A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: A New Zealand case

              Vol. 6 Nº 2 págs. 231-247. 2008
Special Issue – Número Especial
www.pasosonline.org
© PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural. ISSN 1695-7121
A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes:
A New Zealand case
Angela McDonnell i
C. Michael Hall ii
University of Canterbury (New Zealand)
Abstract: In an increasingly competitive market to attract visitors, wineries are often seeking new means
to enhance the visitor experience. However, despite recognition of the importance in the wine tourism
literature of the setting in which wine experiences occur there has been little adoption of the servicescape
concept from the marketing literature and its adoption as a potential diagnostic tool. The paper utilizes
the concept to develop a potential diagnostic tool that may be used by wineries and cellar door venues to
evaluate their servicescape attributes. Preliminary results are provided which demonstrate the utility of
the servicescape framework but further research is required to test the framework in different culture and
design settings.
Keywords: Servicescape; New Zealand; Wine tourism; Cellar door
Abstract: En mercados cada vez más competitivos, donde se intentan captar mayores cuotas de deman-da,
las bodegas buscan a menudo nuevas formas de realzar las experiencias de los visitantes. Sin embar-go,
a pesar del reconocimiento de la importancia en la literatura del constructo "turismo del vino" y "ex-periencias
del visitante", el ajuste entre éstas últimas y el nuevo concepto de interacción social (services-cape)
como herramienta potencial de diágnóstico ha tenido poca atención en la literatura del marketing.
El papel que utiliza el concepto comentado para desarrollar un instrumento de diagnóstico potencial,
debería ser usado por las bodegas y distribuidoras para evaluar los atributos de ésta llamada "interacción
social". Los resultados preliminares proporcionan y demuestran la utilidad del marco conceptual de la
"interacción social", pero se requiere de investigaciones adicionales en diferentes culturas y entornos, así
como ajustes de diseño del mismo.
Keywords: Relación comida versus bebida; Picante; Pizza; Diferencias de género
i • Angela McDonnell. Department of Management. University of Canterbury. Christchurch (New Zealand). E-mail:
angelakevin@inspire.net.nz
ii • C. Michael Hall Department of Management. University of Canterbury. Christchurch (New Zealand). E-mail:
michael.hall@canterbury.ac.nz
232 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
Introduction
Wine is an increasingly important part
of the New Zealand rural economy. The
number of wineries in New Zealand has
increased from 262 in 1997 to 543 in 2007
with the number of tonnes crushed growing
from 60,000 tonnes to 205,000 tonnes over
the same period and further growth ex-pected
to continue in the foreseeable future.
This has meant that total production has
also grown from 45.8 million litres in 1997
to 147.6 million in 2007 (New Zealand
Winegrowers 2007). However, the per capi-ta
consumption of wine in New Zealand has
only marginally increased over the same
period, meaning that wineries are constant-ly
seeking to expand their export base
and/or increase the amount of domestic
consumption.
This is being done via a variety of mar-keting
techniques and promotional chan-nels,
including, for larger companies, tele-vision,
magazine and other forms of media
advertising as well as event sponsorship.
However, the vast majority of New Zealand
wineries are small producers by interna-tional
standards (Hall and Mitchell 2008).
For example, of the 543 wineries that ex-isted
in the country in 2007, 483 of them
produced less than 200,000 litres each and
only nine produced more than two million
litres (New Zealand Winegrowers 2007).
This has meant, therefore, that the wine
market is extremely competitive and that
wineries are often looking for new avenues
of sale such as direct sales from the wine-ries,
what is widely referred to as cellar
door sales or wine tourism. However, while
there is a growing literature on wine tour-ism
as well as business and industry inter-est
in the subject, the way in which the
physical aspects of the wineries themselves
contribute to the overall marketing of their
product has been little studied, even
though ‘atmosphere’ for example, is recog-nized
as a significant factor in the cellar
door experience (Hall et al. 2000; Carlsen
and Charters 2006; Mitchell and Hall
2006). Therefore, this article aims to devel-op
a potential framework for the evaluation
of what is defined in the marketing litera-ture
as the ‘servicescape’, the physical evi-dence
of service in wineries and its poten-tial
value as a diagnostic tool.
The paper is divided into several sec-tions.
First, it provides a background to
wine tourism in New Zealand. Second, it
discusses the servicescape context in light
of research on wine tourism. Third, it
presents the methodology for the develop-ment
of the servicescape framework and
then goes on to discuss its application. Fi-nally,
the paper draws some preliminary
findings as to its application.
Wine Tourism in New Zealand
The New Zealand Ministry of Tourism
(2007) defines wine tourists as internation-al
and domestic visitors, aged 15 years and
over, who visit a winery at least once while
travelling in New Zealand. Tourists who
visit multiple wineries in a single area or
visit a single winery on more than one oc-casion
are counted only once. However, the
Ministry approach does not count residents
of an area who visit a winery within their
‘local area’ as a wine tourist. Unfortunate-ly,
what exactly constituted a local area
was not defined in the report. Therefore,
Ministry figures understate the actual fre-quency
of winery visitation among New
Zealand residents and, to a lesser extent,
international tourists when in comparison
to other New Zealand research on the sub-ject
(Mitchell and Hall 2006; Hall and Mit-chell
2008).
Using data derived from the interna-tional
and domestic tourism surveys the
Ministry of Tourism (2007) estimated that
in 2006 507,500 tourists visited New Zeal-and
wineries, made up of 44% international
tourists and 56% domestic tourists (includ-ing
those on overnight and day trips).
They estimated that the number of in-ternational
tourists visiting wineries in-creased
from 108,500 visitors in 2001 to
224,700 visitors in 2006, an annual average
growth rate of 16%. In contrast, the num-ber
of domestic wine tourists was estimated
to have declined from 532,400 visitors in
2001 to 282,800 in 2006. The Regional
Tourism Organisation (RTO) areas which
attracted the greatest number of interna-tional
wine tourists over the 2005/2006
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 233
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
period were Marlborough (an average of
45,300 wine visitors per year, or 22% of all
international wine visitors), Hawke’s Bay
(40,100, 19%), and Auckland (34,600, 16%).
These market shares were relatively con-sistent
over the period 2001-2006 and the
numbers were estimated to have grown in
line with the total (Ministry of Tourism
2007).
In contrast to the use of secondary sur-vey
data by the Ministry of Tourism, a na-tional
survey of wineries with respect to
their utilization of wine tourism as part of
their business practices was conducted in
1997/98 (Hall and Johnson 1998) and re-peated,
with minor modifications, in 2003/4
(Christensen et al. 2004). The survey was
the first national level survey of the supply
of the wine tourism product conducted in
the world and produces some distinctly
different results when compared to those
obtained by other surveys as the focus is on
visits rather than individual visitor activi-ty.
The sample population for each survey
was the total number of wineries in the
country.
Wineries reported that wine tourism is
important in terms of:
• enhancing product/brand awareness
• helping to differentiate one wineries
wine from another
• helping to develop mail order sales
• and, in the 2003 survey only, helping to
educate customers.
Wineries share a strong belief that wine
tourism enhances product/brand aware-ness,
with those either agreeing or strongly
agreeing with this statement totalling
72.4% in 1997 and 73.2% in 2003 while
almost half favour wine tourism's role in
differentiating their wine from another
wineries, In 2003, 54.2% supported a
statement that wine tourism was impor-tant
for mail order sales growth. In general
wineries believed that tourism provided
them with significant marketing opportuni-ties.
Other research also supports the value
of tourism to New Zealand wineries (e.g.
Hall, Longo et al. 2000; Mitchell and Hall
2001a, 2001b, 2004, 2006; Simpson et al.
2004). However, while the potential signi-ficance
of winery or cellar door design and
atmosphere on wine tourists’ satisfaction
and potential long-term relationship with
wineries is noted, no analysis of the physi-cal
environment of the cellar door expe-rience
has been undertaken.
Servicescapes and the Cellar Door
Studies in New Zealand have found that
cellar door sales account for, on average,
around 15% to 20% of wine sales but there
is substantial variability in this figure with
the overall size of wine production being a
significant influence on the overall impor-tance
of wine tourism with cellar door sales
being more important for small producers
(Johnson and Hall 1998; Hall, Longo et al.
2000; Christensen et al. 2004). Usually
cellar door sales comprise a larger amount
of sales early in the development of a wine-ry
and are particularly important for the
smaller wineries, where there are examples
where more than 75% of revenue is gained
through the cellar door (Christensen et al.
2004; Mitchell and Hall 2006). Hall and
Mitchell (2008) state that one winery in
New Zealand reported that just one bottle
of their Reserve Pinot sold at the cellar
door gave them the same return as seven
bottles of their normal Pinot Noir sold via
their New Zealand distributor, even though
the retail price for the reserve is only
around 2.5 times that of the normal Pinot.
Such direct sales can improve margins con-siderably
for wineries as payments to in-termediaries
and retailers take their share
for retail sales.
Drawing on lessons from the environ-mental
design, retail and marketing litera-ture
this paper takes the perspective that
the winery and cellar door space are part of
the overall packaging of wine as expe-rienced
by wine tourists. Product
attributes, packaging, display, retail at-mospherics,
and the physical environment
are nested inside each other to help gener-ate
sales, encourage the development of
relationships with customers and develop
positive experiences and customer satisfac-tion.
Literature on servicescapes (Bitner,
1986, 1990, 1992; Sherry 1998; Newman
2007) and retail atmospherics (Baker et al.,
1994, 1998, 2002) clearly associates the
environment with service quality.
“The servicescape is the physical setting
234 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
within which service occurs and which in-fluences
customers’ perceptions of the ser-vicescape
(perceived quality) and the sub-sequent
internal (i.e. degree of satisfaction)
and external (i.e. behaviour with respect to
patronage and purchase) response” (Hall
and Mitchell 2008: 179). The servicescape
is important for consumer experiences be-cause
this environment gives customers
and employees tangible and intangible
signs and signals about potential service
delivery. Hall and Mitchell (2008) stress
the importance of servicescapes for wine
sales but in the context of the retail setting
as opposed to the winery setting and cellar
door sales.
Bitner (1992) argues that the environ-ment
in which the service encounter and
experience are jointly produced between
customer and producer, i.e. the service-scape,
affects customer outcomes and expe-riences.
She distinguishes the interior ser-vicescape
which includes interior design,
equipment, signage and layout, from the
exterior servicescape which includes exte-rior
design, parking, the landscape, and the
surrounding environment. Although, as
Wels-Lips et al. (1997) note, it may be
worthwhile to restrict the servicescape
from a production standpoint to the mar-keting-
controlled environment, and to dis-tinguish
it from environmental influences
which are not marketing-controlled, such
as the weather.
Zeithaml, Bitner and Gremlerl (2006)
suggest that the physical evidence of a ser-vice,
or servicescape offers tangible com-munication
about the service provided.
Wineries can use the tangible cues of their
physical design and the interior and exte-rior
attributes of a winery and its environs
for visitors and customers to assess levels
of satisfaction, before, during and after
consumption. An example of how the ser-vicescape
may affect satisfaction before
consumption is through cues such as visual
and virtual images of winery layout, exter-nal
design and car parks.
Although the potential significance of
the environment in which the wine tourism
experience occurs is seen as significant for
the nature of that experience the role of the
servicescape has received only passing ac-knowledgement
(e.g. Dodd 1995; Dodd and
Bigotle 1997; Mitchell and Hall 2001a;
O’Neil et al. 2002) and little in-depth inves-tigation
(Hall and Mitchell 2008), with the
focus tending to be on the personal
attributes of the service encounter rather
than the tangible attributes of the winery.
This is despite recognition of the impor-tance
of the tangible evidence of service for
wineries. As O’Neil et al. (2002: 345) state,
“The cellar door is often the first contact
consumers have with a winery and its
wines. Therefore every aspect of the cellar
door (including layout, appearance and
staff) is of extreme importance. The cellar
door is unique in that it provides the visitor
with a complete profile of the winery and
its wines, and it is here that perceptions of
the winery are established”. Therefore,
gaining a better understanding of the ser-vicescape
may potentially assist wineries in
improving customer experiences as well as
providing opportunities for brand develop-ment
and customer relationship building.
Methodology
Given that no winery specific service-scape
framework had been developed, the
study utilized elements identified from
relevant wine tourism, wine marketing and
servicescape literature (e.g. Bitner 1992;
Wakefield and Blodgett 1996). A draft
framework was developed and pre-tested in
the field on several wineries so as to deter-mine
the applicability of servicescape di-mensions.
The final study was undertaken over a
three month period between August and
October 2007 and was used to assess the
servicescapes of 27 South Island wineries
in New Zealand. In several cases multiple
site visits were conducted so as to try and
ensure that non-controllable environmental
conditions such as the weather were consis-tent
over all the wineries that were eva-luated.
The wineries in this study included
eleven in the Canterbury region (including
Waipara and Kaikoura sub-regions) and
seventeen in the Marlborough region.
Wineries were selected so as to represent
different volumes of annual wine produc-tion
as well as architectural designs.
Research was undertaken via a form of
visual content analysis (CA). CA is an ob-
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 235
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
servational research method that is used to
systematically evaluate the actual and
symbolic content of all forms of communica-tion.
In addition to its application to rec-orded
communication CA is an increasingly
important element of hermeneutics and
semiotic analysis in critical social science
and in consumer studies (Aghuvia 2001;
Hall and Valentin 2005).
The framework used for the study of the
wineries initially had five dimensional sec-tions
that were categories derived from the
servicescape literature: physical external
and internal presentation; staff presenta-tion
and; ambience and merchandise, in
order to provide an overall picture of the on
site experience of each of the 27 wineries
visited. However, following field testing it
was decided to add a sixth element ‘Direct
and Indirect External Influences’ which,
although not necessarily including ele-ments
directly controlled by the winery, did
include material that was co-produced with
other organizations. In addition, identifica-tion
of this material may have broader im-plications
for the presentation of wine re-gions
or winery clusters to consumers.
Each section evaluated the physical
presentation of a range of servicescape di-mensions
of the winery and included sec-tions
on the following dimensions:
Section A: Physical Environment – Exter-nal
Presentation. Aspects of the service-scape
that are often perceived on first
impression. The architecture of the
building, exterior signs, car parks paths
and access-ways can often provide a per-ception
of what the likely experience
outcome may be at each winery. The
condition of the paintwork, outdoor seat-ing
arrangements and landscape were
also evaluated.
Section B: Physical Environment – Inter-nal
Presentation. Including interior de-sign,
flow and colour. Condition of the
functional equipment was also eva-luated
along with the condition of the
paintwork, and housekeeping standards.
In this section, evidence of merchandis-ing
and design skill is examined on a
variable scale.
Section C: Staff Presentation. Includes uni-forms
and personal grooming as an im-portant
element of the servicescape and
one that can often be overlooked in the
overall impression of a servicescape
Section D: Interior and Exterior Ambient
Conditions. Includes evidence of shelter
and impact on the natural environmen-tal
setting of the servicescape. Also
some of the more intangible aspects
such as air temperature, noise, odour
are evaluated.
Section E: Prod-uct/
Merchandise/Brochures/Menus/Web
Pages A broader section that deals with
many of the items customers take with
them from the experience including the
wine bottle and label, wine carriers,
bags, souvenirs and brochures. This sec-tion
also includes an evaluative score for
the winery web page.
Section F: Direct and Indirect External
Influences on Servicescape. Includes ex-ternal
impact of other tangible and in-tangible
variables including information
provided by people external to the wine-ry
and tangible evidence such as maps,
magazines, events or brochures the
winery may be included in. Some of
these variables may be controllable if in-formation
flows are managed and con-trolled
by the winery. Other variables
such as weather conditions may not be
within control of the winery.
Scoring for the dimensions was ranked:
Very good –Excellent 7 – 10; Satisfactory –
Good; 4 – 6; and Poor 1 – 3. Spreadsheets
were also developed to provide results from
the servicescape framework score sheets for
each winery (Tables 1-6). An informal
‘wine log’ was also used also to assess each
winery and provide a brief commentary
summarising certain criteria identified in
the servicescape framework evaluation and
general perceptions and observations. This
was also done to achieve consistency in
approach to each winery. Similarly, obser-vations
and recording were typically done
by pairs of observers in order to reduce
impacts of personal bias.
236 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
Table 1 Section A-Physical Environment: External Presentation
Very Good - Excellent Satisfactory-Good Poor – Not applicable Total
Score
7-10 4-6 1-3
Architecture/Exterior
building design
Consistent style reflect-ing
wine brand or image
Inconsistent with wine
brand or image or mixed
architectural design
No architectural
design/inconsistent
with wine brand or
image
Car Parking Ample spaces/ close to
entrance/well paved or
sealed
Moderate amount availa-ble/
moderate walk to
entrance. Average paving
or sealing surface
Minimal spaces
available/long walk
to entrance/poor
paving or sealing
surface.
Signage on building
exterior/Fascia/
billboards
Excellent condition.
Clean.
Advertises business
name and/or products
accurately
Fair condition.
Advertises business
name and/or products
Poor condition. Ap-pears
rarely cleaned.
Fails to promote
business name and/or
products
Opening hours/other
notices
Opening hours sign dis-played
and in good con-dition.
Reflects current
trading hours.
Other relevant notices
displayed/ good condi-tion.
Current trading
Hours displayed. Most
other relevant notices on
display and in
reasonable condition
No opening hours
displayed. Notices in
poor condition or not
current
Paint-work/
Walls/window
frames
Clean. Excellent condi-tion.
Reasonable condition. Needs cleaning. In
poor repair.
Pavement
area/Doorways
No rubbish. Appears
regularly swept.
Door paintwork
good condition. Door
mats good condition.
Safety.
Appears swept as re-quired.
Door
paint work fair condition.
Door mats fair condition.
Not swept. Door
paintwork in Poor
condition. Door mats
in poor condition/
Rubbish
Access (for buggies
and wheelchairs where
appropriate)
Entrance designed for
safety for buggies,
wheelchairs and other
mobility devices.
Reasonably safe access
for buggies, wheelchairs
and other mobility devic-es.
Entrance unsuitable
for buggies. Wheel-chairs
and other mo-bility
devices.
Windows/exterior
window treatments.
Clean windows. Blinds
umbrellas/ awnings in
good condition - bright
and attractive.
Clean windows. Blinds
umbrellas/ awnings rea-sonably
clean and in
good condition
Dirty windows.
Blinds umbrellas
/awnings in poor
condition
Outdoor seating fur-nishing
and equipment
arrangement
Modern/style suits over-all
architecture of wine-ry/
well maintained.
No specific style to
match winery design or
architecture
/average condition.
Plastic or ugly furni-ture/
shabby poor
condition.
Window dis-plays/
promotions
Attractive display. Eye
catching from outside.
Promotes
products/prices/
service inside. Material
current.
Attempted eye catching
display. Tries to promote
products/prices/
service inside. Material
current.
Poor attempt at
window display.
Conflicting
messages/out of date
material.
External Lighting All lights either are or
appear in working order.
Lighting does or may
enhance exterior
Lighting either in or
appears to be in working
order but may not en-hance
outdoor area
Poor external light-ing/
apparent dark
areas
Overall impression of
exte-rior/
layout/design/land
scape
External presentation
creates highly
favourable impression.
Attracts interest and
looks inviting
Reasonable external
presentation likely to
attract and encourage
customers to enter
External presentation
of premises unlikely
to attract interest or
encourage customers
to enter
Total Score
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 237
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
Table 2 Section B - Physical Environment: Internal Presentation
Very good- Excellent Satisfactory -Good Poor – Not applicable Total
7-10 4-6 1-3 Score
Interior design/colour/
style/Furnishings
Professionally designed.
Conforming to high
quality distinctive de-sign/
consistency in style
and colour
Good quality/ consis-tency
in de-sign/
style/colour
No design/poor quali-ty/
confused
style/theme/colours
Interior light-ing/
fixtures and fit-tings
Good lighting for dis-plays
areas/in working
order/
Lighting creates bright
attractive image. High
quality fixtures and fit-tings
in good condi-tion/
conforming to high
standard of overall de-sign
Reasonable lighting for
displays/ fittings in
working order. Fixtures
and fittings of reasona-ble
quality, in good
condition/ in keeping
with and suitable for
overall style
Dim or unsuitable
Lighting for displays.
Fittings not in
working order.
Fixtures and fittings of
poor quality, in poor
condition or
unsuitable for
purpose. Too many
conflicting styles.
Functional Equip-ment/
cash regis-ters/
fridge
Excellent condition Average condition Poor condition/dirty
Clean functioning
Restrooms
Spotlessly clean with
ample toiletry supplies of
soap/toilet paper. Has
hand cloth/air drying
facility.
Reasonably clean.
Minimal spare toile-tries.
Dirty/no soap/no toilet
paper.
Housekeeping Winery retail area very
clean, tidy and well
maintained. Presents a
professional image.
Retail area reasonably
clean and tidy. Good
maintenance. Flooring
reasonably clean condi-tion.
Retail area poorly
cleaned or untidy. Poor
maintenance.
Dirty floors
Merchandising
and Product Display
Evidence of good
merchandising skills.
Retail interior used well
with balance and good
displays. Attractive pro-duct
presentation
Evidence of reasonable
merchandising skills.
Retail interior used
reasonably well. Most
shelves ‘faced-up’.
Limited gaps
Little or no evidence
of merchandising
skills. Poor use of
space. Unattractive
product display.
Scrambled merchandis-ing
Table décor/coverings Fresh flow-ers/
stylish/cutlery and
crockery style in keeping
with interior décor de-sign.
Clean fresh table
cloths/matching serviet-tes
Minimal table decora-tion/
dried flow-ers/
mismatched crock-ery/
cutlery/no table
cloths/moderately
clean/paper serviettes
No table decora-tion/
dirty
tables/cluttered/chipped
or dirty crockery/no
serviettes
Point of Pur-chase/
cellar door area
Well designed, attractive
and functional. Has
aesthetic appeal. unclut-tered
Practical design, un-cluttered.
Poor design. Cluttered.
Detracts or is mis-matched
with overall
appearance of rest of
the servicescape
238 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
Table 2 (cont.) Section B - Physical Environment: Internal Presentation
Very good- Excellent Satisfactory -Good Poor – Not applicable Total
7-10 4-6 1-3 Score
Layout and arrange-ment
of internal floor
space
Attractive. Has immedi-ate
impact/ distinctive
qualities that differenti-ate
it from other wineries
/ excellent spatial layout
Welcoming/ layout
planned to suit only
access or to maximise
occupancy
Austere or cluttered/
unattractive/no spatial
planning
Indoor/Outdoor flow Direct/excellent
flow/outside and inside
appear unified
Indirect/un-natural
flow/some unification
No flow/segregated
Artefacts/
Collectibles/
Artwork/
photos/Awards
Artistic /distinctive/
Integrates well with
overall theme/
excellent condition
Mixed theme/good
condition
None or cluttered or
austere/no relationship
with winery or theme
of winery/dirty
Total Score
Table 3 Section C-Staff Presentation
Very good- Excellent Satisfactory-Good Poor Total
7-10 4-6 1-3 Score
Uniforms Clean/tidy/colour coor-dinated/
branding
Clean/Tidy/colour
coordinated
No uni-form/
uncoordinated
Personal Grooming Impeccable/well
groomed/hair off face
Tidy Untidy
Total Score
Table 4 Section D - Interior and Exterior Ambient Conditions
Very good- Excellent Satisfactory-Good Poor Total
7-10 4-6 1-3 Score
Exterior Shelter Excellent shelter from
wind and sun. Integrates
with overall architectural
design of winery
Moderate shelter from
wind and sun
No or little shelter
Interior Temperature /
air quality
Comfortable Mostly comfortable Uncomfortable
/unpleasant/stuffy
Noise Comfortable Mostly comfortable Uncomfortable
/unpleasant
Music Suitable for atmosphere Mostly suitable Unsuitable
Odour Fresh/Pleasant Mostly pleasant Smoke/stuffy/musty/du
sty
Natural Environment /
Impact of winery on
setting
Surrounding environ-ment
has been consid-ered
in winery design
In keeping with sur-roundings
Not in keeping with
natural environment or
impacted in parts, ie
erosion, rubbish on
ground
Total Score
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 239
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
Table 5 Section E - Product/Merchandise/Brochures/Menus/Web Page
Very good- Excellent Satisfactory-Good Poor Total
7-10 4-6 1-3 Score
Wine Bottle/ Label Headline defines brand /
unique or distinctive / easy
to read / uncluttered layout,
copy and visuals / artistic
Fairly distinctive bottle
or label / easy to read /
ordinary looking lay-out,
copy and visuals
Non-distinctive
branding / cluttered /
bland layout, copy
and visuals
Wine Bottle Carrier Artistic / strong winery
branding/ packaging used as
an advertising medium
Modest winery brand-ing
/ easy to carry
Plain, no art
work/cheap looking
Merchandise in-cluding
Souve-nirs/
Gifts/ T-shirts/
Aprons
/Wine Glasses
Wide selection / tastefully
designed in keeping with
wine brand and image
Moderate selection /
generic branding with
no artistic flair
None or minimal
merchandise avail-able
/ unbranded
Brochures/
business
cards/price list
stationery
Informative / distinctive
winery branding and logos/
artistic/paper /easy to read /
good layout
Informative/ indistinct
winery branding and
logos/ordinary paper
Cluttered layout/no
clear branding/
unprofessional look-ing
Menu Clean and crisp presentation.
Excellent structure, easy to
read / distinctive winery
branding and logo / inte-grated
marketing communi-cation(
IMC)
Clean, tidy / good
structure, easy to read /
has winery logo or
branding /
not integrated with
other marketing com-munication
literature
Tatty looking menus /
not integrated with
other marketing
communication lit-erature
/ out of date /
hand written price
amendments
Web Page Design Easy to navigate website /
well designed / colourful /
(IMC)/distinctive branding /
informative / artistic head-line,
copy layout, visuals /
links provided
Easy to navigate / good
design / plain / some
branding / no links
Difficult to navigate /
Indistinct branding /
amateur looking
Total Score
240 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
Table 6 Section F - Direct/Indirect External Servicescape Influences
Very good- Excellent Satisfactory-Good Poor Total
7-10 4-6 1-3 Score
Tangible Directions
to Winery via Tour-ism
company /
Information Centres /
Maps
Clear and concise/ multi-national
signs and symbols
or diagrams. Distinctive
and defines brand. Unclut-tered
layout, copy and
visuals/artistic
Fairly clear instructions
that are reasonably easy
to read. A few symbols
and diagrams but ordi-nary
looking layout,
copy and visuals
Non-distinctive brand-ing
/ cluttered / bland
layout, copy and
visuals. No multi-national
symbols or
signs.
Regional or area
promotional activi-ties
/ trade fairs
Positively promote and
accurately represent or
inform desired market
image positioning of win-ery
Promotes winery but
does not represent actual
market position or image
of
No activities planned in
area or taken advantage
of by winery
Tourist or Travel
Agents/Bus o Tour
Operators own ser-vicescape
Professional appealing
image and brand associa-tion
positioned to com-plement
or enhance winery
image and branding
Average image brand
and image association.
No flair. May not match
winery visitor demo-graphic
Poor image and brand
association. Unprofes-sional
and unattractive
staff and premises. No
effort put into effec-tively
promoting win-ery
Environmental con-ditions
affecting
access – weather /
road signage
Easily accessible roads-wide
/ smooth tarseal sur-face
/ pleasant or interest-ing
scenery in-keeping
with winery design and
reflecting market position-ing
Average conditions –
road / signage / indistinc-tive
or uninteresting
scenery / average or
uncomfortable road jour-ney
/ reasonable road
signs
Adverse conditions,
poor road- potholes /
shingle surface / nar-row
no road signs /
scenery not in keeping
with image of winery /
Exposed and wind
gusts / steep grade road
Wine Retail outlets Professional looking ser-vicescape.
Staff trained in
product knowledge of
winery and wines in gen-eral.
Distinctive brand
displays and profiles.
Premises not outstanding
in presentation as a wine
outlet. Wine not attrac-tively
displayed or pro-filed.
Staff have only
generalised knowledge
of wine.
Untidy or cluttered
outlet. Wine boxes
used to display wine
with no brand profil-ing.
Staff have minimal
or no wine knowledge.
Results
Results are shown to illustrate the po-tential
of the approach with respect to
winery servicescape evaluation. The inten-tion
is to identify perceptual and empirical
dimensions of servicescapes rather than for
the evaluation to be used as ranking sys-tem.
Scores are provided for individual
wineries as well as observations with re-spect
to regional characteristics.
The wineries with the highest scores for
their physical external presentation in-cluded
Wither Hills, Nautilus and Allan
Scott with the lowest being Daniel Schus-ter,
Hintons, Bouldevines and Torlesse
(Tables 7 and 8).
Most wineries scored reasonably well in
areas of paintwork of exterior walls, win-dow
frames and door ways. Exterior sig-nage
and billboards were in general of a
high standard with the average signage
scoring 7.1. Many car parks were found to
be of a lower than expected standard in the
study in terms of aesthetic appeal and seal-ing
surfaces. The average score for car
parks was only 6.5.
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 241
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
Table 7 Physical Environment – Highest Scores
Physical Environment: External
Presentation
Allan
Scott
Wither
Hills Nautilus
Architecture/ext building design 10 10 7
Car parking 10 10 10
Signage on building
ext/fascia/billboard 10 10 9
Opening hours/other notices 9 8 10
Paintwork-walls/window frames 10 10 10
Pavement/doorways 10 10 10
Access for buggies/disabled 10 8 9
Windows/ext window treatments 10 10 9
Outdoor seating/equipment 10 10 10
Window displays/promotion 0 0 0
Ext lighting 10 10 7
Overall impression
ext/layout/design/landscape 10 10 9
Total 109 106 100
Table 8 Physical environment – lowest scores
Physical Environment: External Presenta-tion
Hintons
Daniel
Schuster Torlesse Bouldvines
Architecture/ext building design 1 7 7 6
Car parking 2 1 7 2
Signage on building ext/fascia/billboard 6 1 1 6
Opening hours/other notices 6 10 2 5
Paintwork-walls/window frames 7 5 5 8
Pavement/doorways 8 5 4 8
Access for buggies/disabled 5 1 8 2
Windows/ext window treatments 1 4 6 4
Outdoor seating/equipment 4 2 5 0
Window displays/promotion 0 1 1 4
Ext lighting 5 4 4 4
Overall impression
ext/layout/design/landscape 5 2 6 3
Total 50 43 56 52
The study also found that outdoor seat-ing
was an area of neglect for many wine-ries.
The average score was 6.9. This was
surprising given that, at the time of the
survey with the southern hemisphere
summer approaching, this was an area that
many wineries which depend on outdoors
elements to attract visitors could have been
expected to have invested in. Given its po-tential
significance in peak visitor periods
aesthetic appeal including seating should
be prioritised and addressed in winery
business plans.
Exterior lighting was also neglected by
some wineries and brought the average
score down to 6.3, but as many are not open
in the evenings that was an aspect given
minimal attention by many wineries.
The most dramatic observation made
was that less than a quarter of the wineries
surveyed paid attention to any form of ex-terior
window display or promotion. This
may be in part due to the design of the ac-tual
buildings, but also through lack of
understanding or skill in this area. Oppor-tunities
for promotional product or infor-
242 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
mation displays in exterior servicescapes
are numerous and could be integrated in
business promotional planning. Opportuni-ties
noted in this study included outdoor
seating areas where promotional informa-tion
could have been displayed on tables or
exterior billboards or windows. Incorporat-ing
aesthetically pleasing and subtle pro-motional
displays were apparently ignored
due to a general lack of planned display
space at most wineries.
With respect to internal presentation of
the physical environment, highest scores
were assigned to Wither Hills and Pegasus
Bay. Lowest scores went to Hintons, Wai-para,
Torlesse and Huia.
Allan Scott did not rate as highly for
physical internal presentations as they did
in their external.
The majority of wineries scored very
well on housekeeping standards with an
average of 8.2.
One particular forgotten area for most
wineries was that of table decoration. Even
wineries that had no restaurant or dining
facilities still had tables that could have
been decorated in some way with branded
table talkers, flowers or art pieces. The
minimalist austere look was prevalent. The
average score was only 3.4.
Display of artifacts and awards was also
inconsistent across the wineries. Renowned
wineries like Pegasus Bay, Wither Hills
and St Clair scored 10 marks and prided
themselves with almost ostentatious dis-plays
of their awards, while others like
Cloudy Bay, who are positioned as similar
in quality of wine and renown, were not as
ambitious to impress and had no awards on
display at all. Huia, also another similarly
positioned winery only scored 1. However,
it is possible that this may also reflect ele-ments
of a winery’s positioning with re-spect
to awards as well as branding.
Uniform scores varied amongst the
wineries from 0 at The Wineshed, Bould-vines,
Highcrest and Huia, to impeccable
representation at others scoring 10 at
Wither Hills, Cloudy Bay, Melton Estate,
Kaikoura Winery, Wairau River, Clifford
Bay, Framingham, Nautilus, Mahi and
Domaine. Matua Valley and Villa Maria
scored only 7 and 3. Interestingly, these
are large mass production wineries and
may be influenced more by their focus on
the production concept of marketing rather
Table 9 Physical Environment: Internal Presentation
Physical Environment: Inter-nal
Presentation Hintons Waipara
Pegasus
Bay Torlesse
Cloudy
Bay Huia
Wither
Hills
Interior design / colour/ style/
furnishings 1 3 10 3 10 4 10
Interior lighting / fixtures and
fittings 3 5 10 3 10 7 10
Functional Equipment / cash
registers / fridge 5 4 10 6 10 7 10
Clean functioning restrooms 6 3 10 0 10 0 10
Housekeeping standards 4 6 10 6 10 9 10
Merchandising and Product
Display 1 1 10 3 10 4 10
Table décor / coverings 2 5 5 3 0 0 10
Point-of-purchase / cellar door
area 1 2 10 4 10 5 10
Layout and arrangement of
internal floor plan 0 1 10 4 10 6 10
Indoor / outdoor flow 2 7 5 9 10 1 10
Artifacts / collectibles / artwork /
photos / awards 1 3 10 3 0 1 10
Total 26 40 100 44 90 44 110
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 243
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
than a customer focused marketing con-cept.
Personal grooming at most of the wine-ries
was of a high standard however it was
noted that the presentation of staff at the
wine cellar sales counter and restaurant at
Highfield had soiled polo shirts and hand
wipe marks on their aprons. This particular
winery positions and prides itself on its
export quality wines and strong branding.
Therefore, it was surprising that uniforms
and staff presentation should not reflect
the desired branding image.
Most wineries scored fairly well with re-spect
to interior and exterior ambient posi-tions.
The highest score went to Wither
Hills with full marks of 60. The lowest was
Hintons with 26.
Most wineries scored well with respect
to their labels and wine bottle carriers as
well as web pages. There were varied re-sults
for branded merchandise and souve-nirs.
Some wineries such as Matua Valley
and St Clair had vast amounts of branded
merchandise for sale while others like Hin-tons
had nothing obvious. Results for bro-chures
were very disappointing at the
Christchurch wineries. The Wineshed had
none and scored 0, Larcomb Wines scored
1, Hintons had none and scored 0. The only
Marlborough result for brochures that was
disappointing was Matua Valley, scoring 1.
Discussion
As noted in the introduction wine tour-ism
has become an important component of
the marketing and business strategies of
many wineries in New Zealand (Hall and
Mitchell 2008). If visitors are significant
target markets for wineries as in the case
of the wineries studied for this paper, then
the servicescape must be an important con-sideration
of wineries that seek to increase
their sales at the cellar door and develop a
positive post-visit consumer relationship
(Mitchell and Hall 2004, 2006).
First sightings and impression of the
winery for tourists should instill the feeling
of a positive visitor experience. If the first
impression of the winery is one of unkempt
car parks, tourists may not perceive the
brand as intended by the winery. For ex-ample,
Pegasus Bay
(www.pegasusbay.com/) presents visitors
with artistic creativity, evident in the gar-den
design, the art work on display and the
wine itself. The Pegasus Bay Winery web
page reinforces its positioning as a profes-sional
business which takes food and wine
seriously, but the car parks and access are
less than desirable. Their overall physical
external environment score was only 71,
and yet they position themselves professio-nally.
They promote their positioning
through various tourism intermediaries on
the World Wide Web and are nominated as
one of the best wineries in the Canterbury
region.
First impressions of the stunning archi-tecture
of Wither Hills
(www.witherhills.co.nz/) alongside envi-ronmental
extrinsic cues enhance the per-ceived
image of sophistication and artistic
flair. These perceptual cues make a state-ment
about the quality expectation from
the moment you set eyes on the building
from the road and play a vital role in pre-dicting
service quality.
The authors found that being able to
predict product quality through extrinsic
cues prior to consumption of wine at the
wineries was especially important for wine
products when quality was difficult to
evaluate by customers with little viticul-tural
knowledge (see also Hall and Mitchell
2008). Professional looking wineries that
used their servicescape as an opportunity
to communicate the quality of the wine
produced were perceived as memorable and
provided? customer focussed experiences.
The servicescapes of these wineries also
communicated and invoked invitation
through these intrinsic cues which influ-enced
longevity of a visit. For example,
Wither Hills invited visitors to view its
cellar and immerse themselves in the am-bience
of the surrounds. Therefore, other
visual indicators become part of the evalua-tion
and, in the longer term, relationship
process. This supports Wakefield and
Blodgett’s (1996) hypothesis that “facility
aesthetics” are a function of architectural
design and that as customers approach or
drive by they are likely to evaluate the at-tractiveness
of the exterior. In the case of
wineries this is very relevant as customers
may not have visited before and if they are
244 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
international tourists, may not visit again,
yet they will often have opportunities to
purchase in the longer term either via mail
order or retail outlets and restaurants as
well as provide positive word-of-mouth.
The servicescape also needs to consider
more than extrinsic cues of the external
physical presentation. The internal physi-cal
presentation, staff presentation, ambi-ence
and merchandise are also important
contributors to the overall impression and
enduring satisfaction of the winery experi-ence.
Internal layout and presentation and
the dimensions used to evaluate each win-ery
in this paper provide cues which make
statements about the winery business.
Newman (2007) argues that spatial factors
such as internal layouts can often be more
powerful as they can make clear and dis-tinguishing
visual statement about expec-tations
of quality and standard.
Newman (2007) draws on the theory of
Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) variables of
approach and avoidance behaviours. These
behaviours may be a consequence of con-tributing
spatial factors such as where cus-tomers
may feel cramped or exposed, espe-cially
where social interaction is important.
The personal space allocated for wine tast-ing
at Rossendale (www.rossendale.co.nz/),
for example, was non-existent. The sole
counter serviced all restaurant, bar and
cellar customers. A tasting room separated
from the main restaurant dining area
would have been advantageous to enable
wine enthusiasts to experience a more re-laxed
servicescape. Having to stand in an
entrance-way/point of sale area for the res-taurant
even though visitors are seeking a
tasting does not provide legibility for cus-tomers
in terms of the servicescape and as
Newman (2007) observes, customers may
feel coerced into a stressed and uncomfort-able
emotional state. Similarly at Kaikoura
Winery (www.kaikourawinery.co.nz/), the
layout of the interior did not entice custom-ers
to stay; Newman (2007) describes this
as having no legibility of space. The seating
area was in the way of the main access
route to the outdoor viewing area which as
Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) hypothesise
impacts on accessibility. Also the seating
lacked ambient appeal and, perhaps even
more importantly, was uncomfortable, with
a consequence of not encouraging custom-ers
to return.
Forrest Estate Winery
(www.forrest.co.nz/) also had poor legibility
where it was difficult to actually open the
door and there was no directional extrinsic
cues leading or inviting you to the closed
door. The internal schematic had no struc-ture
or environmental signposts for the eye
to follow. Conversely, the spatial design of
Nautilus Wines (www.nautilusestate.com/)
influenced behaviour on the occasion one of
the authors visited. Due to the close spatial
environment customers were forced to
gather in close proximity to hear about
tasting notes from the staff member and to
have their tasting glasses filled. The area
was cramped and not conducive to comfort
or relaxation. This is a significant aspect of
servicescape design as Newman (2007)
suggests that people’s reactions to each
other may be determined by spatial factors.
Newman (2007) refers to mood as hav-ing
an influence on how people evaluate
places and situations and that mood states
and behaviour may involve associations in
memory which tie specific moods to certain
types of behaviour. The experience encoun-tered
by one of the authors at St Clair Win-ery
(www.saintclair.co.nz/) support this
theory and may be influenced by the casual
relaxed ambience of the winery which
scored a high (59) for interior and exterior
ambient conditions. However, Langdales
(www.langdalerestaurant.com/home.htm)
also scored a high 57 and Highfield Estate
(www.highfield.co.nz/) scored 46 but the
personnel at the wine cellar counters at
both wineries were unfriendly and unwel-coming.
As Newman (2007) suggests, the
behaviour of contact personnel is likely to
contribute significantly to customers’ mood
states and thereby deciding the outcome of
future behaviours toward that winery.
Similarly, the service encounter at Forrest
Estate and Villa Maria
(www.villamaria.co.nz/) were also less than
desirable with arrogant and preoccupied
staff which encouraged avoidance behav-iour
At the other end of the scale, Framing-ham
(www.framingham.co.nz/) ensures
their customer service delivery is presented
in as polished a manner as is their winery.
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 245
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
In fact they were the friendliest, most pro-fessional
and engaging of all the wineries,
with Wither Hills, Mahi (www.mahi.co.nz/)
and St Clair running second equal. Al-though
this paper is not focussing on cus-tomer
service and the socialscape, it does
have an impact on the memory of the ser-vicescape.
One of the authors requested
some information on the Framingham
brand. The staff were delighted to be able
to assist and said they would email a news-letter
and information on history of the
brand. A service promise which was later
met. Interestingly, Hall and Mitchell (2005,
2008) found in their research on the impact
of the servicescape on the service expe-rience
that although bad service expe-riences
may produce negative feelings at
the time, these may decline in significance
over time while aspects such as the winery
vineyard setting, the cellar door and at-mosphere
will take on a much greater sig-nificance
over time. They argue that the
vineyard, the cellar door facilities and the
winery itself may take on more significance
in terms of negative recollection. There-fore,
wineries should endeavor to plan and
manage the servicescape in the long term.
Furthermore, Hall and Mitchell (2005)
in their case study on winery visitation and
post-visit behaviour discuss the wider tem-poral
context of wineries and in particular
that wine itself is a tangible, transportable
and durable product that can be expe-rienced
in a number of locations before,
during and after the on-site winery expe-rience.
This supports the inclusion of sec-tion
E in the servicescape dimensions
scores of this paper, which includes the
souvenirs, the wine bottle carriers, the
newsletters and the wine bottles them-selves
as they serve to act as reinforcement
to the on-site winery servicescape expe-rience.
Many tourists can relive the expe-rience
of their holiday at home when they
take a bottle of wine purchased on their
holiday or at the retail store from their
fridge or receive their Framingham New-sletter
or Cloudy Bay Mentelle Notes in the
mail. The servicescape, relationship mar-keting
and reinforcement of brand image
may have a more enduring, or at least as
enduring, impact on customer post pur-chase
behaviour than the initial consump-tion
of wine at the winery itself (Hall and
Mitchell 2008).
Conclusions
This study has identified the signific-ance
of the servicescape as a component of
wine tourism and wine marketing. A ser-vicescape
evaluation framework was devel-oped
and utilized in the evaluation of 27
wineries in the Canterbury and Marlbo-rough
wine regions of New Zealand. The
results support the identification of a con-tinuum
of servicescape design with varying
degrees of quality. Some wineries had very
impressive servicescapes that matched the
positioning of the wine quality and price,
while others were more enigmatic in their
design and market positioning variables.
Most of the wineries were largely consis-tent
in their integrated marketing commu-nication
(IMC) of branded print material,
signage and web page design, while some
wineries were outstanding in integrating
their brand and image in all elements of
their servicescape. Wairau River
(www.wairauriverwines.com/) and Wither
Hills were good examples of this.
However, in some wineries there were
surprising irregularities and inconsisten-cies
identified upon the more detailed as-sessment
using the servicescape frame-work.
These inconsistencies were most
notable on variables of physical environ-ment
dimensions and perceived market
positioning based on price and product
quality. Wineries that used a premium
based pricing strategy in some cases exhi-bited
servicescape elements which were
inconsistent with the higher quality prod-uct
which was being promoted and their
physical environments did not fit well with
their claimed market positioning.
The value of the development of such an
evaluation framework is not necessarily
with respect to the scores themselves. Ra-ther
the framework has potential value as
a diagnostic tool by which wineries can
consider the various factors in the service-scape
and make decisions as to how they
should be developed in line with their
branding and markets. Clearly, different
markets – and different cultures – will
have differing opinions about what is ap-
246 A framework for the evaluation of winery servicescapes: ...
PASOS. Revista de Turismo y Patrimonio Cultural, 6(2). 2008
Número Especial. Turismo Gastronómico y Enoturismo
ISSN 1695-7121
propriate in the winery and cellar door
servicescape. Comparative studies are
therefore to be encouraged so as to allow
further refinement of the evaluation
framework particularly with respect to the
relative weightings of both empirical and
perceptual factors. Nevertheless, it is es-sential
that wineries engaged in cellar door
sales and wine tourism seek to pay as much
attention to the elements of their service-scape
as they do their markets, their brand,
and the quality of their wine.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the
valuable comments of the referees.
References
Ahuvia, A.
2001 “Traditional, interpretive, and recep-tion
based content analyses: Improving
the ability of content analysis to address
issues of pragmatic and theoretical con-cern”.
Social Indicators Research, 54(2):
139-172.
Baker, J.
1998 “Examining the informational value
of store environments”. In Sherry, Jr.
J.F. (Ed.), Servicescapes: The concepts of
place in contemporary markets (pp. 55-
79), Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and
Voss, G.B.
2002 “The influence of multiple store envi-ronment
cues on perceived merchandise
value and patronage intentions”, Jour-nal
of Marketing, 66: 120-141.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A.
1994 “The influence of store environment
on quality inferences and store image”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 22(4): 328-339.
Bitner, M.J.
1986 “Consumer responses to the physical
environment in service setting”. In Ven-katesan,
M., Schmalensee, D.M. and
Marshall, C. (Eds.) Creativity in Servic-es
Marketing (pp.89-93), Chicago: Amer-ican
Marketing Association.
Bitner, M.J.
1990 “Evaluating service encounter: The
effects of physical surrounding and em-ployee
responses”, Journal of Marketing,
54(2): 69-82.
Bitner, M.J.
1992 “Servicescapes: The impact of physi-cal
surroundings in customers and em-ployees”,
Journal of Marketing, 56: 57-
71.
Carlsen, J. and Charters, S (Eds.)
2006 Global Wine Tourism: Research,
Management & Marketing. Wallingford:
CABI.
Christensen, D., Hall, C.M., Mitchell, R.
2004 “The 2002 New Zealand Wineries
Survey”. In 2004 CAUTHE Conference,
University of Queensland, Brisbane,
February. Ipswich: University of Queen-sland
[CDRom]
Dodd, T.
1995 “Opportunities and pitfalls of tourism
in a developing wine industry’’, Interna-tional
Journal of Wine Marketing, 7(1):
5-16.
Dodd, T. and Bigotle, V.
1997 “Perceptual differences among visitor
groups to wineries’’, Journal of Travel
Research, 35(2): 46-51.
Hall, C.M. and Johnson, G.
1998 “Wine tourism: an imbalanced part-nership”.
In Dowling, R. and Carlsen, J.
(Eds.), Wine Tourism Perfect Partners,
Proceedings of the first Australian Wine
Tourism Conference, Margaret River,
Western Australia, May 1998 (pp. 51-
72), Canberra: Bureau of Tourism Re-search.
Hall, C.M. and Mitchell, R.D.
2005 “Gastronomy, food and wine tour-ism”.
In Buhalis, D. and Costa, C. (Eds.),
Tourism Business Frontiers: Consum-ers,
Products and Industry (pp. 137-
147). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hall, C.M. and Mitchell, R.D.
2008 Wine Marketing: A Practical Ap-proach.
Oxford: Butterworth Heine-mann
Hall, C.M., Longo, A.M., Mitchell, R. and
Johnson, G.
2000 “Wine tourism in New Zealand”. In
Hall, C.M., Sharples, E., Cambourne, B.
& Macionis, N. (Eds.), Wine Tourism
Around the World: Development, Man-agement
and Markets, (pp. 150-174),
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hall, C.M., Sharples, E., Cambourne, B.
and Macionis, N. (Eds.)
2000 Wine Tourism Around the World:
Angela McDonnell and C. Michael Hall 247
PASOS. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Heritage, 6(2). 2008
Special Issue. Gastronomic and wine tourism
ISSN 1695-7121
Development, Management and Mar-kets.
Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Hall, C.M. and Valentin, A.
2005 “Content analysis”. In Ritchie, B.,
Burns, P. and Palmer, C. (Eds.), Tour-ism
Research Methods (pp. 191-209).
Wallingford: CAB International.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A.
1974 An Approach to Environmental Psy-chology.
Cambridge: Massachusetts In-stitute
of Technology.
Ministry of Tourism
2007 Tourist Activity: Wine Tourism, New
Zealand Series B1. Wellington: Ministry
of Tourism.
Mitchell, R. and Hall, C.M.
2001a “The winery consumer: A New
Zealand perspective”, Tourism
Recreation Research, 26(2): 63-75.
Mitchell, R. and Hall, C.M.
2001b “Lifestyle behaviours of New Zealand
winery visitors: wine club activities,
wine cellars and place of purchase”, In-ternational
Journal of Wine Marketing,
13(3): 82-93.
Mitchell, R.D. and Hall, C.M.
2004 “The post-visit consumer behaviour
of New Zealand winery visitors”, Jour-nal
of Wine Research, 15(1): 37-47.
Mitchell, R.D. and Hall, C.M.
2006 “Wine tourism research: The state of
play”, Tourism Review International,
9(4): 307-332.
New Zealand Wine Growers
2007 Statistical Annual 2007. Auckland:
New Zealand Wine Growers.
Newman, A.J.
2007 “Uncovering dimensionality in the
servicescape: Towards legibility”, Ser-vices
Industries Journal 27(1): 15-28
O’Neil, M., Palmer, A. and Charters, S.
2002 “Wine production as a service expe-rience:
The effects of service quality on
wine sales”, Journal of Services Market-ing,
16(4): 342-362
Simpson, K., Bretherton, P., and de vere, G.
2004 “Lifestyle market segmentation,
small business entrepreneurs and the
New Zealand wine tourism industry”,
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospi-tality
& Tourism, 5(2-4): 157-188.
Tombs, A. and McColl-Kennedy, J.R.
2003 “Social-servicescape conceptual mod-el”,
Marketing Theory, 3: 447-75.
Wakefield, K.L. and Blodgett, J.G.
1996 “The effect of the servicescape on
customers' behavioral intentions in lei-sure
service settings”, Journal of Servic-es
Marketing. 10(6), 45-61.
Wels-Lips, I., van der Ven, M. and Peters,
R.
1998 “Critical services dimensions: An
empirical investigation across six indus-tries”,
International Journal of Service
Industry Management, 9(3), 286-309.
Recibido: 13 de febrero de 2008
Reenviado: 8 de abril de 2008
Aceptado: 10 de abril de 2008
Sometido a evaluación por pares anónimos