Wine Economics and Policy 12(1): 101-113, 2023 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/wep ISSN 2212-9774 (online) | ISSN 2213-3968 (print) | DOI: 10.36253/wep-12973 Wine Economics and Policy Citation: John C. Spence (2023). The impact of fees on customer purchas- ing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review. Wine Economics and Policy 12(1): 101-113. doi: 10.36253/wep-12973 Copyright: © 2023 John C. Spence. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze Univer- sity Press (http://www.fupress.com/ wep) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information fi les. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no confl ict of interest. Th e impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review John C. Spence Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, & Recreation, 1-153 Van Vliet Complex, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada E-mail: jc.spence@ualberta.ca Abstract. Purpose: Th is scoping review presents a summary of studies that examined the impact or infl uence of tasting fees in wineries on the purchasing behaviour, beliefs, obligation to buy wine, and willingness to pay for such fees. Methods: A search was conducted in August 2021 and updated in March 2022 of databases (i.e., Academic Search Complete, Scopus) and hand searching using terms such as wine, tasting fees, and charges. Documents were included if they were databased studies, published in English, and related to the research question. Th ey were then coded for characteristics of the document, design, sample, winery, purchasing behaviour and beliefs, and fi nd- ings. Th e coding and analysis were conducted between August 2021 and March 2022. Findings: Of 195 possible documents, 16 remained aft er a title and abstract scan, and 12 were included aft er a full-article scan. Th e reviewed studies were conducted pri- marily in Australasia (60%) and North America (28%) and a majority of fi ndings were derived from surveys or interviews. A majority of the fi ndings suggested that custom- ers and industry professionals did not support the adoption of tasting fees at the cellar door (64%). Th ough, mixed impact was noted for purchasing behaviour (i.e., volume, money spent), slightly stronger negative associations were seen for intention to visit the winery or purchase wine in the future, willingness to pay for fees, and obligation to buy wine. Originality: Th is is the fi rst systematic review to examine the impact or infl uence of tasting fees on purchasing behaviour and beliefs in wineries. Keywords: wine tourism, tasting fees, charging, obligation, cellar door, willingness to pay. 1. INTRODUCTION Th e tasting room experience at wineries is critically important for cus- tomer satisfaction [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and sales [8] [7]. In fact, service- related factors are oft en more important to purchase and re-purchase deci- sions than wine quality [9]. For wineries, the cellar door helps them distrib- ute wine at a relatively low cost, develop brand loyalty, and increase sales [10] [5]. For the customer, visits to wineries allow the opportunity for education (about the region, production, and the product), tastings, comparison shop- ping, and further exploration of the winescape [11]. 102 John C. Spence An increasingly important aspect of the cellar door experience is the requirement of a tasting fee to sample the wines. These fees can serve several purposes. First, they may discourage those individuals seeking to con- sume free alcohol with little intention of actually pur- chasing any wine. For instance, the owner of Nicholson River Winery in the Victoria region of Australia esti- mated that the introduction of a tasting fee resulted in a 20 percent reduction in visitors to the cellar door (see Travers [12]). Second, fees may cover the cost of having more staff, and more educated/qualified staff, to offer a more thorough educational experience for the customer. The time lost serving people at the cellar door, especially those who do not purchase wine, is a significant cost fac- tor for wineries [12]. Third, because the wine consumed due to tastings reduces inventory and shrinks profits, especially for smaller wineries [13] [14], fees can help recoup or balance these expenditures. Fourth, fees fos- ter an expectation on the part of the customer that the product has some worth or value. Finally, tasting fees are a potential revenue source for wineries. However, tasting fees are not without controversy. The first study to examine the impact of the introduction of such fees, concluded they could reduce visits by 30 percent among Australians who had previously purchased wine [15]. Basically, visitors to wineries expect to taste all of the wines offered absent of a tasting fee [5] [14]. The assump- tion being that part of the cost of doing business is to offer free tastings so that the customer can make an informed decision as to whether they want to purchase a particular wine. In North America, tasting fees are more the norm than not. According to a survey of 233 wineries based in California, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Vir- ginia, and Canada, 59 percent of wineries reported charging a fee for tastings in 2007 [16]. This apparently was an increase of 8 percent from the previous year. Though smaller or less developed wine regions in the United States (US), such as Idaho [17], were less likely to require tasting fees, the vast majority of wineries in the larger more established regions such as Napa and Son- oma charge fees [18]. Furthermore, those fees are much higher for the Sonoma ($30 USD) and Napa ($58 USD) regions than the average for US wineries overall ($25 USD) or those outside of California and Oregon ($15 USD) [18]. Similarly, a cursory review of web pages of wineries in the Okanagan and Niagara regions of Can- ada, reveals that the majority of wineries charge tasting fees in 2022. In other parts of the world, the implementation of cellar door tasting fees has varied. Though fees were first charged for tastings at wineries in the Yarra Velley in 1997, a majority of wineries in that region had fees in place by 1999 [12]. In contrast, a majority of wineries in South Australia continued to “shun the concept’ of tast- ing fees in 1999 [12]. More recently, the proportion of Australian wineries charging tasting fees has increased from 29 percent in 2018 [19] to 73 percent in 2021 [20]. Furthermore, the amount charged for a standard tast- ing increased by 31 percent in 2021 and approximately 30 percent of wineries charged a non-refundable fee for a standard tasting [20]. In New Zealand, the proportion of wineries charging tasting fees appears to have declined between 1997 and 2010 [21] [22]. For instance, according to the New Zealand National Wineries’ surveys, 51 per- cent of wineries reported charging tasting fees in 1997 while 25 percent did so in 2010 [21]. During that period, Beverland [23] reported that all wineries in West Auck- land offered free tastings. More recently, a survey of 51 wineries from Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa reported that 52 percent charged for tastings [24]. More often than not, these charges were for premium tastings and were refundable with purchases. Finally, based on interviews with industry experts, Bitsch et al. [25] states that wine touring activities such as tastings are generally free of charge in Germany. Apart from brief summaries provided by Travers [12] and Hanf and Giering [26], no reviews have been published on the impact of tasting fees on customer satisfaction or purchasing behaviour. Thus, under- standing of how and if tasting fees influence purchas- ing behaviour and the factors that may moderate these relationships is limited. Given that many wineries in regions in Australasia, North America, and South Afri- ca have introduced tasting fees, yet preliminary stud- ies suggested doing otherwise (e.g., [23] [15], the pur- pose of this scoping review was to identify all studies examining the impact of tasting fees on purchasing behaviour and beliefs about tasting fees. Furthermore, sense of obligation [8] [27] and willingness to pay [25] [26] appear to be relevant theoretic constructs that may mediate the role of tasting fees on purchase deci- sions and attitudes. Therefore, along with obtaining an understanding of the type and breadth of research that has been conducted on the topic, this review explored the impact or influence of tasting fees on: (1) purchas- ing behaviour (volume, money spent) of cellar door vis- itors; (2) beliefs about/toward the winery; (3) intention to visit the winery or purchase wine in the future from the winery; (4) willingness to pay for tastings; and (5) obligation to buy wine. 103The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review 2. METHODS 2.1 Protocol and registration Because of the small body of research available on the impact of tasting fees, the scoping review method was chosen because it is an appropriate format to sum- marize the extent of existing literature on broad topics and identify research gaps in the evidence [28]. The steps for the review were based on a recommended framework for scoping reviews [28] [29] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [30]. However, the protocol of this review (i.e., a description of the ration- ale, hypothesis, and planned methods of a review), was not formally registered because scoping reviews are not currently accepted for registration with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). 2.2 Eligibility criteria Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) examined wine tasting fees; (2) measured wine purchasing behavior and/or beliefs about the winery, intent to purchase wine in the future, will- ingness to pay for fees, or obligation to buy wine; (3) was a data-based study (quantitative or qualitative); (4) either published or grey literature; and (5) published in Eng- lish. Data from both individual customers or consum- ers and industry professionals (e.g., wine makers, winery owners) were eligible for inclusion. 2.3 Information sources and search Searches were conducted in Academic Search Com- plete (1994 to 2022) and Scopus (1983 to 2022) up until March 13, 2022. The search strategies were derived from the research questions and keywords noted in relevant papers (e.g., Kolyesnikova and Dodd, 2009 [27]; McNa- mara and Cassidy, 2015 [31]). The specific search terms included the following: wine, tasting, fee* or charge*. To identify additional relevant documents, manual searches were conducted on the table of contents of nine journals (International Journal of Wine Business Research; Inter- national Journal of Wine Research; Journal of Consumer Research; Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research; Journal of Travel Research; Journal of Travel & Tour- ism Marketing; Journal of Wine Economics; Journal of Wine Research; Wine Economics and Policy) for the years 2017 to 2021. Finally, hand-searching, tracking new documents (e.g., Google Scholar), and checking the reference lists of included documents were performed throughout the process. 2.4 Selection of sources of evidence Once the initial search was completed, a screening was conducted of the titles and abstracts of the docu- ments. During this process, the reviewer determined whether a document should be included, and if exclud- ed, the reason for exclusion was recorded. A full-text screening was then performed on the remaining docu- ments. 2.5 Data charting process and data items Data extraction was conducted by the author from August 2021 to March 2022. Given the small number of included documents, and that one coder was involved, all documents were double coded. The following infor- mation was extracted using a codebook: characteristics of the studies (i.e., author, year, publication status/type); characteristics of samples (i.e., population, sample size, age, sex, level of wine experience, study design); charac- teristics of wineries (i.e., location – continent, location – country, location – wine region, provenance – country, provenance – region); characteristics of wine purchas- ing behaviour and beliefs (i.e., research questions); and purpose and findings. Because a document could have information on more than one of the research questions (e.g., wine purchasing behavior, intent to purchase wine in the future, willingness to pay for fees), more findings than documents were noted. 2.6 Synthesis of results Frequency analyses for categorical variables and content analyses for the main findings were conduct- ed [29]. The meanings of the main finding were cat- egorized using the themes developed from the analytic framework of this review: wine purchasing behaviour or beliefs, willingness to pay tasting fees, and obligation to buy wine. The direction of impact of tasting fees on pur- chasing behaviour, beliefs about the winery, and intent to purchase or visit the winery in the future (i.e., nega- tive, positive, neutral), along with feelings of obligation to purchase (not obligated, obligated, neutral) and will- ingness to pay tasting fees (unwilling, willing, neutral) were coded and the corresponding frequency was calcu- lated. A list of all documents included in this review is presented in the Appendices (see also Table A1). 104 John C. Spence 3. RESULTS Figure 1 provides a flow chart of the search and study selection process. A total of 195 potential includes were identified through the initial search of databas- es (n = 176) and additional sources (n = 19). After the removal of duplicates, 194 documents were screened for the title and abstract review. At this stage, 178 docu- ments were excluded primarily because they did not examine the impact of tasting fees in relation to any of the stated objectives or provide empirical data (e.g., commentaries). The remaining 16 documents under- went full-text review. A further 4 documents were then excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria; which yielded 12 documents and 25 findings being included in the final synthesis. Sc re en in g El ig ib ili ty Full-text documents assessed for eligibility (n = 16) Studies included in synthesis (n = 12) Records identified through database searching (n = 176) Records excluded (n = 178) Titles/Abstracts screened (n = 194) Additional records identified through other sources (n =19) Full-text documents excluded, with reasons (n = 4): - No specific assessment of tasting fees (n = 3) - Not data-based (n = 1) Records after duplicates removed (n = 194) Id en tif ic at io n In cl ud ed Figure 1. PRISMA Chart. 105The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review The vast majority of included documents were pub- lished (92%) with most being journal articles (75%). The disciplines of the document sources were in tourism & travel (50%), wine (33%), and food & beverages (17%). Of note, the first document was published in 1997 [15] and the most recent in 2022 [2]. A majority of findings were derived from samples that were of mixed age (83%), mixed sex (96%), tended to be visitors to wineries (44%) or wine tourists (36%), and had medium (64%) or high (20%) experience with wine (see Table I). As for the wineries and wine regions, a majority of findings came from Australasia (60%) or North America (28%), from countries such as Australia (48%) and the United States (28%), and from regions that were considered established (58%) or new or developing (29%). The provenance of the countries involved was considered to be established (100%). Finally, a majority of findings, were from surveys (60%) or interviews (24%). As reflected in Table 2 (and Table A2 in the Appen- dices), most of the findings related to willingness to pay tasting fees (nfindings = 9; 36%) or impact of fees on pur- chasing behaviour (nfindings = 6; 24%). Overall, a majority of the findings had a negative valance in regard to the impact of tasting fees on wine purchasing behaviour, beliefs, intentions, obligation to buy and willingness to pay (nfindings = 16; 64%). Specifically, the few findings for purchasing behaviour (volume, $) were split between negative (nfindings = 4; 67%) and positive (nfindings = 2; 33%) impacts of fees. For instance, “Visitors who had free wine tasting spent more money at the wineries than visitors who paid a tasting fee” (Kolyesnikova and Dodd [27], p. 816), whereas “…it is clear that visitors spent more at wineries that charged a fee…” [32]. The findings for beliefs were either negative (nfind- ings = 2; 67%) or neutral (nfindings = 1; 33%). One finding implied that customers held more positive views toward wineries that did not charge tasting fees, “…visitors who tasted wine at no charge felt significantly more appre- ciative of the personnel who provided services than did visitors who paid a tasting fee” (Kolyesnikova and Dodd [27], p. 816), while another observed no impact of fees on customers’ “…attitude towards the winery” (Thomas and Galbreath [33], p. 8). For intention to visit or purchase from the winery in the future, a majority of findings suggested that tasting fees had a negative effect (nfindings = 3; 75%). For exam- ple, “…for a winery wishing to attract the youth market, charging a tasting fee would not appear appropriate…” (Hall and Treloar [22], p. 123), and “An entrance fee would generate revenue but reduction in visitation may be a poor trade-off for these wineries” (Taylor et al. [17], p. 73). In the first published study on the topic, King and Morris [15] concluded that “…wineries could lose 36% of visitors” (p. 383) with the introduction of tasting fees at the cellar door. On the question of willingness to pay tasting fees, more than half of the findings suggested a lack of will- ingness (nfindings = 5; 56%), while several supported a willingness to pay (nfindings = 3; 33%). For instance, “… the majority of respondents would not stay at the win- ery and taste the wine if there was a charge” (McNamara Table 1. Characteristics of the sample and the wineries (nfindings = 25). Variable Nfindings % Characteristics of sample Age Group Young adults 3 13 Middle-age 1 4 Mixed 19 83 Sex Male 1 4 Mixed 23 96 Population Visitors to wineries 11 44 Wine tourists 9 36 Industry professionals 2 8 University students 3 12 Experience with wine Low 2 8 Medium 16 64 High 5 20 Mixed 2 8 Characteristics of the winery Location: Continent North America 7 28 Europe 2 8 Australasia 15 60 Mixed 1 4 Location: Country United States 7 28 Australia 12 48 New Zealand 2 8 Germany 2 8 Other 1 4 Mixed 1 4 Provenance: Country Established 25 100 Provenance: Region New or developing 7 29 Established 14 58 Mixed 3 13 106 John C. Spence and Cassidy [31], p. 15) and “The idea of charging fees for tasting proved to be a controversial issue and it was suggested by the majority of wineries that tasting fees would never be charged (with the exception of groups)” (Beverland [23], p. 126). In contrast, Bitsch et al. [25] explored willingness to pay tasting fees among Germany university students and concluded that “…consumers are willing to pay positive prices for wine touristic activi- ties” (p. 2492). In terms of obligation to buy wine in the presence of tasting fees, the findings implied a lack of obligation (nfindings = 2; 67%) or neutral (1; 33%). For instance, “… visitors who paid a tasting fee felt less obligated to end their visit to the winery with a purchase (Kolyesnikova and Dodd [27], p. 816) and “…nearly half (48 percent) of respondents indicated that they would not neces- sarily buy wine if they paid for a tasting” (McNamara and Cassidy [31], p. 13). Whereas, King and Morris [15] found that “The attitude of these tourists was varied…” (p. 383) when it came to obligations to buy. 4. DISCUSSION This review presents a summary of studies that examined the impact or influence of tasting fees in win- eries on the purchasing behaviour, beliefs, and willing- ness to pay for such fees. A limited number of studies and findings were available to review and few have been produced on the topic since 2015. The included stud- ies were conducted primarily in Australasia and North America and a majority of findings were derived from surveys or interviews. Though a majority of the findings suggested that customers and industry professionals did not support the adoption of tasting fees at the cellar door, some vari- ation was observed across the research questions exam- ined in this review. Mixed impact was noted for pur- chasing behaviour (i.e., volume, money spent), whereas slightly stronger negative associations were seen for intention to visit the winery or purchase wine in the future, willingness to pay for fees, and obligation to buy wine. One of the more salient findings was that tasting fees are associated with perceived service failure of win- eries among 90,000 TripAdvisor reviews [2]. Factors that appeared to moderate these relationships were the prov- enance of the wine region [17], the size of the winery or wineries [17], and the perceived quality of the winery or wines served [32] [31]. For instance, small wineries in developing regions are much less likely to have tast- ing fees and their customers are more likely to expect free tastings. As recounted by an owner of a small win- ery in a developing region in California, “[w]e know from informal surveys that, when asked, visitors state they object to paying for wine tasting…” (Zucca [14], p. 8). However, the most important factor was whether purchases of wine were reimbursed [23] [31] or gifts or snacks were offered with the tasting [31] [34]. The offering of free samples to stimulate interest in products and to encourage purchases has long been an effective marketing strategy [35] [36]. For instance, in- store offerings of free beer and wine samples can increase sales by as much as 70% to 300% for those products [39]. According to reciprocity theory [35] [36], consumers who feel more gratitude and obligated toward a winery will likely spend more on wine [26]. However, the presence of a tasting fee reduces the sense of gratitude and obliga- tion [37], [15], [27]. For instance, Kolyesnikova and Dodd [27] observed that visitors to wineries with complimen- tary tastings spent significantly more money and expe- rienced a greater sense of obligation to make purchases than those visitors who paid for tastings. Thus, unless the customer is receiving something for their fee beyond the wine sample itself, they may not feel obligated to pur- Table 2. Impact of tasting fees on purchasing behaviour, beliefs, intentions, willingness to pay fees, and obligation to buy wine (nfind- ings = 25). Research Question Nfindings % within group Impact of tasting fees on purchasing behaviour (volume) 4 Negative 3 75 Positive 1 25 Impact of tasting fees on purchasing behaviour ($) 2 Negative 1 50 Positive 1 50 Impact on beliefs toward/ about winery 3 Negative 2 67 Positive 1 33 Impact on intention to visit or purchase from the winery 4 Negative 3 75 Positive 1 25 Willingness to pay a tasting fee 9 Unwilling 5 56 Willing 3 33 Neutral 1 11 Obligation to buy wine 3 Not obligated 2 67 Neutral 1 33 107The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review chase wine as part of their visit. Offering reimbursements on wine purchases or gifts or food with the tastings may foster some sense of reciprocity on the part of the cus- tomer [31] [34]. For example, food offerings with tast- ings in wineries are associated with customer satisfaction [4]. In addition to reimbursement or gifts/food offerings, one option is to employ a pay-what-you want scheme in which the customer determines the price they are willing to pay for the tasting [25] [26]. Of course, this all depends on whether wineries are seeing the tasting fee as a mech- anism for weeding out freeloaders and recouping costs or a source of revenue. If tasting fees are supposed to dissuade the casual customer and allow wineries to provide a higher level of service to the potentially loyal customer [38], then we would expect that satisfaction is higher for wineries that charge fees or in regions that have adopted fees in com- parison to those that have not done so. However, along with the findings of this review, other research challeng- es this notion. According to TripAdvisor reviews of five major international wine regions (Hunter Valley, Napa Valley, Mendoza, Stellenbosch, Tuscany), the Napa Val- ley ranks fourth in popularity, third in perceived quality, and first in perceived service failure [2]. Yet, Napa has the most extensive and expensive tasting fees in the world. The average cost of tastings in Napa are $58 USD and pre- mium wines are tasted for $90 USD [18]. In 2021, per-per- son spending at the cellar door in Napa was up less than 1 percent from 2019, while it was down 10 percent in Sono- ma County [18]. Aside from COVID-related explanations, it is possible that customers in those regions are feeling the pinch of the tasting fees and are reacting with their wallets and their reviews of service. Thus, assessments of service quality (e.g., [7]) and the broader winescape [11] should consider the impact of tasting fees on customer satisfaction and purchase decisions. 4.1 Implications for practice Several potential implications for wineries can be garnered from this review. First, if the intent of a tast- ing room is to generate interest in a winery and to stimulate sales, then requiring a tasting fee without any reimbursement after a purchase is not an effective strat- egy. While it may generate revenue in the short term, the findings of this review suggest such practices will not inspire customers to revisit or to purchase wines from the winery in the future. Thus, wineries should consider waiving tasting fees with the purchase of wine. Second, the perceived quality of the tasting room expe- rience is critical to customer tolerance of fees. Visitors are willing to pay for tastings if they feel they learned something about the winery, wines, and/or region while receiving value for money in terms of the quality of the wines tasted. Therefore, if the argument for having such fees in place is to partly cover the costs of capable and knowledgeable staff in the tasting room, that fact should be apparent to the customer. Finally, the cost of tast- ings has increased dramatically in the past few years and this may impact visitations and sales in the tasting room. For instance, a standard tasting fee in the United States increased by an average of 50 percent from 2019 ($21 USD) to 2021 ($31) [18]. This was due primarily to wineries attempting to recoup lost revenue resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Along with the fact that many wineries are retaining a by-appointment model for visits [18], the question becomes whether wineries can attract new and younger customers to their venues [39]. As mentioned previously, given that this review identi- fied negative perceptions about tasting fees, it will be important for wineries to demonstrate value for money and emphasize a high quality tasting experience. 4.2 Limitations This review has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, though assessment of quality is not a requirement of a good scoping review [28], a majority of the findings in this review were from cross-sectional designs (e.g., surveys) and interviews. Thus, internal validity is low and any causal claims should be made with caution. Second, most of the studies were conduct- ed in Australia and the United States. Since variation exists in the extent to which tasting fees are employed in various countries and regions, more research should be conducted in developing regions (e.g., China, United Kingdom) and in more established ones such as Canada, Chile, France, and South Africa. Finally, it was surpris- ing to find so few studies examining the impact of tast- ing fees. Given the controversial nature of these fees [12], and that calls have been made for more research on the topic (e.g., [14]), it is unclear why so few studies have been conducted. Regardless, the findings of this review should be treated with caution. 5. CONCLUSION This paper presents the first systematic review to examine the impact or influence of tasting fees at the cellar door on purchasing behaviour, beliefs, and obliga- tion to buy wine. A majority of findings suggested mixed impact of tasting fees on purchasing behaviour but nega- tive impact or influence on beliefs toward the winery, 108 John C. Spence willingness to pay for fees, and obligation to buy wine. Furthermore, if tasting fees are to be employed, both customers and industry professionals suggested wineries should consider reimbursing purchases of wine (e.g., [23] [31]). However, more research is required on the topic, especially in countries and regions that are less estab- lished. Finally, these findings have relevance for theory (e.g., reciprocity theory, willingness to pay) and suggest that frameworks such as the winescape [11] and service- scape [7] should recognize the importance of tasting fees in the customer experience at the cellar door. REFERENCES [1] A. D. Alonso, L. Sheridan and P. Scherrer, “Impor- tance of tasting rooms for Canary Island’ wineries,” British Food Journal, vol. 110, no. 10, pp. 977-988, 2008. [2] E. Barbierato, I. Bernetti and I. Capecchi, “What went right and what went wrong in my cellar door visit? A worldwide analysis of TripAdvisor’s reviews of Wineries & Vineyards,” Wine Econom- ics and Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 47–72, 2022. [3] T. Fernandes and M. Cruz, “Dimensions and out- comes of experience quality in tourism: The case of Port wine cellars,” Journal of Retailing and Con- sumer Services, vol. 31, pp. 371-379, 2016. [4] K. Lee, M. Madanoglu, S. H. Inhyuck and A. Fritz, “The impact of service quality and customer satisfac- tion on consumer spending in wineries,” The Service Industries Journal, vol. 41, no. 3-4, pp. 248-260, 2021. [5] M. A. O’Neill and A. Palmer, “Wine production and tourism: adding service to a perfect partner- ship,” Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 269-284, 2004. [6] V. A. Quintal, B. Thomas and I. Phau, “Incorpo- rating the winescape into the theory of planned behaviour: examining ‘new world’ wineries,” Tour- ism Management, vol. 46, pp. 596-609, 2015. [7] M. Shapiro and M. I. Gómez, “Customer satisfac- tion and sales performance in wine tasting rooms,” International Journal of Wine Business Research, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 45-60, 2014. [8] N. Kolyesnikova and T. H. Dodd, “Effects of win- ery visitor group size on gratitude and obligation,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 104- 112, 2008. [9] S. Charters and M. O’Neill, “Service quality at the cellar door: a comparison between regions,” Inter- national Journal of Wine Marketing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 7-17, 2001. [10] L. I. Nowak and S. K. Newton, “Using the tasting room experience to create loyal customers,” Inter- national Journal of Wine Marketing, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 157-165, 2006. [11] B. Thomas, V. A. Quintal and I. Phau, “Wine tour- ist engagement with the winescape: scale devel- opment and validation,” Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, vol. 42, no. 5, p. 793–828, 2018. [12] D. Travers , “Fees: A matter of taste?,” Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal of Oenology, Viticulture, Finance, and Marketing, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 66-71, 1999. [13] N. Macionis and B. Cambourne, “Wine tourism: just what is it all about?,” Wine Industry Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 41-47, 1998. [14] G. Zucca, “Direct to consumer sales in small winer- ies: a case study of tasting room and club sales,” 2010. [15] C. King and R. Morris, “To taste or not to taste… to charge or not to charge,” Australian & New Zea- land Wine Industry Journal, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 381- 385, 1997. [16] C. Fisher, “2007 tasting room survey report,” Wine Business Monthly, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 62-68, 2007. [17] R. G. Taylor, S. Woodall, P. R. Wandschneider and J. C. Foltz, “The demand for wine tourism in Can- yon County, Idaho,” International Food and Agri- business Management Review, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 58-75, 2004. [18] Silicon Valley Bank, “2021 direct-to-consumer wine survey report, results and benchmarks,” Sili- con Valley Bank, California, 2021. [19] Wine Australia, “2018 Cellar door & direct to con- sumer research,” Wine Australia, 2018. [20] Wine Australia, “DTC: Surviving and thriving in 2020-21 – Results of the wine direct-to-customer survey 2021,” 2021. [21] T. Baird, Between the vines: a comparative analysis of wineries’ attitudes towards wine tourism in New Zealand, Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Canterbury, 2012. [22] C. M. Hall and P. Treloar, “Tasting fees and the youth market,” Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 113-127, 2008. [23] M. Beverland, “Wine tourists: A missed opportuni- ty or a misplaced priority,” Pacific Tourism Review, vol. 3, pp. 119-131, 1999. [24] Wine Business Solutions, “Taking the direct route 2017,” Australia, 2017. [25] L. Bitsch, J. H. Hanf and J. Rüdiger, “An innova- tive price-setting approach: a pay-what-you-want experiment,” British Food Journal, vol. 122, no. 8, pp. 2481-2496, 2020. 109The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review [26] J. H. Hanf and O. Giering, “Literature assessment on ways how to increase the willingness to pay at German wine tastings,” Mitteilungen Klosterneu- burg, vol. 64, pp. 120-128, 2014. [27] N. Kolyesnikova and T. H. Dodd, “There is no such thing as a free wine tasting: the effect of a tasting fee on obligation to buy,” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 806-819, 2009. [28] H. Arksey and L. O’Malley, “Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework,” Interna- tional Journal of Social Research Methodology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 19-32, 2005. [29] D. Levac, H. Colquhoun and K. K. O’Brien, “Scop- ing studies: advancing the methodology,” Imple- mentation Science, vol. 5, p. Article 69, 2010. [30] A. C. Tricco, E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K. O’Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac, D. Moher, M. D. Peters and S. E. Strauss, “PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 169, no. 7, p. 467–473, 2018. [31] N. McNamara and F. Cassidy, “Wine tasting: to charge or not to charge?,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 49, pp. 8-16, 2015. [32] D. Holecek and D. McCole, “2012 Michigan Wine Tasting Room Research – A Series (Issue #4), The impact of tasting room fees on wine purchases,” Northern Grapes News, vol. 3, no. 2, 2014. [33] B. Thomas and J. Galbreath, “Beyond the tradition- al cellar door: Do tiered cellar door service offer- ings maximise value for different wine tourist seg- ments?,” Wine Australia, 2021. [34] L. Roberts and B. Sparks, “Enhancing the wine tourism experience: the customers’ viewpoint,” in Global wine tourism: Research, management and marketing, CAB eBooks, 2006, pp. 47-58. [35] A. W. Gouldner, “The norm of reciprocity: A pre- liminary statement,” American Sociological Review, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 161-178, 1960. [36] A. Falk and U. Fischbacher, “A theory of reciproc- ity,” Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 293-315, 2006. [37] S. Charters, J. Fountain and N. Fish, N., “You felt like lingering…’: experiencing the ‘real’ ser- vice at the winery tasting room,” Journal of Travel Research, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 122-134, 2009. [38] T. Spawton, “Marketing planning for wine,” Inter- national Journal of Wine Marketing, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2-49, 1990. [39] R. McMillan, “State of the US Wine Industry 2023,” Silicon Valley Bank, California, 2023. [40] C. Heilman, K. Lakishyk and S. Radas, “An empiri- cal investigation of in‐store sampling promotions,” British Food Journal, vol. 113, no. 10, pp. 1252- 1266, 2011. [41] H. B. Lammers, “The effect of free samples on immediate consumer purchase,” Journal of Con- sumer Marketing, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 31-37, 1991. [42] J. Pinsker, “The psychology behind Costco’s free samples,” The Atlantic, vol. October, 1 October 2014. 110 John C. Spence APPENDIX Studies included in the review 1. Barbierato, E.,Bernetti, I. and Capecchi, I. (2022), “What went right and what went wrong in my cel- lar door visit? A worldwide analysis of TripAdvisor’s reviews of wineries & vineyards”, Wine Economics and Policy, 11(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.36253/ wep-10871 2. Beverland, M. (1999), “Wine tourists: a missed opportunity or a misplaced priority”, Pacific Tour- ism Review, Vol. 3, pp. 119-131. 3. Bitsch, L., Hanf, J. H. and Rüdiger, J. (2020), “An innovative price-setting approach: a pay-what-you- want experiment”, British Food Journal, Vol. 122 No. 8, pp. 2481-2496. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07- 2019-0504 4. Charters, S., Fountain, J. and Fish, N. (2009), “’You felt like lingering…’: experiencing the ‘real’ ser- vice at the winery tasting room”, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 122-134. https://doi. org/10.1177/0047287508326508 5. Hall, C. M. and Treloar, P. (2008), “Tasting fees and the youth market” Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 113-127. https://doi. org/10.7784/rbtur.v2i2.105 6. Holecek, D. and McCole, D. (2014), “2012 Michi- gan Wine Tasting Room Research – A Series (Issue #4), The impact of tasting room fees on wine pur- chases”, Northern Grapes News, Vol. 3 No. 2. http:// northerngrapesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/201 4/06/2014JuneNGPnewsletter.pdf 7. Kolyesnikova, N. and Dodd, T. H. (2009), “There is no such thing as a free wine tasting: the effect of a tasting fee on obligation to buy” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 8, pp. 806-819. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548400903356228 8. King, C. and Morris, R. (1997), “To taste or not to taste…to charge or not to charge”, Australian & New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 381-385. 9. McNamara, N. and Cassidy, F. (2015), “Wine tast- ing: to charge or not to charge?”, International Jour- nal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 49, pp. 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.05.004 10. Roberts, L. and Sparks, B. (2006), “Enhanc- ing the wine tourism experience: the custom- ers’ viewpoint”, Carlsen J. and Charters S. (Eds.), Global wine tourism: Research, management and marketing, CAB eBooks, pp. 47-58. https://doi. org/10.1079/9781845931704.0047 11. Taylor, R. G., Woodall, S., Wandschneider, P. R. and Foltz, J. C. (2004), “The demand for wine tour- ism in Canyon County, Idaho”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 58-75. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.8125 12. Thomas, B. and Galbreath, J. (2021), “Beyond the traditional cellar door: do tiered cellar door service offerings maximise value for different wine tourist segments?”, final report for incubator project, Wine Australia, available at: https://www.wineaustralia. com/research/projects/incubator-initiative-beyond- the-traditional-wine-cellar-door-do-tiered-cellar- door-service-offeri 111The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review Table A1. Descriptive information for each study included in the review Author Country Region Participants Design Purpose Barbierato (2022) ARG AUS Italy SA US Mendoza, Hunter Valley, Tuscany, Stellenbosch, Napa Valley Visitors Survey The purpose of this work is to study the issues of service quality and service failure during visits to cellar doors in the five regions where wine tourism is most developed: Hunter Valley (AU), Mendoza (AR), Napa Valley (the USA), Stellenbosch (ZA), and Tuscany (IT) (p. 1). Beverland (1999) NZ West Auckland Wine tourists & industry professionals Survey Interview “This research seeks to place wine tourism within the general market context in New Zealand” (p. 119). Bitsch (2020) Germany Rheingau University students Experiment “The following experiment analysed if consumers have a willingness to pay for wine tastings.” Charters (2009) AUS NZ Swan Valley, Western Australia, Yarra Valley, Victoria, & Waipara Valley Visitors Interview “The overall aim of this research have been to investigate visitor perceptions of service in winery tasting rooms” (p. 124). Hall (2008) AUS NZ University students Survey “The aim is to identify the impact of tasting fees at the cellar door on the wine consumer behaviour of the Generation Y market” (p. 117). Holecek (2014) US Michigan Visitors Survey “To obtain the information relating to wine purchase and consumption behavior.” King (1997) AUS Western Australia/Margaret River Visitors & industry professionals Survey Interview “This article examines the opinions and attitudes of… wine tourists towards cellar doors charging tasting fees” (p. 382). Kolyesnikova (2009) US Texas Visitors Survey “…examining possible differences between wine tourists who paid for tasting and those who did not pay a tasting fee” (p. 811). McNamara (2015) AUS Queensland Visitors Survey To assess “the consumer’s perceptions and reactions to charging for wine tastings and under what circumstances” (p. 11). Roberts (2006) AUS Victoria, South Australia, & Queensland Wine tourists Interview “…to develop a greater understanding of the factors that are important or enhance the experience of tourists visiting wine regions” (p. 47). Taylor (2004) US Canyon County, Idaho Visitors Survey “…to discover which variables influence tourists to spend an afternoon touring Canyon County wineries” (p. 60). Thomas (2021) AUS Western Australia Visitors Survey “…developing a better understanding of the different consumer segments that visit wineries and what service offering mix (e.g. wine tasting, restaurant, gift shop, gallery/museum, etc…) represents an appropriate value proposition for them.” (p. 1) ARG = Argentina; AUS = Australia; NZ = New Zealand; SA = South Africa; US = United States. 112 John C. Spence Table A2. Study-specific findings for the research questions. Author Research Question FindingPurchase Behaviour Beliefs Obligation Intention Willingness Vol. $ Barbierato (2022) - Co-occurrence of service failure subreviews for all five wine regions: “The tasting theme is present only in the global graph, but highlights a rather debated problem [60], [61]: whether or not to charge a ‘tasting’ –‘fee’ at your cellar door” (p. 20). Beverland (1999) - - “Charging tasting fees that were not redeemable against a purchase would have a significant impact on visitors” (p. 127) “The idea of charging fees for tasting proved to be a controversial issue and it was suggested by the majority of wineries that tasting fees would never be charged (with the exception of groups)” (p. 126). Bitsch (2020) -, - “In short, our main findings are that consumers are willing to pay positive prices for wine touristic activities” (p. 2492). Charters (2009) + “While many participants said that some sort of exchange felt necessary at the tasting room, particularly where the service experience has been excellent, it is unclear whether charging a tasting fee is an appropriate response” (131). Hall (2008) - “Overall, the results have shown that for a winery wishing to attract the youth market, charging a tasting fee would not appear appropriate…” (p. 123) Holecek (2014) + + + “Although it is clear that visitors spent more at wineries that charged a fee, it is possible that the difference is spending was the result of other factors.” “Almost 71 percent of respondents said they don’t avoid tasting rooms that charge a fee while 29 percent said they do.” King (1997) 0 0 - “The attitude of these tourists was varied with some people stating that although they often did buy at the wineries when there was a tasting fee they did not feel compelled to buy the wine…” (p. 383). “Due to the impact of the results, wineries could lose 36% of visitors” (p. 383) “The proposition that all wineries introduce tasting fees was not generally accepted by association members…” (p. 382). Kolyesnikova (2009) - - - “Visitors who had free wine tasting spent more money at the wineries than visitors who paid a tasting fee” (p. 816). “…visitors who tasted wine at no charge felt significantly more appreciative of the personnel who provided services than did visitors who paid a tasting fee” (p. 816). “…visitors who paid a tasting fee felt less obligated to end their visit to the winery with a purchase” (p. 816). 113The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review Author Research Question FindingPurchase Behaviour Beliefs Obligation Intention Willingness Vol. $ McNamara (2015) - - “…nearly half (48 percent) of respondents indicated that they would not necessarily buy wine if they paid for a tasting” (p. 13). “…the majority of respondents would not stay at the winery and taste the wine if there was a charge” (p. 15). Roberts (2006) - “For many visitors there was still the expectation that there would be complimentary wine tasting, as this had become accepted as ‘part of the ethos’ of visiting a winery” (p. 51). Taylor (2004) - “An entrance fee would generate revenue but reduction in visitation may be a poor trade-off for these wineries” (p. 73). Thomas (2021) - - 0 - “Raw data suggests that introducing a tasting fee has no impact on improving wines sales (ATV, AVV, IPS and SC%)” (pp. 7-8). SC%, AVV, & IPS decreased after introduction of the fee. “…whilst most visitors had a negative attitude towards being charged a tasting fee, this had no impact on their attitude towards the winery or willingness to recommend the winery to others (p. 8). + = positive impact/influence of tasting fees; – = negative impact/influence of tasting fees; 0 = neutral impact/influence of tasting fees. Wine Economics and Policy Volume 12, Issue 1 – 2023 Firenze University Press State of the International Wine Market in 2022: New market trends for wines require new strategies Rafael Del Rey1, Simone Loose2,* Does anyone read my papers? The gap between academic consumer research and the real (wine) world Riccardo Vecchio A certification for natural wine? A comparative analysis of consumer drivers in Italy and Spain Eva Parga Dans1,*, Riccardo Vecchio2, Azzurra Annunziata3, Pablo Alonso González4, Raimundo Otero Enríquez5 Structure and development of the Czech wine market and foreign wine trade Kamila Vesela, David Křížek*, Lucie Severova The impact of alternative packaging on the life cycle of wine on tap Stefano Massaglia1, Tibor Verduna1, Vincenzo Varchetta2, Filippo Brun1, Simone Blanc1,* The new CAP and the challenge of sustainability: a synthetic indicator for the Italian wine sector Roberta Sardone1,*, Simonetta De Leo1, Davide Longhitano2, Roberto Henke1 Analysis of the 2007-2008 Hérault premiumized grubbing-up campaign: a tool to better understand Fischer-Boel’s 2008-2011 grubbing-up campaigns and the desire in 2022 to reintroduce locally premiumized grub-ups Étienne Montaigne1, Samson Zadmehran2,*, Alfredo Coelho3, Yacine Messaoudène4 The impact of fees on customer purchasing behavior and beliefs in winery tasting rooms: A scoping review John C. Spence