wineries worldwide. As mentioned above, it is significant to choose a combination of brand elements on a label that differentiates one`s brand from others (Elliot & Barth, 2012), especially for wine as stated by Caldewey & House (2003): “My challenge is to devise new combinations of the symbols that will reveal the unique personality at the heart of the brand.” This citation initiates a second common branding strategy, which has its focus on emphasizing its brand personality. Bruwer & Johnson (2010) discuss that wine is a product that has high potential for involvement and personal connection. Which is why winemakers and marketers can use specific visual features such as the logo, colours, fonts, materials and other elements to feed the consumer with brand associations he can relate to (Underwood, 2003). Furthermore, Bruwer and Johnson (2010) point out that consumers are more likely to purchase a product
when they feel it is personally relevant to them, while Elliot and Barth (2012) cite Aaker from his paper in 1996 on strong brands, saying that a brand is more successful if it contains personality related perceptions like loyalty and self-expression. Brand personality defined by Aaker (1997) is “a set of human characteristics associated with a brand.” The brand can further be broken down into five personality dimensions that are: (1) Sincerity, (2) Excitement, (3) Competence, (4) Sophistication and (5) Ruggedness (Aaker, 1997). It can be concluded that this second branding strategy of focusing on a brand`s personality with which consumers can associate with, could be as common in the wine industry as the place-based strategy, since winemakers can easily induce specific personal traits into their wine label design, however no empirical research paper has clearly mentioned this personality branding strategy in correlation with the wine industry. Different journal articles also manifest an issue in the distinction between the concepts brand personality and brand identity, which will be elaborated on in the next chapter.
2.4. Brand Identity
The recent years showed a shift in the focus of branding literature from solely investigating the importance of brand image and consumers` perceptions of brand differentiation to a more concentrated research of brand identity (Madhavaram, Badrinarayanan & McDonald, 2005). A definition of brand identity can be found again in Aaker`s paper on strong brands from 1997, which explained the term as “a unique set of brand associations that a brand strategist aspires to create or maintain.” It might not be easy to distinguish this description of brand identity from the concept of brand personality and as a matter of fact both concepts also seem to be often confused with the term brand image. Brand identity can also
be defined as the firm`s presentation of its brand`s meaning, while a brand image is how the consumer perceives a brand`s identity. So what about brand personality? Research suggests that the mentioned concepts brand identity and brand image are multidimensional theories of which brand personality is one of the most important factors (Geuens, Weijters & De Wulf, 2009), which implies that brand personality might be hard to distinguish from brand identity solely because it is a major part of it.
Moreover Madhavaram et al. (2005) introduce the term “brand identity strategy”, which is described as the effort of brand strategists in developing, evaluating and maintaining the brand identity as well as communicating the brand identity to all others internally and externally of the firm responsible for the firm`s marketing communications. They argue that a “brand identity strategy” creates the basis for an “integrated marketing communication strategy”, which are both parts of a firm`s overall “brand equity strategy”. Keller (1993) similarly argues that building strong brand equity first requires efforts to create a great brand identity, which needs to be further integrated into a firm`s overall marketing activities, as product, price, promotion, distribution and advertising.
Brand Identity helps to create relationships to consumers, which winemakers can trigger by incorporating specific elements into their wine label design, since packaging offers the possibility to symbolically contribute to the total understanding of the brand (Underwood, 2003). The packaging and in the wine industry`s case particularly the wine label communicates different dimensions of a brand`s identity such as: prestige, health consciousness, family, value, environmental consciousness and regional authenticity among others (Underwood, 2003), whereupon consumers can choose different wine brands that match their own identity and desire for specific benefits (Orth, 2005). Buying a bottle of wine from a prestigious brand to feel more prestigious themselves or being perceived by
others in that way would be a good example in this case. One might assume that it depends on the nature of a winery which kind of brand dimensions are being communicated by the winemaker.
Most literature mentions examples of wine brands that communicate prestige, status and regional authenticity, which can be interpreted as rather traditional wine brand identifications. However, what about the newer movement of biodynamic wineries? Do these wineries only focus on environmental consciousness as part of their brand identity or do they combine traditional and trending dimensions? What is their brand strategy? One can assume that they will most certainly not follow the traditional branding strategies as place-based branding. Or do they? There are very few peer-reviewed journal articles on that topic and even less empirical research that specifically explains the difference between conventional and biodynamic wineries, especially with regards to their brand identity, brand strategy and overall marketing strategy. This might be the case, since the shift in viticulture to more sustainable production mechanisms has only occurred during the last few years. The last chapter of this review will therefore have a closer look into this topic. 2.5. Wine Labelling
As already mentioned several times in this review, packaging and the way a product is presented play a crucial role to both consumers and winemakers. Several authors suggest that packaging and the social meaning attached to its design elements are critical for the social understanding of a brand and packaging can even be understood as a product-related attribute, an aspect of the product that is crucial to the creation and communication of brand identity (Underwood, 2003). However, opposing views to this can also be found in
literature as Keller (1993) argues that packaging is indeed a non-product-related attribute, an aspect of the consumption process but in no relation to product performance. Even tough Keller has a different view on packaging, he nonetheless points out that it is part of the creation of brand identity (Keller, 1993). Since it is so connected to brand identity, it needs to be examined in the context of winemaking. According to the discussed literature wine bottles and labels can be seen as a major tool to build brand identity and are accordingly a branding strategy and in the focus of this research.
A wine label usually consists of several visual elements, as colour, imagery, typeface, label size, shape and material and research suggests that these have an influence on the different aspects of a brand`s identity. Research has also proven that Aaker`s brand personality dimensions are useful predictors of purchase intent, when perceived from a product`s packaging (Doyle and Bottomley, 2004). Regarding a wine product, its packaging usually consists of numerous interrelated components as grape varietal, the winemaker`s skills, the bottle shape and colour, the label design, label colour, information presented on the front and back label, etc. Research suggests that wine consumers shop with their eyes and seek information on a wine`s label not from a shop assistant, which is why the back label needs to be informative and the front label visually attractive to stand out on the shelves (Barber et al., 2006). However, not all authors share the same opinion about the importance of the wine label. A study conducted by Goodman (2009) shows that the label is the least important influencer of a consumer`s purchase decision. He finds that consumers in Old World countries consider grape varieties and regions as most important when buying wine, while in the New World the name of the brand stays in focus. Mueller et al. (2011) on the other hand, argue that it is hard to form conclusions about the importance of wine labels, as consumers responses to wine labels are mainly subconscious and therefore hard to question
them in a survey.
Literature suggests that a wine label design can be categorized into the three genres traditional, contemporary, and novelty. Traditional labels usually depict vineyards and châteaux (Batt and Dean, 2000), while contemporary designs, which were introduced in the 1960s, show less information of the wine`s origin, the vineyard and the winemaker, but illustrate art and visuals of style (Sherman and Tuten, 2011). While the contemporary label presents the label as art, the novelty label is all about fun and amusement, depicting pictures of animals for example (Finkelstein and Quiazon, 2007). But which one of those is more appealing to consumers? Several authors have investigated this matter, as Celhay and Passebois (2011) found that French consumers do not care for more innovative labels, but are more receptive for traditional ones. Henley et al. (2011) on the other hand, explored what specifically millenials favour in wine labels and found that simplicity is the key. The millennial generation likes simple but eye-catching front labels and very informative back labels, including wine producer information, while both labels should incorporate the expression of the brand (Henley et al., 2011). The informative level of a label is especially important to Millenials because they are infrequent and new wine drinkers. A study about how they would design a front label showed that they would go for non-traditional names, colours and images (Elliot and Barth, 2012).
The majority of research about wine labelling focuses on the consumer and barely mentions the supplier. Only few authors mention the regulations a winemaker needs to consider when designing a label, as guidelines about bottle size and required elements of the label (Elliot and Barth, 2012). However, few is known about a winemaker`s thoughts and brand strategy behind a label`s choice, which is what this paper is dealing with.
2.6. Wine Marketing For Keller, marketing communications represent the voice of a brand (Madhavaram et al., 2005) and besides wine labelling as a crucial marketing tool, there must be other forms to reach and influence the consumer. However, there are actually few peer-reviewed articles examining wine marketing. Only recently a group of authors has created a wine marketing mix called the 4Es, which they based on the existing 4Ps marketing mix. For them wine marketing should consider expertise, evaluation, experience and education, building on a highly powerful instrument for a better communication of wine culture, which are the different levels of knowledge of the sommelier language (Festa et al., 2016).
Furthermore, customer segmentation has also been a topic of interest. McKinna (1986) has conducted extensive research on market segmentation in the Australian wine industry, in which he started with a geographic segment and further divided the wine consumers into a psychographic segment of five wine lifestyles. Johnson and Bruwer (2003) further expanded this research and found five consumer lifestyle segments in the Australian wine market: (1) conservative, knowledgeable wine drinkers, (2) image-oriented, knowledge-seeking wine drinkers, (3) basic wine drinkers, (4) experimental, highly knowledgeable wine drinkers and (5) enjoyment-oriented, social wine drinkers.
In three case studies conducted in New Zealand Lindgreen (2001) examined which kind of marketing wineries are usually implementing. He mentioned “Transaction marketing”, which can be understood as the planning and executing of the marketing mix, while “Relationship marketing” focuses on developing and maintaining long-term relationships with customers but also suppliers, which should lead to a competitive advantage. Findings showed that wineries in New Zealand are more and more leaving the stubborn way of pure transaction marketing, solely focusing on the concept, price,
distribution and promotion of their product, but are leaning towards the softer marketing approach, which is relationship marketing. Combining both of those methods can be called a pluralistic marketing strategy. Winemakers realized that the social connection and communication with their consumers should be a top priority as it brings commercial benefits to both the winemaker and the consumers (Lindgreen, 2001).
Besides the type of marketing approach, the use of social media within wine marketing has been a topic of discussion for a few authors too. Lockshin and Corsi (2012) presented the few papers on social media they found in their review about consumer behaviour for wine. For instance research focused on wine blogs and online review sites (Thach, 2009) and the visibility of wine brands in social media (Reyneke et al., 2011) which both concluded that wineries need to efficiently manage their presence on social media sites and interact with their consumers online.
Even tough a few peer-reviewed articles have been found on wine marketing in general, it is difficult to find anything about wine marketing in the sustainable wine sector, like the bio wine market. The final chapter of this literature review will introduce the bio wine industry and what is known about branding and marketing in this field.
2.7. Bio Wine & Bio Branding
The recent years have shown a shift from traditional viticulture to more sustainable production. This has not come as a surprise since especially in European agriculture the trend to become more environmental friendly has increased over the years as the total organic area in the EU was 11,1 million hectares in 2015 and therefore grew from 2010 to 2015 by 21% (Eurostat, 2017). Many winemakers choose to shift their viticulture to a more
sustainable nature solely because they saw an opportunity to increase sales (Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014). However there are many other reasons why a winery decides to change its nature of production. Many might want to reduce their environmental footprint or produce a more authentic and ethical good. Sustainable winemaking is only a broad term that incorporates organic and biodynamic viticulture, which have to be clearly distinguished from each other. Organic, in Europe also called bio, Winemakers avoid using mineral fertilisers and synthetic plant protection substances. The European Union strictly monitors if bio wineries comply with those production regulations and supervise whether or not they fulfil the standards regarding labelling (Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014). In contrast, biodynamic viticulture is a type of organic viticulture, basically a subcategory that also has to be certified as such before obtaining the certificate to be a biodynamic winery. Moreover, biodynamic techniques reduce the use of heavy machinery and therefore fossil fuels (Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014), while also differing from organic viticulture in philosophical and historical aspects and in the use of particular herbs and minerals treated with animal organs (Reeve et al., 2005). The beginning of biodynamic agriculture can be traced back to the 1920s when an Austrian philosopher called Rudolph Steiner introduced it as a holistic approach in which sustainability is considers on several stages such as maintaining high quality soil, healthy crops and animal preservation in order to enhance ecological harmony. Experts say that the results of using such an approach in winemaking are wines of higher quality than when following the conventional approach of winemaking (Villanueva-Rey et al., 2014). However, this view is highly controversial.
Nevertheless, the target audience for bio wine is certainly there. People worldwide have become more environmentally and sustainability conscious and additionally also more health conscious. “Green” products especially in food and beverages are highly popular,
especially among the younger generations (Barber, 2012). It can therefore be argued, that bio and biodynamic winemakers do certainly have the audience, but there is still a lot to explore in terms of branding and marketing those bio products successfully. Winemakers do certainly not just place the bio certificate sticker on the wine label and are done with it, even tough Sarkar (2012) argues that many sustainable wine brands focus on the use of certification tags, labels and logos that signal their “green” credentials in order to boost their market share. However, Polansky and Mintu-Wimsatt (1995) claim that sustainable winemaking requires special marketing and branding efforts: reconsumption, redirecting and reorientation. Reconsumption is about reusing a product or it’s packaging, while reorientation includes repositioning, repackaging, relabeling and repositioning of products. Redirecting, the third sustainable strategy, takes consumers needs and wants of environmentally friendly products into account (Polansky and Mintu-Wimsatt, 1995). It will be interesting to find out whether or not bio wineries do follow certain marketing and branding strategies that clearly distinguish them from conventional wine brands.
What reasons are there to follow a bio or biodynamic approach as a winemaker first of all? How do wineries then differentiate their product from conventional wines? What kind of brand strategies do these wineries follow? Since especially the biodynamic method is a newer and trendier approach, one must assume that branding as well as marketing strategies will highly differ to conventional, incumbent wineries. This research gap will be interesting to investigate with the expertise and knowledge of 10 wineries (5 conventional and 5 bio/biodynamic wineries) in Austria. Against this background and emerging issues, this study seeks to answer the following research question:
conventional wineries?
As this in depth literature review showed, issues like the climate change and the rise of the New world wine countries, which are superior in marketing and branding compared to Old world wineries, lead European winemakers to major decisions about their nature of viticulture as well as how they identify their brand and what brand and marketing strategies to pursue. This is why sustainable winemaking should be researched in correlation with branding, particularly from a supplier side. This research will attempt to answer the previously stated research question by the use of the five resulting propositions, which are based on theory presented in the literature review: P1: The nature of viticulture chosen by wineries has a direct influence on their branding approach Brand Strategy: P2: Conventional wineries follow a place-based strategy P3: Bio and Biodynamic wineries follow a brand personality strategy Brand Identity: P4: Conventional wine brands are more traditional, classic, sophisticated P5: Bio and Biodynamic wine brands are more innovative, bold, and modern
Chapter 3: Research Design & Methodology
This section will present the research methodology, which will first of all introduce the research design and strategy chosen to efficiently answer the research question and support the propositions stated above. Furthermore, the unit of analysis will be described as well as the sample and data collection process. Lastly, the quality of this research and its limitations will be explained by highlighting which tools of qualitative research are used to ensure reliability and validity.
3.1. Research design & strategy
The aim of this research is to examine wine branding from a supplier perspective and shed light on how vintners approach branding with a great focus on the differences between conventional and bio wineries. As prior studies have not compared these natures of viticulture with regards to branding, this thesis follows a very explorative research approach, which helps to gain new knowledge about the subject while retaining flexibility for intermediate adaptations (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2009). This exploratory research design is accompanied by descriptive research since existing journal articles were searched to find general information on branding and explanations on differences in bio and conventional viticulture.
Qualitative research can provide descriptions and understanding for social processes in real-life contexts (Gephart, 2004) and especially a case study is a form of qualitative research
strategy that allows insight into the dynamics of specific settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). Therefore a multiple case study was conducted to expose a variety of branding strategies among different vintners of unalike viticultures. Multiple case studies do not only offer a stronger base to build theory than single case studies (Yin, 1994) but are appropriate for this paper since they allow a broader exploration of the research question (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The empirical basis for this thesis consists of 10 case studies from 10 different wineries.
Secondary data was used to find existing literature on the single elements of the research question while expert interviews were conducted to build theory about the differences in branding among these viticultures, which is why an inductive research approach was chosen. Semi-structured interviews with 5 bio and 5 conventional winemakers in Austria were held, to give respondents the opportunity to be the experts and inform the research (Leech, 2002). In this type of interviews questions are predetermined by the interviewer, who usually also creates an interview guide to give the dialogue some sort of structure and make sure all interviewees are asked the same questions. However, semi-structured interviews are also more flexible and consist of open-ended questions, which allow both the interviewer and the interviewee to mention and explore additional issues related to the conversation that come to mind spontaneously (Doody and Noonan, 2013).
This form of interviewing was very suitable to find answers to this paper`s research question, since it gave vintners the flexibility to additionally tell their stories of origin and future plans, which are all directly related to their brand identity and strategy, even tough not included as specific questions in the interview guide. (For the interview guide see Appendix)
3.2. Unit of analysis
The research area was narrowed down geographically to one country, which as already mentioned is Austria. The units of analysis in this research are therefore 5 conventional and 5 bio wineries in Austria (see table 1). However, Austrian wineries were not only chosen for logistical convenience because it is the home country of the author but it shows characteristics that make it an interesting wine country for this study. For instance, in 2012 Austria had the second highest share of agricultural land under organic management within Europe (USDA foreign agricultural service, 2014) and an article from the BIO Web of conferences stated that in 2014 already 10% of Austria`s total cultivated vineyard surface consisted of organic viticulture, which made it number one in Europe, followed by Italy with 6,8% and France with 6% (Rosner et al., 2015). This suggests that Austrians are in favour of green products and are eager to shift their viticulture to a more sustainable state, which already today offers a great choice of organic, bio and biodynamic wineries as well as conventional ones to select as cases for this study.
Furthermore, it was important to pick an Old World wine country for this study, since as mentioned before, research suggests that the Old World`s avoidance and lack of branding and marketing activities gives the New World a huge competitive advantage on international markets (Roberto, 2011). Therefore, studying Austrian wineries will help understand this suggestion and explain why Old World countries are said to be weaker in regards to branding.
Table 1 – Wineries that are part of the empirical study Bio Wineries: Conventional Wineries: Pittnauer (http://www.pittnauer.com/launch/login.php) Schwarz (http://www.schwarz-weine.at/en/home.html) Heinrich (http://www.heinrich.at/en/) Markowitsch (http://www.markowitsch.at) Renner (http://www.rennerundsistas.at/en/) Pöckl (http://www.poeckl.at) Hillinger (https://www.leo-hillinger.com/en) Reeh (http://www.hannesreeh.at) Gut Oggau (http://www.gutoggau.com) Grassl (http://www.weingut-grassl.com) 3.3. Sample and data collection process As the author of this paper has been working in the wine industry, the process of selecting and contacting respondents has been simplified. 16 wineries that were perceived as having interesting brands and most expertise in their fields have been contacted via e-mail and phone and introduced to the topic of research. 13 of these wineries responded, while 10 accepted to give a face-to-face interview. 3 wineries did respond, however it was not possible to find a date and time for the meeting. Ultimately, 10 wineries have been selected as case studies.
5 of these wineries have deliberately decided not to restructure their viticulture to bio practices, while the other half have changed to bio winemaking within the ten previous
years. Reviewing existing literature merely explained which practices and regulations both types of viticulture follow, however experts gave real insight why a specific nature of viticulture is chosen and how it affects their brand. All the interviewees were the vintners themselves and therefore owners of the winery, which ensures credibility, as they are basically the wine brand themselves and possess the most knowledge about their vineyards, production processes and marketing and branding efforts.
Each interview lasted between 20 minutes and 1 hour including 10 questions, covering topics about their choice of viticulture, target group, packaging, label designs, brand name, brand associations among other issues that arose by semi-structured open ended questions. All of the interviews were conducted at the specific winery and with the consent of the interviewees an audio program was used to record the conversations, which have been helpful to transcribe each interview. One of the ten interview partners did not want to be recorded, which is why in this case extensive notes were taken and afterwards the transcript was sent to the vintner, in order to get approval that everything was written down correctly. (The transcripts are to be found in the appendix.) Lastly, an important fact to keep in mind is that in eight of these wineries the vintner himself is taking care of marketing and branding activities, while only two of the selected wineries has employed somebody for the position of a marketing manager. 3.4. Quality of research This research is valid and reliable, since information was collected trough multiple sources. Interview questions were based on theory from the previous in depth literature review and to ensure that the questions were understandable and would lead to the information
needed, a pilot run was made with one vintner (excluded from the analysis). The transcribed interviews were sent to each respondent for approval and to make sure all information given was correct and accurate. Combining reviewed secondary data on the general framework of the topic and expert insights enhanced the reliability of the information presented in this research. Saunders et al. (2009) call the combination of different data collection techniques within one study “triangulation”, and suggest that it helps to increase validity. The usage of open-ended questions in the interviews similarly enhanced the validity of this research as they helped to gather rich and in-depth data for analysis (Doody and Noonan, 2013). However, this study too comes with limitations as the case study merely focuses on one geographic wine region, which is Austria. Moreover, this research is limited to wineries that are small family-sized businesses. Larger wineries would most probably differ in their branding and marketing efforts due to a higher budget available for such activities. Future research could expand this study to different countries and wineries of different sizes, especially since winemaking depends on climate and soil, which both influence the nature of winemaking and could further be interesting to detect differences in branding.
Since this research is about brand identity and strategy in the wine industry, a great share of the interview questions included talking about the vintner`s choice of wine label designs and marketing efforts, which is why most of the respondents also showed and explained ideas for wine labels for the upcoming vintage. However, although confidentiality was promised and anonymity ensured to the interviewees especially about certain topics related to future plans, all the participating vintners stated that neither confidentiality nor anonymity was important to them and that all the information mentioned and recorded during the interview can be of public knowledge, especially since they were aware of the purpose and scope of this research.
In conclusion, this study aims to explore how conventional and bio wineries differ in their branding approach by using a multiple case study with semi-structured expert interviews. The inductive research approach will help to create new theory about the unexplored topic within the wine industry and help understand how the direction a winemaker chooses with regards to the nature of viticulture directly affects his brand identity and strategy.
Chapter 4: Data analysis
The gathered information will be thematically coded in order to analyse it. Seidel and Kelle (1995) suggest that coding is about noticing relevant phenomena, as well as collecting examples of those and analyse them to find commonalities, differences, patterns and structures. Eisenhardt (1989) described two stages of qualitative data analysis, which are within-case analysis and cross-case patterns, which can be used separately or coupled. The within-case analysis shall help to become familiar with the data of each case (Eisenhardt, 1989), which is why the author first of all screened through the interview transcripts one by one. Afterwards a cross-case comparison was made and notes were taken to attempt to find patterns, similarities and differences. Furthermore, secondary data discussed in the literature review section was used to create categories, however to not overlook anything and run the danger to come to false conclusions it was necessary to structurally organize the data. For this purpose a software for qualitative data analysis, called Nvivo, was used separating the data into categories and exploring connections between common themes. After coding the collected data it was compared and interpreted. This led to results,
presented in the next section of this paper, which includes interviewee quotations to exhibit which specific data revealed the most important similarities and differences between conventional and bio winemakers and their branding approach.
Chapter 5: Results
5.1. General characteristics of the wineries Table 2 lists the 10 wineries included in the study, their years of foundation, the location of the winery, their exact nature of viticulture and the vintner who gave the interview, since in many wineries its married couples, or parents and children, who together manage the winery.Table 2 – Information about wineries of the empirical study Bio Wineries: Conventional Wineries: Pittnauer Brigitte Pittnauer Bio/Organic & Biodynamic Winery since 1992 Location: Gols, Burgenland Schwarz Michael Schwarz Conventional Winery since 1999 Location: Andau, Burgenland Heinrich Gernot Heinrich Bio/Organic & Biodynamic Winery since 1985 Location: Gols, Burgenland Markowitsch Christine Markowitsch Conventional Winery since 1990 Location: Göttlesbrunn, Burgenland Renner Susanne and Stefanie Renner Bio/Organic Winery since 2015 Location: Gols, Burgenland Pöckl Eva Pöckl Conventional Winery since 1984 Location: Mönchhof, Burgenland Hillinger Leo Hillinger Bio/Organic Winery since 1990 Location: Jois, Burgenland Reeh Hannes Reeh Conventional Winery since 2007 Location: Andau, Burgenland Gut Oggau Eduard Tscheppe & Stefanie Eselböck Biodynamic Winery since 2007 Location: Oggau, Burgenland Grassl Philip Grassl Conventional Winery since 1982 Location: Göttlesbrunn, Burgenland
As stated in table 2, all the ten wineries selected for the case studies are located in the province Burgenland. In general, Austria is separated into nine provinces, from which four are the main wine regions of Austria: Styria, Lower Austria, Burgenland and Vienna (Österreich Wein Marketing Gmbh, 2017). It was intentional to solely choose wineries from Burgenland, due to logistical reasons and time constraints. All these wineries sell their wine locally as well as internationally. They differ in size and volumes of production, however in general these are small till medium sized wineries, except of the winery Hillinger, which is one of the biggest and well-known wineries in Austria. Most of these winemakers started off by inheriting vineyards from their parents, while the vintners from the winery Gut Oggau bought their vineyards and cellar from a woman without descendants.
The interviews started with the interviewees telling their stories of how and why they became vintners. Several of them were born into the wine business and took the winery over when their parents retired. Some of them, like in the winery Schwarz and Rennersistas, the vintners work side by side with their parents. Not all of them were always passionate about wine and the wine business. Stefanie Eselböck from the winery Gut Oggau, studied Hospitality and Photography before she married Eduard Tscheppe, whose parents run a winery in Styria. They both decided to enter the wine industry and bought a winery in Oggau. Philip Grassl wanted to be an architect, while Susanne Renner worked in fashion before. However, what all of them do have in common is a connection to wine through their families. As table 2 shows, five of the wineries follow a conventional winemaking approach, while the winery Hillinger and the winery Rennersistas cultivate their vineyards bio-organically. The wineries Pittnauer and Heinrich are both bio and biodynamic, while Gut Oggau solely conducts a biodynamic viticulture. The differences between bio-organic and
biodynamic viticulture as well as why some of the vintners chose the allegedly more sustainable approaches, will be discussed in the next sections. 5.2. Reasons to shift to bio & biodynamic viticulture As stated in the first preposition of this paper, it was claimed that the nature of viticulture a winery chooses to conduct, directly influences its branding approach. Therefore it was important to question why a winery chooses certain types of winemaking, to find out what lies beyond the mere argumentation that one is more sustainable than the other.
“Many other winemakers say that they are working bio as well but it’s too expensive for them to get certified. All those certifications are pretty expensive and take a while, cause it’s a bureaucratic thing. You get controlled regularly. Of course it’s an extra workload.” (Susanne Renner, Rennersistas – Bio/Organic) The interviews highlighted the fact that bio and biodynamic viticultures come with certain legal regulations a vintner has to fulfil. Not only more input from the vintner is needed but it also constitutes an extra cost. Certain preparations and instruments that are needed are expensive and the amount of time that is required from the vintner to research, read and learn certain processes needs to be taken into consideration too. Especially biodynamic viticulture, which even goes a step further than bio-organic winemaking, requires more time and patience.
“This method requires way more time and work than conventional or bio viticulture. You need to deal with conditions of nature much more and closer.
Especially with plant protection, you have to react much more attentive and act prophylactic.” (Gernot Heinrich, Winery Heinrich – Bio/Organic & Biodynamic)
Bio and Biodynamic viticulture has been highlighted to be a much more sustainable approach than conventional winemaking, however it comes with its negative aspects, as more time and financial resources are needed to actually do it right. It was questioned why these five wineries still made the big step and shifted their nature of viticulture and incurred these drawbacks that come with it.
“Biodynamic viticulture is not about following and doing things because somebody once said its good for the soil and the plants. It’s about the gut feeling that it’s good what you are doing. It’s a lot about your own intuition.” (Gernot Heinrich, Winery Heinrich – Bio/Organic & Biodynamic)
It turns out that vintners described the step to shift to bio-organic winemaking mostly related to not wanting to use synthetical chemicals and pesticides anymore and instead work with copper and sulphur which are more environmentally friendly. Biodynamics however, goes beyond that environmental consciousness to a much more emotional level. Several biodynamic techniques have been described to the author in all interviews and many of these methods go to a very spiritual, maybe even esoteric level. Wine in the tanks gets stirred into certain directions, crystals and cow dirt are being stuffed into cow horns and buried underground at vineyards, the harvesting date is being arranged considering the moon calendar and plants are being treated with chamomile tea instead with chemicals. All in all, this sounds pretty magical and is therefore not the right path for every vintner, who
has to believe and be convinced that these methods make sense and are good for their vineyards.
“With the biodynamic viticulture we do a lot of things much more traditionally, like our ancestors, compared to what the conventional winemakers do. You also cannot push any vintner to shift there because it needs a certain consciousness and attitude. Ok the bio vintners do not use chemical fertilizers anymore but you can’t push them to go with a certain mind-set and spirit through their vineyards, because either you have that mind-set or you don’t have it.” (Brigitte Pittnauer, Winery Pittnauer - Bio/Organic & Biodynamic)
“Biodynamics is basically back to the roots. In the past people always oriented themselves after the sun and the moon. The “Bauernweisheiten” (country lores) depend on that. And there are even days when the wine tastes better or worse, interestingly also depending on the moon calendar. It always depends on the cosmos and how the planets are aligned.” (Stefanie Renner, Rennersistas – Bio/Organic)
People tend to claim that conventional winemaking is the more traditional approach, because bio and biodynamics are newer, however actually bio and especially biodynamic viticulture is far more similar to what our ancestors have done in their vineyards. For instance, the immense focus on nature and protecting the vineyards by doing more tasks manually comes very close to what winemakers were doing over generations. Only few
decades ago have vintners started to spray around chemical fertilizers so the plants would not get sick. As this approach reduced risk and ensured a higher amount of yields, people were choosing this less environmental friendly method without thinking of the consequences.
Many vintners that the author talked to, also outside of the official cases for empirical research, have claimed that several wineries also shifted to bio-organic viticulture or even biodynamics, solely because today`s bio trend allows to market their wines better. However, since it requires so much input and commitment, it certainly can be said that shifting for these reasons will not turn out to be successful. “I think many shifted to bio and biodynamics for their image and because it’s a trend good for marketing. It only makes sense to me if it fits to the vintners. Are they actually interested in the environment and sustainability? Are they living like that?” (Eva Pöckl, Winery Pöckl – Conventional) “No, if you only do it for the market, then you are not doing it well and it wont work out. Because you have to do it for yourself, and believe that what you are doing with your vineyards makes sense. Since especially biodynamic winemaking is an additional work, input and cost , and you have to know why you are doing it.” (Susanne Renner, Rennersistas – Bio/Organic) “I didn’t want to market my products related to the bio trend. It’s not about communicating that we are bio. It’s about your attitude towards life. It makes no sense to eat bio products at home and then I go into my vineyard and
spray pesticides and chemicals. Makes no sense.” (Leo Hillinger, Winery Hillinger – Bio/Organic)
Findings indicate that bio and biodynamic vintners take cultivating their vineyards very personally and they shifted to these methods primarily for personal fulfilment. Their hearts and minds are connected to what they are doing and lots of thoughts and emotions are invested in their work. This would imply that their approach to branding and marketing resides on a similar level.
“We wanted to increase quality even more. The approach is just very different; the sensory dimension is being added basically. Because you reach a point once, where you say I can’t do anymore in the production and actually I want to reach more sensory depth in taste and that’s why we entered this next dimension. You approach things on a different level, also mentally and spiritually, not only on the natural scientific level.” (Gernot Heinrich, Winery Heinrich – Bio/Organic & Biodynamic) 5.3. Reasons to stick to conventional viticulture Overall, findings show no clear conclusion which approach to viticulture is the best method. However, a study conducted in Germany has compared bio-organic, biodynamic and conventional viticulture and found that there actually are essential differences in root growth and the habitus of the plant (Heinrich, 2017). The previous section showed the results found regarding why vintners shifted to bio and biodynamic viticultures and what makes these methods special. However, five vintners that were interviewed know about the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of these methods, but decided to remain a
conventional winery. One of the main reasons for that seemed to be the need for security. As mentioned before, the bio approaches to winemaking are both more risky and vintners who want to ensure to get their yields are staying conventional. “We are producing a lot and conventional winemaking is connected with less risk. We actually haven’t thought about shifting because it works well how we are doing it now.” (Christine Markowitsch, Winery Markowitsch – Conventional)
“On the paper we are conventional, but actually we are 90% bio. We are working very manually in the vineyards and don’t use any pesticides. But we never wanted to get certified as a bio winery. Because the main problem is, when you are certified you are in the circle and can’t get out anymore. Then you have to comply these certain criteria and follow requirements. And in general the loss rate is much higher in bio viticulture. And the thing is you have bills to pay, employees to pay and so on. That’s why I do bio as long as it works and when I see that the weather conditions are or will get bad, then I do IP and use synthetical sprays. I wanna be safe, no risk, but as long as the weather conditions are good and I feel comfortable then I am also going for bio.” (Philip Grassl, Winery Grassl – Conventional)
It turns out that conventional winemaking is a safer way of doing wine business, mostly chosen due to financial obligations. The legal requirements and guidelines that have to be fulfilled by a bio or biodynamic winery also seem to be dissuasive, since that aspect has been mentioned several times in the interviews, with both conventional, bio and biodynamic
vintners. Others were not fully convinced with some methods used in the bio and biodynamic viticulture, like certain materials being applied in the vineyards. “We even considered to shift to bio or biodynamic, but one aspect is a no go for me. I do not like to use copper to spray, because I don’t think its good for the environment. For us its important to spray as little as possible and also to drive through the vineyard as little as possible, to protect the soil. Because for me it makes no sense if a biodynamic vintner has to spray more often with his homeopathic preparations so the plants might stay healthy and needs to drive through much more, than we do. In that sense, we are more sustainable as conventional vintners. You also always have to consider the soil consolidation.” (Eva Pöckl, Winery Pöckl – Conventional)
A major difference between those viticultures is what is used to spray on the plants for protection. In conventional winemaking usually chemical-synthectical sprays are used while in bio viticulture copper or sulphur are applied. In biodynamic winemaking on the other hand, chamomile tea or certain homeopathic preparations are used, since a major part of this approach is that the plant gets strong power of resistance. However, in general there is no right or wrong way and the sustainable aspect of these approaches is still a highly controversial topic.
Eva Pöckl, was not the only one pointing out that conventional winemaking can even be more sustainable in some aspects. Michael Schwarz was highlighting in the interview that there is not only conventional winemaking, but conventional vintners who follow an approach called IP, Integrated Plant Protection, which still allows the use of
chemical-synthetical sprays, however the vintner uses it more carefully and only when required for certain weather conditions.
“Its also a controversial topic, that in bio viticulture the copper is not as easy degradable. I think overall it is important to make a total ecological footprint of your winery and work in a sustainable way.” (Michael Schwarz, Winery Schwarz – Conventional)
Besides the discussion, which of these viticultures is actually the right choice in terms of sustainability, interviewees also pointed out that it always depends on the vintner’s personality, his character and attitude towards life in general. Conventional vintners exhibited a more conservative and down-to-earth attitude with a more market-oriented tactic, while bio and especially biodynamic vintners seemed to wanting to go deeper. These vintners featured attributes that were more sensitive, reflective and spiritual. These bio approaches appeared to be more focused on nature, the wine product itself and its different facets, than merely producing a product that many people like. That is why many bio and biodynamic vintners also produce “Natural wines”, which are wines made without much interference from the vintner. They do not add or do anything to the grapes while they are in the cellar, with the exception of sulphur in some cases.
“They taste very special. It’s a niche product, not something for everybody. You cannot say tough that bio and biodynamic wines taste better or are better in quality than conventional wines. I rarely taste the difference, except they are natural wines of course. Overall it’s a very personal thing and it’s
about the vintners stylistic.” (Michael Schwarz, Winery Schwarz – Conventional)
Overall, it can be said that both bio and biodynamic wineries, whether they create natural wine or not, produce wine that mostly attracts a niche market, not the mass-market consumer.
“The biodynamic product is afflicted with emotion. The biodynamics are pretty special and freaky in a very small circle and produce niche products. It’s actually the niche of the niche. Cause bio already is a niche. Overall, for me it doesn’t matter if conventional, bio or biodynamic, a really good vintner knows how important soil is and isn’t going to destroy it with herbicides. Whatever chemicals you use, you know where the balance and the limits are. “(Philip Grassl, Winery Grassl – Conventional)
Overall, findings show that there are many reasons why a vintner chooses to shift to bio or biodynamic viticulture, whereas there are similarly many reasons to stick to conventional winemaking. Among other things it also depends on the consumer that is targeted, if it is a niche or a mass-market wine consumer. In the end however, since winemaking is such a personal profession, it all depends on the vintner and his character and attitude. The chosen path of making wine, has to fit to a vintners personality, otherwise it wont be an effective way of doing wine business.
“Regarding the biodynamics, I do believe in the moon, but there are many other aspects I do not believe in. And I think if I don’t believe in it, its not the right way for me anyway.” (Michael Schwarz, Winery Schwarz – Conventional) 5.4. Brand Identity of Bio & Biodynamic Wineries The topic „Branding“ first seemed to be a little daunting to be discussed in the interviews, since most vintners in Austria are not using the term on a regular basis, which does not mean that wine branding is not a crucial aspect of the business for them. Another definition than the one given in the literature review explains a brand as follows:
“The ingredients of a brand are the product itself, the packaging, the brand name, the promotion, the advertising and the overall presentation.” (Murphy, 1988, p.4) To investigate wine branding more deeply the concepts “Brand Identity” and “Brand Strategy” were chosen for this paper. To clarify the term Brand Identity once more, Aaker (1997) has described it as “a unique set of brand associations that a brand strategist aspires to create or maintain”, while several authors have pointed out that packaging plays a crucial role in building brand identity (Keller, 1993) and vintners can therefore do so by incorporating certain elements into their wine label, so understanding of the brand on the consumer side can be increased and therefore the relationship to the consumer (Underwood, 2003).
Hence, wine labelling, as well as the creation of logo and brand name were discussed in depth during the interviews. Wine branding in general was discussed as well and why it is such a special matter, compared to brands of other beverages like beer. One of the interview questions was about why in general beer brands are more linked in the consumers’ minds than wine brands. Bio and biodynamic vintners for the most part believe
