This summary report highlights the wine tourism performance of GWCGN capitals. The goal of this project is to benchmark performance of wine tourism market across 8 of the 10 member cities of the Network, in order to provide the wine industry with a scientific international analysis identifying "The Pillars of Wine Tourism Performance". Data were collected from the GWCGN capitals during the summer of 2013. Further détails on greawinecapitals.com

1. 2013
Great Wine Capitals Global
Network Market Survey
“The Pillars Of Wine
Tourism Performance”
Executive Summary
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

2. This summary report highlights the wine tourism performance of GWCGN capitals.
We collected data from the GWCGN capitals during the summer of 2013.
The number of survey responses per city is shown below.
On a positive note, the number of survey responses was up 47% from the 2012
survey. However, because several capitals had very small response rates (below 30
observations) we were unable to implement a meaningful statistical analysis of the factors
that might lead to better than average wine tourism performance for these capitals.
GWCGN CAPITALS
Bordeaux
Mainz­ Rheinhessen
RESPONSES
Christchurch
Cape Town
Bilbao­ Rioja
Porto
Mendoza
San Francisco­ Napa
TOTAL 273
Florence
123
38
27
13
13
11
10
4
34
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

3. Wine Tourism Revenues Break­up
Wine Tourism Revenues and Top
Sources of Profits
For the 2013 survey, we find that
high­end wines (price greater than
$25/bottle) represent a top source
of profits (with over 40% of
responses) in Mendoza and
Christchurch. Middle­price wines are
a top source of profits in Bilbao­Rioja
and Christchurch. Tasting Fees are a
top source of profits in Porto.
Low­End Wines (less than
$15/bottle) are important in Mainz­
Rheinhessen, Bilbao­Rioja, Bordeaux,
Florence and Cape Town.
Accommodations/Lodging are key in
Mainz­Rheinhessen and Florence;
Mixed Wine sets in Bilbao­Rioja and
Christchurch; Food Services in
Mendoza, Mainz­Rheinhessen, Bilbao­
Rioja and Porto. Finally, Hosting
Events is the largest category in Cape
Town as compared to other capitals.
Top Sources of Wine Tourism Profit
Over 70% of wine Tourism revenues
come from Wine Sales in Bilbao­
Rioja, Bordeaux, Christchurch and
Cape Town. Among all capitals,
Mendoza has the largest percentage
of Merchandizing revenues. Porto
has the largest percentage of
Tasting Fees and Food Services
revenues. Mainz­ Rheinhessen has
the largest percentage of
commodation/Lodging revenues and
Christchurch and Cape Town have
the largest percentage revenues
tied to Hosting Events.
Winesales Merchandising FoodTastingFees Accommodation Hosting/rest Greater $25 each Less $15 each Food services Btwn $15 and $25 each
Accommodation Hosting events Tasting fees Mixed wine
Argentina
Germany
Spain
France
Italy
NewZealand
Portugal
SouthAfrica
Argentina Germany Spain France Italy New Zealand Portugal South Africa
59 % 48 % 74 % 79 % 56 % 75 % 70 %
13 %
25 %
35 %
22 %
1 %
7 %
9 %
13 %
8 %
4 % 4 % 4 % 6 % 6 %
6 %
8 %
2 %
2 %
1 %
9 %
7 %
23 %
3 % 3 % 3 %
3 %
2 %
10 %
9 %
3 %
3 %
3 %
3 %
4 %
15 % 12 %
26 %
16 %
7 %
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

4. Improving Services is the top investment
category for the 2012­2013 period in
Mendoza, Bilbao­Rioja and Porto. Investments
in Market Positioning are at the top stated
investments in Mainz­Rheinhessen and
Christchurch. Investments in Infrastructure
are also critical in Bordeaux, Florence,
Christchurch, Porto and Cape Town, even
though they represent less than 40% of
respondents in Bordeaux.
Investments in Wine Tourism
Wine Tourism Investments and
Marketing
Just like in the 2012 survey, we again find
that the top marketing tool used across
the sample is a winery’s Own Website.
Relying on Tourism Office comes again in
second position, but this is because Bordeaux
wineries (45% of the sample) tend to
overwhelmingly answer that the tourism
office is one of the top marketing tool they
use. Citations by Guides comes in third
position, closely followed by Social Network
and Mailing/Newsletters.
Doing an inter­capital comparison, we find
that South­Africa gives the highest rate
of stated responses for promoting
Sustainability and Authentic Experience,
making good use of the Region's Fame,
Citations by Guides and Specialized Media.
Mendoza distinguishes itself by the highest
response rate for using Travel Agencies,
Tourism Offices, Tourism Exhibits, Brochures
and Referrals. Mainz­Rheinhessen has the
highest response rate for using wineries'
Own Website, organizing Tasting Events and
Cultural Festivals, as well as relying on
Traditional Ads and the region's controlled
Appellation. Porto is highest in the
categories of Tour Operators and Social
Networks. Finally Bilbao­Rioja gives the
highest response rate for interfacing their
wineries' online content with Other Websites
and making extensive use of Mobile Apps.
Top Marketing Tools Used
28%Mentionedotherwebsites
Borchures
SocialNetworks
Spclzedmedia
TourOp.
Appelation
Tourismxhib
TravelAgencies
32%
60%
8%
44%
50%
13%
15%
39%
11%
55%
15%Sustainable
Citations
Referrals
AuthenticExperience
Mailing/Newsletter
CulturalFestivals
Winefairs
WineContests
Regionfame
Usemobileapps
42%
11%
33%
9%
26%
30%
19%
76%
19%
42%
Ownwebsite
TourismOff
TraditionalAd
TastingEvents
Infrastructure Imp services Market positioning Training emp
Strategic partn. CulturalEntert. None
Argentina Germany Spain France Italy New Zealand Portugal South Africa
50%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
60%
70%
80%
South Africa Portugal New Zealand Italy
France Spain Germany Argentina
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

5. We observe that Cape Town clearly surpasses other capitals in terms of Numbers of Visitors
per winery. Mendoza and Porto are respectively second and third. On the other hand, in terms
of Spending per Visitor, Florence, Bordeaux and Mainz­Rheinhessen dominate with over 60
euros per visitor in Florence. On the face of it, a simple explanation is a difference of business
strategy between old­world vs. new­world wineries. New­world wineries are more focused on
attracting a high volume of visitors whereas old­world wineries are more focused on pricing
products and services for a narrower segment of the demand.
We observe a great disparity in the demographic composition of the wineries' visitors in terms
of national origin, age and sex. Striking are the fact that for example the large majority of
visitors in Florence appear to be foreigners whereas they are mostly nationals in Mainz­
Rheinhessen. Except for the case of Cape Town, where local visitors make up about 43% of the
total onsite visits, there seems to be room for stimulating local wine tourism in the other capi­
tals. In terms of age groups, countries like Cape Town, Mendoza and Florence appear to attract
a younger clientele. Furthermore, when examining only the less­than­35­years­old group we
observe that Cape Town and Christchurch are particularly positioned to attract these young
visitors. With respect to female vs. male attendance, we find that on average about 45% of
visitors are females across the board. Christchurch, Mendoza and Mainz­Rheinhessen, are the
top attractors of female visitors.
Tourists Characteristics
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

6. First, we isolate the candidate factors that explain or at least correlate with more tourist visits. The
Table below shows the most impactful factors for the overall sample. The variable we try to explain
here is the Number of Tourists visiting a given winery. The factors highly correlated with increased
number of tourists are shown in the left hand side column. Only three categories seem to impact the
ability to attract more tourists.
In the category Activities Offered, Gastronomy is the most impactful activity. For the category
Promotional Tools, and even though the Cape Town sample is small and may be pulling the results, the
promotion of Authentic Experience has the most impactful effect. Having a winery's Own Website is a
close second. In terms of External Factors, Membership­to­a­Business­Association is negatively
correlated with attracting more tourists. There is not necessarily direct causation here. The Location
factor and the presence of Local Facilities in addition with partnerships with Tour Operators, all have a
positive impact.
Factors Correlated with Attracting More Tourists
Most Significant and
Impactful Factors
Gastronomy 18 % 187 Activities Offered+ +
Authentic Experience + +
Own Website +
Wine Tasting Events ­
Tourism Information Office +
Membership to Bus. Asso ­­
Local Facilities + +
Location +
Tour Operators +
Effect Factor Categories
Table shows results from Quantile Regressions.
Corrected for size effect and using capitals dummy variables.
Pseudo B and
Observations
2
19 %
186
19 %
159
Promotional Tools
External FactorsTable
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley

7. The factors correlated with higher spending per tourist are now analyzed. Amongst the category of
Investments in Wine Tourism, Market Positioning has the strongest positive impact. Investments in
Infrastructure and Improved Services also have a positive impact. However, Strategic Partnerships
have a negative impact. Within the dimension of Activities Offered, Spa Therapy is also correlated with
higher spending, which is not very surprising as it is more of a luxury good. On the other hand, Tasting
Visits are negatively correlated with spending.
In the category of Promotional Tools, having a winery's Own Website is highly correlated with higher
visitor's spending. By contrast, it is worth noting that while Wine Tasting Events were also negatively
correlated with attracting more tourists, they nevertheless attract more spending. Tourism Information
Offices are perceived as correlated with less spending, whereas they also tend to bring more tourists
onsite (from the previous results). In terms of External Factors, Marketing by Tourism Office is also
perceived as generating less spending per visitor. On the other hand, a positive impact is perceived with
respect to Location and Membership to a Tourism Association. Membership to the GWC is also perceived
as a positive factor.
Factors Correlated with Higher Spending/Tourist
Table shows results from Quantile Regressions.
Corrected for size effect and using capitals dummy variables
Most Significant and
Impactful Factors
Spa Therapy + +
Tasting Visits ­­
Museum Exhibition
Onsite shops
­
­
Own Website + +
Newsletter + +
Wine Tasting Events/Fairs +
Tourism Information Office ­
Location + +
Tourism Association +
GWC Membership +
Marketing by Tourism Office ­­
Effect Factor CategoriesPseudo B and
Observations
2
Activities Offered
Promotional Tools
External Factors
8 % 184
10 % 194
11 % 194
15 % 163
Investments in Wine tourism
Market Positioning + +
Strategic Partnerships ­­
Improved Services +
Infrastructure +
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley
Copyright GWCGN. No part of the content of this document is to be reproduced in any media without the expressed consent of GWCGN ­ For any further information: gwc@greatwinecapitals.com

8. The 2013 edition of the GWC survey has produced
some interesting and contrasting results for the
various great capitals of the GWCGN. In terms of
general activities associated with wine tourism,
Gastronomy/Lodging/Wine Festivals and Cross Sel­
ling of Regional Produces appear to dominate in
2013. Wine sales revenues are no less than 50% of
WT total revenues. Food revenues and tasting fees
are very important for Porto; Accommodation
revenues are crucial for Mainz­Rheinhessen and
Merchandizing for Mendoza. Christchurch and Cape
Town have the largest percentage revenues tied to
Hosting Events.
On average the top source of profits is the sale of
wine (priced at around $15 or less) as well as
mid­priced wine (between $15 and $35). Food
services and Hosting Events are very important
sources of profits for Porto and Cape Town. Lodging
is very important for Mainz­Rheinhessen and
Florence.
In terms of attracting more tourists Gastro­
nomy seems to be a key activity, with wine­
ries having their Own Website as well. While
wineries organizing special Tasting Events
appear to bring in less visitors, they bring in
more spending. Location and partnerships
with Tour Operators appear to make a signifi­
cant positive impact.
In terms of attracting more spending per
tourist, investments in Market Positioning/
Improved Services and Infrastructure are all
important factors. Special activities like Spa
Therapy are pluses. Personalization via Own
Website and Newsletters are key.
The role of Tourism Offices is interesting as
they appear to be generating more visitors
but less spending per tourist. This pattern
may merit further investigation, to at least
determine whether this is an issue that is
found in other capitals, and is not purely
driven by the Bordeaux sample.
Managerial Implications and
Conclusion
Copyright GWCGN. No part of the content of this document is to be reproduced in any media without the expressed consent of GWCGN ­ For any further information: gwc@greatwinecapitals.com
Bordeaux Cape Town Firenze Mendoza PortoBilbao Rioja Christchurch Sousth Island Mainz Rheinhessen San Francisco Napa Valley Valparaiso Casablanca Valley