Wine Economics and Policy 10(1): 133-145, 2021 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/wep ISSN 2212-9774 (online) | ISSN 2213-3968 (print) | DOI: 10.36253/wep-9878 Wine Economics and Policy Citation: Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez- Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez- Sanchez (2021) Millennial university stu- dents’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auc- tion. Wine Economics and Policy 10(1): 133-145. doi: 10.36253/wep-9878 Copyright: © 2021 Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonza- lez-Sanchez. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www. fupress.com/wep) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Com- mons Attribution License, which per- mits 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. Millennial university students’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auction Elói Jorge1,*, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras2, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez- Sanchez1 1 ECOBAS, Universidade de Vigo, RGEAF, Facultade de CC Económicas e Empresariais, 36310 Vigo, Spain. E-mail: edias@uvigo.es; bgonzale@uvigo.es 2 ECOBAS, Universidade de Vigo, RGEAF, Departamento de Economía Financeira e Con- tabilidade, Facultade de CC Empresariais e Turismo, 32004 Ourense, Spain. E-mail: elva- leiras@uvigo.es *Corresponding author. Abstract. Th is paper analyzes whether the perception of traditional wine brings value to millennials. Based on survey data and experimental auctions (165 participants), this study identifi es the main factors aff ecting this consumer groups’ willingness to pay for traditional wine through a Tobit model methodology. Th e results suggest that millenni- als are willing to pay a higher price depending on demographic factors such as month- ly disposable income, on wine involvement variables such as consumption frequency, and on nourishing and health aspects and product availability at points of sale, both of which are wine purchase decision criteria. Th e investigation has signifi cant marketing and policy implications. Keywords: traditional wine, millennials, willingness to pay, purchase decision vari- ables, experimental auction. 1. INTRODUCTION Traditional food products have been described as those produced with assured authentic receipt, raw material, and production processes and that have been commercially available for over 50 years [1]. Traditional winemak- ing is oft en linked to a wine produced in limited quantities using autoch- thonous grape varieties with minimal chemical-physical and technological intervention methods and using techniques of processing and conservation consolidated by time, in opposition to more modern, standardized, commer- cially oriented and large-scale wine production [2,3].1 Although oft en related 1 Admittedly, to be consistent with prior literature, the labels “traditional”, “typical” [4], and “ter- roir” [5] may overlap in some dimensions. “Typical” and “terroir”, in particular, are commonly employed in the wine literature when examining the sensory typicality of a wine [4,6]. All these traits point to the distinctive characteristics of a wine, linked to the combination of natural and 134 Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez-Sanchez to a remainder category and left out of the mainstream wine groups, the traditional wine concept is attract- ing increasing interest among consumers from the ‘Old World’ and is found in many of the leading wine-pro- ducing countries (e.g., France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal) with strong links to regional/local identity. In Burgundy, France, this concept is closely related to practices devel- oped by vignerons, including small French artisan pro- ducers [7]. In the autonomous region of Galicia (Spain), Decree 174/2019 regulates the production and marketing of traditional wine. In the same line, traditional wine is officially regulated in the autonomous regions of Trento and of Bolzano (Italy) (Law n. 238/2016) and Portugal (article 3 of the Legislative Order 38/2008). For consumers in general, the attribute ‘traditional’ is consistently associated with the concept of natural food products [9]. This claim is commonly linked to ‘old-style family-farm food’ production [10], which is capable of better preserving food naturalness [11] and authenticity [12]. However, recent studies focusing on the millennial generation have shown evidence that such consumers do not necessarily link traditional food prod- ucts with natural food products [13]. This previous evi- dence raises questions about the importance these con- sumers place on the specific case of traditional wine and conditions for attracting wine interest. Drawing on previous literature on millennials’ atti- tudes and wine purchasing behaviors (e.g., [14-16]), the aim of this paper is to analyze whether the concept of traditional wine brings value to millennial university students. Consumers’ purchase decisions rely on several factors that can potentially influence their choices. Spe- cifically, this research examines the influence of individ- ual factors (i.e., demographic characteristics, self-reported wine knowledge and consumption frequency, and wine purchase criteria) on the willingness to pay (WTP) for a wine. In line with this objective, this investigation com- bines a wine experimental auction along with the self- administration of a questionnaire. The experimental auc- tion was designed to compare the WTP for a traditional wine with the WTP for three other wines (non-organic wine protected with a designation of origin (hereafter PDO), organic wine with PDO (hereafter, PDO+Organic), and organic wine without PDO (hereafter organic)). All four wines had the same basic characteristics, namely, color, region, vintage, and grape variety. The setting used was a convenience sample of 165 university students. The findings suggest that millennial university stu- dents are willing to pay a higher price for traditional human factors in a certain territory [4-6]. Terroir and typical wines, in contrast to traditional wine, are frequently used to refer wines that also certificated with PDO or PGI [4,7,8]. wine only under certain circumstances. In particular, we found that consumers’ demographic characteristics, self-reported consumption frequency, and wine purchase criteria can act as driving factors influencing WTP for a traditional wine. This evidence highlights the impor- tance of behavioral factors in wine choice behavior. Therefore, our investigation has major implications for wine business practitioners when targeting specific mar- keting audiences. This paper is structured as follows. Section two reviews the literature and introduces the theoretical framework. Section three describes the research meth- ods (experimental auction and self-administered ques- tionnaire). The fourth and fifth sections introduce and discuss the empirical findings. Finally, the last section presents the main conclusions, limitations, and lines of future research. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Certifications, regulations and market trends in the wine industry The wine sector is regulated by multiple legislations and quality schemes frequently associated with certifica- tions of specific production processes and geographical origin. Certification bodies are organizations that ensure compliance and verif y that the standards disclosed through mandatory or voluntary norms are met. In the last decades, the main regulations and certifications have been pushed to respond to the dynamics of the interna- tional wine industry market. In this regard, a trade-off arises between the forces that lead to the standardization of productions and those in favor of maintaining the traditions and preserving the ties with the territory and the reflection of its unique characteristics on a specific wine [17]. On the one hand, most wine producers have tried to adapt their wines to the dynamics of the international market by producing more commercial and industrial- based products [18], and by adopting technology-driven winemaking techniques (e.g., micro-oxygenation and mechanical filtration [19], or commercial yeast [20]). “In a world characterized by a significant evolution in wine consumption, PDOs have constituted a valid strategy of marketing and competitiveness for producers” ([21], pp. 140). Together with PDOs, organic certification is another main officially regulated production system that is playing a key role in the current scenario. Organic production is a reactive movement looking for eco- logical alternatives to conventional producing systems, generated by modern consumption patterns [22]. To 135Millennial university students’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auction certify their wines as organic, companies not just have to respect the ecological procedures of organic farm- ing (e.g., avoid synthetic chemicals) but also regard the established rules on the use of certain products or prac- tices during the oenological process [23]. The responses to attend to market demands and international dynam- ics moved the production of most wines away from the features of traditional wines [24]. On the other hand, relatively few wine producers, usually small-scale peasants from “Old World” wine regions, struggled to maintain the uniqueness and tra- ditional way of producing wine in their area. The con- cept of ‘traditional wines’ is something that goes beyond PDO or organic certifications. These wines are known since the old days and, although they are subjected to specific regulations in some regions (e.g., Galicia-Spain), they are rarely attached to an official certification. 2.2 Traditional food products Traditional food products were defined by Guerrero et al. [12], as ‘a product frequently consumed or associ- ated with specific celebrations and/or seasons, normally transmitted from one generation to another, made accu- rately in a specific way according to the gastronomic heritage, distinguished and known because of its sensory properties and associated with a certain local, region or country’ (pp. 348). Traditional food products are nor- mally associated with small-scale peasant production systems oriented towards artisanal and old-fashioned elaboration methods ref lecting the soil, the environ- ment, and the culture of one region [18,25] as opposed to industrialized manufacturing [11]. In the specific case of wine, this follows the same principles of the abovementioned products in relation to its production process, i.e., small-scale, made exclu- sively in the rural properties of the peasant farmers, ancestral know-how linked to common cultural roots, the environmental and social characteristics of a certain territory [26,27]. In addition, it is also characterized by the employment of minimal mechanical operations and limited chemical intervention during the winemaking process [2,3]. As a result of its production process, one of the most valued aspects of traditional wines is its abil- ity to better express the terroir [5,6], being its commer- cialization carried out mainly in a cellar door concept, directly with the final consumer, at the head of the rural property where it was produced [28]. In contrast to PDO and organic products, traditional wine is not associated with an official certification scheme. The previous literature on consumer behavior sug- gests that the acceptance of traditional food products could be more linked with middle-aged consumers than with younger generations [29]. Nevertheless, millennials’ attitudes and purchasing behaviors in relation to tradi- tional wine remains underexplored. 2.3 Millennial wine consumption habits The concept ‘millennials’ applies to people who reached adulthood around the beginning of the 21st cen- tury. Accurate delimitation varies from one source to another, but the prevailing threshold encompasses those born between 1982 and 2000 [30]. The use of informa- tion and technology in almost every aspect of their lives is a distinctive feature of this consumer segment [31]. Their behavior might dictate present and future con- sumption tendencies [30]. Therefore, the understanding of millennial behavior has become an important issue not only for academics but also for managers. The millennial generation shows specific features relevant for the analysis of food purchasing habits. These differences place this generation apart from others and establish the segment as one of the most attractive for food businesses across the globe [32]. Millennials have higher acceptance of natural product claims [33] and show a high knowledge level regarding the value and quality of products [31]. Moreover, they are highly aware of their eating habits [33] and their health implications [15], and have a stronger interest in sustainability aspects [34]. Millennials are more likely to come across an inno- vative food product on the market [35]. They have more interest in a greater diversity of flavors and/or textures and usually show interest in non-traditional foods [29]. Millennials tend to be early adopters of new food prod- ucts [35]. This consumer group tends to use price as a quality indicator [36]. Regarding habits related to wine, frequent wine con- sumers appear to be declining among millennials [34]. This can be associated with the evidence that suggests that millennials are willing to pay less for a bottle of wine than older generations [31]. By contrast, the num- ber of occasional consumers is increasing [16]. Millen- nials drink wine in more varied contexts than previous generations, with wine being one of the favorite drinks of millennials in social settings [14,31]. In addition to traditional places such as home and restaurants, con- sumption habits are shifting to other places such as bars and outdoor spaces [37,38]. Wine is primarily consumed in groups and takes its roots in the millennial genera- tion’s lifestyle [16]. Consumer’s price behavior has been linked with price elasticity [36]. On the one hand, price is more inelastic for younger consumers than for older consumers, i.e., 136 Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez-Sanchez one may expect that millennials would be less responsive to price modifications than older consumers [39]. On the other hand, previous research suggests that the price elas- ticity of wine for the lower end of the market is higher than for the middle and upper ranges [40-42]. Therefore, the WTP for wine varies slightly depending on the age of the consumer and the wine price point. Surprisingly, lim- ited evidence can be found in the literature about millen- nials’ WTP for wines in different price brackets. Previous studies of millennials confirm that wine labels have a relevant influence when choosing a bottle of wine [43], as they facilitate risk reduction in decision- making [34]. Furthermore, through the label, the sus- tainable attributes of the wine are communicated, which play a relevant role in the millennial wine purchase deci- sion-making process [31,34]. Furthermore, wine business research suggests that the importance attached to price by this consumer group is directly correlated, among others, to their country of origin [37], the wine produc- tion system [34] or wine type [44]. 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1 Sampling and data collection Two different methods were conducted: a quantita- tive research survey and an experimental auction. The survey was distributed among millennial students from a public university in Spain. The first part of the ques- tionnaire was answered before the experiment, and the second was answered during the experiment [45]. We followed the methodology of similar experimental stud- ies (e.g., [34]) that used convenience sampling of poten- tial respondents. The chosen sample for the present study is supported by Allen and Spialeks’ [30] definition of millennials, comprising individuals born between 1982 and 2000. Along with statistical demographic data, among other information, participants were asked to indicate the importance of a number of established product characteristics when buying a wine. Addition- ally, an experimental auction was conducted to analyze the willingness to pay for wine (e.g., [46]). This proce- dure is developed in depth below in subsection 3.2. To address the issue of common method bias and following Conway and Lance’s [47] recommendations, some procedures were employed before collecting the data. Two pretests with three academics with experience in the wine field ensured anonymity and confidential- ity of the respondents and presented all information and data to facilitate the completion of the survey [48]. All the information-gathering work was performed between November 2017 and March 2018. The sam- ple for this study consisted of 165 respondents. The age of the respondents at the time of the survey ranged between 18 and 35 years2 (see Table 1 for demograph- ics). The use of university students is common in recent experimental auctions involving wine (e.g., [16,46]). Descriptive statistics (Table 1) revealed that the majority of the individuals in the sample were aged between 18 and 21 years old (49.7%), mainly women (55.8%). The average monthly income ranged between 2 The age 18 is the legal age for drinking and purchasing alcohol in Spain. Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the participants in the sample (N = 165). Variable name Variable coding Frequency Percentage Gender Male 73 44.2 Female 92 55.8 Age 18-21 82 49.7 22-25 62 37.6 26-35 21 12.7 Monthly disposable income (€) =< 1000 31 18.8 1001-2000 60 36.4 2001-3000 38 23.0 3001-4000 20 12.1 >4000 10 6.1 Not declared 6 3.6 Wine consumption frequency Never 7 4.2 Several times a year 51 30.9 Less than once per month 18 10.9 1–3 times per month 36 21.8 Once a week 33 20.1 More than a once a week 18 10.9 Daily 2 1.2 Self-reported knowledge of wine products Absolutely no knowledge 40 24.4 Some knowledge 106 64.6 Good knowledge 17 10.4 Not declared 2 0.6 Consumption by wine typea Red 102 61.8 White 102 61.8 Rosé 28 16.9 Sweet 19 11.5 Sparkling 29 17.5 a Participants could choose more than one option. 137Millennial university students’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auction 1,001.00 and 2,000.00 euros (36.4%). Over 50% of the participants reported drinking wine more than 3 times a month. Furthermore, 64.6% of the individuals consid- ered themselves as having some knowledge about wine. It also should be noted that red and white wine were the most frequent types of wine consumed by the partici- pants. 3.2 Task and procedure Drawing on previous literature, we identifi ed ten items infl uencing the wine purchase decision. Partici- pants were required to indicate the importance of each item (see Table 2) when buying a wine. Th eir choices were measured by using a Likert scale, including inter- mediate points, where ‘1’ denoted ‘‘not important at all’’ and ‘5’ ‘‘extremely important’’, prompted by the question “Indicate the importance for you of each of the following characteristics when buying a wine”. Th ere is a common understanding that Likert scales are the most widely used unidimensional scaling method for attitude and opinion measures [49].3 Th e scale reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. In an untabulated test, we obtained a score of 0.6, which according to previous studies [53,54], could be considered an acceptable value. In this regard, a lower Cronbach’s alpha could be considered suffi cient to indi- cate consistency for scales with a reduced number of items [55] or in the case of a new scale [56]. 3 Despite the number of possible items on a Likert scale, fi ve and seven response categories are considered signifi cantly more accurate than other category options [50]. Notwithstanding potential limita- tions, a 5-point Likert scale was found suitable for the present study proposal. Th is number of items has been used in recent similar wine studies [15,19,44]. It has been suggested that this number can reduce respondent’s frustration [51],and is also related to an increased response rate [52]. To assess participants’ WTP for traditional wine, an experimental auction was conducted. Th e experimental auction included four wines (see Fig. 1)4, two organic and two conventional: (1) Wine 1 (PDO): with Protected Designation of Origin and non-organic (i.e. conventional); (2) Wine 2 (organic): produced according to Euro- pean Commission (EC) regulation no. 203/2012; (3) Wine 3 (PDO+Organic): with a Protected Desig- nation of Origin and produced according to European Commission (EC) regulation no. 203/2012; and (4) Wine 4 (Traditional): not a certifi ed wine. Participants were divided into two groups5, with participants submitting their set of bids according to the following scheme: – Group 1 - sees the label fi rst ® then bids ® then tastes the four wines® and then bids again. – Group 2 - tastes fi rst ® then bids ® then sees the label ® and then bids again. In both groups, WTP was measured through the overall average WTP of the participant for each of the four wines considered. Th e experiment consisted of a pen and paper auction that included the following steps [46]. First, with partici- pants allocated randomly and separated from each other, 4 Wines were provided by three wineries. All the wines chosen were col- lected directly from the pallets stored in the wineries’ warehouses. 5 Group 1 and group 2 comprised eighty-fi ve and eighty individuals, respectively. Table 2. Signifi cant factors infl uencing wine purchase (N = 165). Variable Description Source references Mean Std. Dev. Brand Wine brand or producer [57] 3.267 1.079 Taste Expected taste [57] 4.242 0.748 Health Nourishing and health aspects [58] 3.327 0.040 LabelandBottle Visual impact of the bottle / label [59] 2.848 1.004 Price Price of the product [60] 3.897 0.932 Availability Product availability at points of sale [61] 3.445 1.078 Grape Grape variety [38] 3.152 1.142 PDO Protected Designation of Origin [21] 3.509 1.007 RegionalLocal Local or regional product [7] 3.600 1.049 Organic Organic certifi cation [23] 3.109 1.117 Figure 1. Wine information used in the experimental auctions. 138 Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez-Sanchez they received an ID number. Then, participants were placed at a visually isolated table with four wine sam- ples with numbered codes in a different random order specific to each subject. The sessions started by provid- ing written and verbal instructions, as well as a thor- ough briefing about the production process (see Table 3) of each wine in the auction. The participants were sub- sequently informed that the four wines had the same general characteristics: wine region,6 varietal grapes (Mencía) and type (young red). Following Vecchio’s [16] experiment, no additional information on brand, sen- sory characteristics and, to avoid any influences on bid values, no reference price was given to respondents. In line with other studies with similar characteristics (e.g., [46]), the information on alcohol content was not pro- vided to the participants. This is because once the auc- tioned wine samples have all the same alcohol content, this information has no influence on the results. Attend- ants were instructed to eat a piece of cracker and rinse their mouth with water to clear their palate between tastings. The methodology employed is based on the sealed bid method (first-price). This methodology has been used in previous wine studies (e.g., [46]) and has been proven to be quite efficient for eliciting WTP, being one of the easiest for participants to understand; it can also increase equilibrium bids [64]. Subjects were asked to submit the maximum amount they were willing to pay for a 750-ml bottle for each of the four wine sam- ples presented to them. The bid range was from a mini- mum bid of € 0.00 to a maximum of €10.00. Following Schmit et al. [46] and Vecchio [16], each participant received monetary compensation (€10.00) for complet- ing the experiment. This monetary compensation covers the costs associated with their bids as well as the time 6 All the wines in the experiment were produced in Ribeiro wine region, (province of Ourense, Galicia), where red wines assume a relevant pres- ence [62]. Ribeiro is one of the oldest Denominations of Origin (PDO) in Spain (1932). It is also one of the most outstanding in terms of sales and knowledge awareness among Spanish consumers [63]. individuals spent in the experimental auction [65]. Par- ticipants were informed that only one of the wines auc- tioned would be binding to the end of the experiment. The highest bidder should buy the wine bottle, so it was in their best interest to bid their maximum WTP for each of the wines. The experiment involved a total of nine sessions. In group 1, the glasses were labeled with the infor- mation of each wine. Participants submitted their bids for each of the four wine samples. Later, they were allowed to assess the overall likeability and the attrib- utes of bitterness, sweetness, and fruitiness (see Appen- dix1). This assessment was followed by a second set of bids [46]. In group 2, participants were invited to per- form a blind tasting of each of the four wines. This sen- sory assessment was followed by a first set of bids. After- wards, the conductors of the experiment uncovered the label for each wine. At that point, participants presented the second set of bids. 3.3 Data analysis Tobit models, also commonly designated censored regression models, are widely used in academic research. Such models are also adapted to the study of consumers’ response to food labels (e.g., [16,46]). Given the nature of the data, the Tobit model is recognized as one of the most appropriate methods to model the factors affect- ing bidding behavior [66]. 7 In particular, the methods employed ensured that the data were left-censored at 0, since WTP cannot be negative. According to Tobin [66], the Tobit model, compared with other statistical tech- niques, ensures more consistent estimates. Furthermore, it facilitates the inclusion of additional information. Sta- tistical analysis was performed using R 3.6.1 GUI 1.70 statistical package Rcmdr Version 2.6-0. The censReg, 7 In this research the dependent variable is a continuous variable in a finite interval. Table 3. The wine production process as explained to the participants. Wine 1 Wine 2 Wine 3 Wine 4 PDO Organic PDO+Organic Traditional Production System Conventional Organic Organic Conventional Production process This wine has been produced following PDO regulations (e.g., being officially approved by the DO) This wine has been produced following European Union rules for organic production (e.g., the avoidance of any chemical interventions) This wine has been produced following PDO regulations and European Union rules for organic production This wine has been produced in small-scale, manufactured at the rural property of peasant farmers employing traditional practices; it has no certifications 139Millennial university students’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auction summarytools, and maxLik packages were used to com- pute censored regression analysis and other statistical analyses [67]. 4. RESULTS 4.1 Average willingness to pay bids for each of the four wines The main aim of this study is to analyze whether the concept of traditional wine brings value to millen- nial university students. For that purpose, we examined whether information revelation affected participants’ WTP. Using data from group 1, this assessment adopted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) along with the Tukey test [68]. The preliminary assessment confirmed the influence of information cues. The WTP reached an average of €2.13 for the traditional wine (Table 4). Addi- tionally, the average bid for this wine was lower than for other wines. Table 5 shows the results for group 2. After the blind test, the average bid for traditional wine was €3.67. Next, the information about the wines was presented to the participants. The following average bid for this wine decreased by €1.21. This represents a reduction of 32.97% compared to the average bid obtained in the blind tast- ing. By contrast, the average WTP bids for the remain- ing wines increased when information was disclosed after the sensory evaluation. Many experimental auction studies conducted on agricultural and processed food products have highlight- ed the importance of introducing sensory cues when evaluating consumers’ WTP (e.g., [69]). Therefore, in line with those works, a complementary analysis was per- formed. The new analysis was designed to assess the par- ticipants’ overall likeability towards intrinsic wine qual- ity (5-point Likert scale where 1 denoted ‘Don’t like it at all’ and 5 denoted ‘Like it a lot’). The findings presented in Table 6 suggest that sensory responses to traditional wine are stronger when sensory evaluation precedes the disclosure of information. 4.2 Variables influencing the purchase of traditional wine The participants’ demographics, self-reported wine knowledge, consumption frequency, and purchase deci- sion criteria were analyzed as variables potentially influ- encing the purchase of traditional wine. This analysis was performed with data from group 1 because the steps followed by this group were closer to a real market sce- nario, although we acknowledge the limitation that it does not consider the influence of the ‘context’ and the ‘situation’ of purchase. Table 7 provides a summary of the results. The relevant role of some sociodemographic variables is suggested here. A significant positive rela- tionship was identified between monthly disposable income and the WTP for traditional wine, as expected (e.g., [70]). The frequency of wine consumption was also found to have a significant positive relationship, con- firming previous findings associating frequency of con- sumption with a high acceptance of certain products (e.g., [57,71]). The findings also suggested a meaningful effect of the variables in the wine purchase decision. Here, the t-value confirmed the statistical significance of the variable health. The results also suggest that the availability of the product has a negative relationship with WTP. To further explore the participants’ behavior toward the traditional wine, we applied ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to understand the factors underlying Table 4. Average willingness to pay (€)* bids displaying information first (group 1). Wine Information first PDO 3.76 Organic 3.93 PDO+Organic 5.18 Traditional 2.13 Table 5. Average willingness to pay (€)* bids displaying sensory evaluation first (group 2). Wine Blind taste (A) Information after blind taste (B) Difference (B-A) PDO 2.84 3.04 +0.20 Organic 2.64 2.75 +0.11 PDO+Organic 2.79 3.71 +0.92 Traditional 3.67 2.46 -1.21 *Significant at: p < 0.01 (one-way ANOVA). Table 6. Average overall likeability. Information first (group 1) Sensorial first (group 2) Difference (group 2- group 1) PDO 3.40 2.88 -0.52 Organic 2.91 2.66 -0.25 PDO+Organic 3.02 2.84 -0.18 Traditional 3.14 3.48 +0.34 140 Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez-Sanchez the difference in prices assigned to these products. Inter- estingly, as shown in Table 8, income was statistically significant for Traditional-PDO and Traditional-Organic but not for Traditional-PDO+Organic. The variable price only impacted Traditional-EURO LEAF. In particular, the estimated coefficients for income show that partici- pants with higher income tended to bid higher in the significant relationships. 5. DISCUSSION Wine is one of the most differentiated products in the food market [72]. The aim of this paper is to ana- lyze whether the perception of traditional wine adds value for millennial university students. New emerging consumer groups are increasingly concerned about dif- ferentiated food products [73]. Based on the combina- tion of dynamics in food and beverage markets [74], consumers’ preferences, and the need to differentiate themselves from their competition [70], managers have explored new production techniques and developed innovative products, and such changes have impacted traditional attributes and uniqueness [12,29]. Despite market dynamics and innovation changes, it appears that a substantial untapped market exists for tradition- al wines. The Tobit model indicated that variables affecting WTP for traditional wine vary depending on monthly disposable income, frequency of wine consumption, health-related issues, and availability at sales points. Although ‘traditional’ is an attribute excluded from what millennial university students consider to be a ‘natural product’ [13], surprisingly, the results show that fulfilling certain conditions can contribute to increasing prefer- ences towards such products with respect to wine. Table 7. Tobit regression results on bids for the traditional wine auctioned in group 1 (information disclosed first)a. Variable PDO Organic PDO+ Organic Traditional Gender -0.044 0.100 0.899 0.517 (0.556) (0.515) (0.623) (0.472) Income -0.187 -0.750 0.187 2.001** (0.216) (0.202) (0.244) (0.182) Product knowledge -1.432 -1.302 -0.904 -1.325 (0.525) (0.487) (0.589) (0.445) Consume frequency 0.985 0.997 0.759 1.826* (0.176) (0.164) (0.198) (0.148) Brand 0.014 0.185 0.040 -0.146 (0.249) (0.230) (0.279) (0.210) Taste -0.462 0.100 0.388 0.163 (0.312) (0.289) (0.349) (0.264) Health 1.381 1.924* 1.792* 2.207** (0.269) (0.249) (0.302) (0.232) LabelandBottle -0.170 -0.628 -0.692 -0.419 (0.240) (0.222) (0.269) (0.205) Price -0.364 -2.249** -1.349 -0.248 (0.275) (0.255) (0.308) (0.233) Availability -1.639 -0.663 -2.089** -1.950* (0.224) (0.208) (0.252) (0.192) Grape 0.774 1.749* 0.835 0.647 (0.218) (0.202) (0.244) (0.186) PDO -0.156 -0.160 0.051 -0.083 (0.295) (0.274) (0.331) (0.248) RegionalLocal 0.060 -0.394 -0.445 -0.073 (0.262) (0.243) (0.294) (0.222) Organic -0.321 -0.671 0.510 -0.738 (0.276) (0.256) (0.309) (0.234) Constant 2.584 2.768 2.005 0.599 (2.436) (2.258) (2.731) (2.042) Log-likelihood -163.254 -157.455 -172.260 -141.264 N 85 85 85 85 a Standard error is reported in parentheses. Significance codes: ‘*’, ‘**’, and ‘***’ denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. Table 8. OLS regression results for the price difference in bids for the traditional wine auctioned in group 1 (information disclosed first)a. Variable PDO Organic PDO+Organic Gender 0.577 0.389 -0.618 Income 2.246** 2.797*** 1.531 Product knowledge 0.472 0.187 -0.034 Consume frequency 0.585 0.647 0.650 Brand -0.316 -0.487 -0.309 Taste 0.805 0.118 -0.255 Health 0.159 -0.325 -0.531 LabelandBottle -0.050 0.437 0.603 Price 0.234 2.288** 1.426 Availability 0.156 -1.064 0.882 Grape -0.235 -1.255 -0.375 PDO 0.293 0.271 0.151 RegionalLocal -0.392 -0.126 0.254 Organic -0.208 0.156 -1.132 Constant -2.497 -2.410 -1.814 R2 0.138 0.196 0.192 N 85 85 85 a Standard error is reported in parentheses. Significance codes: ‘*’, ‘**’, and ‘***’ denote significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively. 141Millennial university students’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auction The driving factors of wine purchase create a unique level playing field for traditional wines and a distinc- tive market niche far from large-scale, streamlined industrial wine production. First, the health-enhancing aspects of wine – a niche closely associated with organic products – are a driver of product differentiation and new marketing channels. The previous literature has acknowledged that the expected enhanced health ben- efits derived from wine consumption are also related to the WTP (for example, those employing organic produc- tion methods [43] that do not contain certain specific additives, such as sulfites [75]). Thus, these factors lead to the assumption that the health-enhancing aspects of traditional wines may be related to their less-processed nature and the avoidance of chemical interventions dur- ing the winemaking process [2,3], which lead consum- ers to be willing to pay more for such products.8 Second, smaller availability at the point of sale may act as a pro- moter of family traditional small-scale production and as a driver of wine tourism development. Recent empiri- cal investigations suggest that limited availability of a product may be seen as a barrier affecting consumers’ purchase decisions [61]. In some cases, limited availabil- ity can also relate to a niche market [77]. Despite the limited evidence in the previous lit- erature of millennials’ WTP for wines in different price ranges, some conclusions can be mentioned in this regard from our findings. On the one hand, according to previous research, the price elasticity of traditional wine, often related to a remainder category, may have the equivalent behavior as basic priced wines, consist- ent with high price elasticity (e.g., [36,41,42]). How- ever, on the other hand, a different scenario could be possible. The WTP for traditional wine is related to its smaller availability at the point of sale, which can lead to the assumption that traditional wine could follow the same assessment of premium wines, meaning that they are more inelastic. Additionally, the more frequently the individual consumes wine, the higher the WTP for tra- ditional wine. In this regard, previous studies (e.g., [78]) suggest that participants with a higher frequency of wine consumption are less price sensitive, in both on- and off- premise wine sale outlets. Furthermore, considering the common features shared with more differentiated prod- ucts, significant substitution effects may not be expected for traditional wine. Although the elasticity and sub- stitutability of traditional wines in a millennial setting are very interesting discussion issues, caution must be applied to previous discussions as this is not our study focus. There is abundant room for further progress on 8 In this regard, conflicts of interest in research related to the health benefits of wine should be acknowledged (e.g., [58,76]). these issues. Studies specifically oriented and drawing on specific theories (e.g., auction theory [79]) could extend our knowledge about elasticity and substitutability at different price ranges in a millennial context. Finally, positive externalities can arise from the fact that traditional wine purchases are often related to a ‘cellar door’ experience, which is habitually linked to the oldest consumer segment [70] and per se represents an authentic experience of place. Such an experience creates a close relationship with the seller, facilitating consumer loyalty and contributing to increased sales in the long term and preventing consumers’ perception of tradition- al wines as a low-quality wine class. This is confirmed by Famularo et al.’s [80] assumptions that a greater under- standing of a wine’s region results from consumers’ knowledge and involvement with wine products, which together contribute to their decision-making process. 6. CONCLUSIONS In view of the above considerations, there seems to be an alternative path for small traditional wine produc- ers. Such wine producers are completely different from more technology-oriented producers. These two realities could, and should, coexist in the market landscape for mutual benefit. Nevertheless, traditional products, when compared to other niche market products, suffer from a lack of decoded information and clear labeling. The presence on the label of a protected designation of origin reference [43,57] or organic certification [43] has proven to be a quality indicator. Thus, our findings confirm pre- vious studies (e.g., [8,59]) on the use of information cues as an important focus for assisting consumers in deci- sion-making related to the quality of the product. Such information is required given the impossibility of tast- ing the wine before purchase. Therefore, wine produc- ers should provide detailed and valuable cues to market traditional wine. Furthermore, the sustainable aspects of traditional wine, namely, aspects related to the practices employed for its production, the promotion of the cul- tural and artisanal heritage of its region of origin, and economic profitability for many small producers, should be enhanced. The present study has limitations, which offer ample opportunities for future research. First, although the research model provided some novel insights into the evaluation of traditional wine in the millennial context, data collection involved only millennial students from a public university in Spain. Second, the geographical area in which the auctions were performed has a long winemaking tradition, and wine is present in daily life. 142 Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez-Sanchez The traditional attribute may perform differently in areas where traditional is associated with greater exclu- sivity and high standing. Therefore, future research extending this analysis to more diverse samples and other geographical locations is recommended. Studies in diverse cultural settings may confirm (or not) our find- ings. Third, as the minimum bid of 0.00€, it could not be determined whether a person would have a negative bid (that is, actually pay to avoid drinking the wine). Fourth, the limitation of using a single product in the analy- sis should also be considered. Fifth, the research model does not consider the influence of the ‘context’ and the ‘situation’ of purchase. For that reason, generalization of the results to real market transactions should proceed with caution. Finally, the analysis was carried out using entry-level wines; thus, extrapolation of the results relat- ed to price elasticity and substitutability for the lower end of the market to the middle and upper ranges may not be possible. Future research could extend the analy- sis by integrating different price points (basic, premium, super premium, ultra-premium and luxury). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The paper is derived from data collected for the first author’s thesis at Universidade de Vigo. We thank the detailed suggestions of Francisco Campos, Alfredo Coe- lho, the Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and comments that helped improve pre- vious versions of the paper. This research was partially funded by Diputacion de Ourense (INOU 17-10) and RGEAF-ECOBAS. REFERENCES [1] Gellynck, X., Kühne, B., 2008. Innovation and col- laboration in traditional food chain networks. J . Chain Netw. Sci., 8 (2), 121-129. https://doi. org/10.3920/JCNS2008.x094. [2] Antonelli A., Arfelli G., Masino F., Sartini E., 2010. Comparison of traditional and reductive winemak- ing: influence on some fixed components and sen- sorial characteristics. Eur. Food Res. Technol., 231 (1), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-010- 1250-6. [3] Fuentes, J. M., Gallego, E., García, A. I., Ayuga, F., 2010. New uses for old traditional farm build- ings: The case of the underground wine cellars in Spain. Land use Policy, 27 (3), 738-748. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.10.002. [4] Maitre, I., Symoneaux, R., Jourjon, F., Mehinagic, E., 2010. Sensory typicality of wines: How scientists have recently dealt with this subject, Food Qual. Prefer., 21 (7), 726-731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2010.06.003. [5] Charters, S., 2010. Marketing Terroir: A conceptual approach. Refereed paper, 5th International Acad- emy of Wine Business Research Conference, 8‐10 February 2010, Auckland, New Zealand. [6] Francesca, N., Gaglio, R., Alfonzo, A., Settanni, L., Corona, O., Mazzei, P., Romano, R., Piccolo, A., Moschetti, G., 2016. The Wine: Typicality or Mere Diversity? The Effect of Spontaneous Fermenta- tions and Biotic Factors on the Characteristics of Wine. Agric. Agric. Sci., 8, 769–773. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.064. [7] González, P. A., Dans, E. P., 2018. The ‘terroirist’ social movement: The reawakening of wine culture in Spain. J. Rural Stud., 61, 184-196. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.04.014. [8] Spielmann, N., 2015. Anything but typical: how consumers evaluate origin products based on their cues. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res., 27 (1), 23-39. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-07-2014-0031. [9] Michel, F., Siegrist, M., 2019. How should impor- tance of naturalness be measured? A comparison of different scales. Appetite, 140, 298-304. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.05.019. [10] Thøgersen, J., de Barcellos, M.D., Perin, M.G., Zhou, Y., 2015. Consumer buying motives and attitudes towards organic food in two emerging markets. Int. Mark. Rev., 32, 389–413. https://doi. org/10.1108/IMR-06-2013-0123. [11] Hemmerling, S., Hamm, U., Spiller, A., 2015. Con- sumption behaviour regarding organic food from a marketing perspective—A literature review. Org. Agric., 5, 277–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165- 015-0109-3. [12] Guerrero, L., Guàrdia, M. D., Xicola, J., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., Zakowska- Biemans, S., ..., Scalvedi, M. L., 2009. Consumer-driven defini- tion of traditional food products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study. Appetite, 52 (2), 345–354. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.008. [13] Jorge, E., Lopez-Valeiras, E., Gonzalez-Sanchez, M. B., 2020. The Importance Given to Food Natural- ness Attributes by Millennial University Students. Sustainability, 1 (2), 728. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su12020728. [14] Castellini, A., Samoggia, A., 2018. Millennial con- sumers’ wine consumption and purchasing hab- 143Millennial university students’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auction its and attitude towards wine innovation. Wine Econ. Policy, 7 (2), Issue 2, 128-139. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wep.2018.11.001. [15] Chang, K. J., Liz Thach, M. W., Olsen, J., 2016. Wine and health perceptions: Exploring the impact of gender, age and ethnicity on consumer percep- tions of wine and health. Wine Econ. Policy, 5 (2), 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2016.09.001. [16] Vecchio, R., 2013. Determinants of willingness-to- pay for sustainable wine: Evidence from experi- mental auctions. Wine Econ. Policy, 2 (2), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2013.11.002. [17] Heil, M., 2014. PIERRE MORA: Wine Business Case Studies: Thirteen Cases from the Real World of Wine Business Management. Wine Apprecia- tion Guild, San Francisco, 2014, 300 pp., ISBN 978- 1935879718, $30.00 (paperback). J. Wine Econ., 9 (3), 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2014.34. [18] Pozo-Bayón, M. A., Martínez-Rodríguez, A., Pueyo, E., Moreno-Arribas, M. V., 2009. Chemi- cal and biochemical features involved in sparkling wine production: from a traditional to an improved winemaking technology. Trends Food Sci. Tech- nol., 20 (6–7), 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tifs.2009.03.011. [19] Staub, C., Michel, F., Bucher, T., Siegrist, M., 2020. How do you perceive this wine? Comparing natu- ralness perceptions of Swiss and Australian con- sumers. Food Qual. Prefer., 79, 2020, 103752. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103752. [20] Soto Vázquez, E., Río Segade, S., Orriols Fernández, I., 2010. Effect of the winemaking technique on phe- nolic composition and chromatic characteristics in young red wines. Eur. Food Res. Technol., 231, 789– 802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-010-1332-5. [21] Scozzafava, G., Gerini, F., Dominici, A., Contini, C., Casini, L., 2018. Reach for the stars: The impact on consumer preferences of introducing a new top-tier typology into a PDO wine, Wine Econ. Policy, 7 (2), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. wep.2018.09.001. [22] Forbes, S.L., Cohen, D.A., Cullen, R., Wratten, S.D., Fountain, J., 2009. Consumer attitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine: an exploratory study of the New Zealand marketplace. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (13), 1195e1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2009.04.008. [23] Jorge, E., Lopez-Valeiras, E., and Gonzalez- Sanchez, M. B., 2020. The role of attitudes and tolerance of ambiguity in explaining consumers’ willingness to pay for organic wine, J. Clean Prod., 257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120601. [24] Jordana, J., 2000. Traditional foods: Challenges facing the European food industry. Food Res. Int., 33 (3–4), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963- 9969(00)00028-4. [25] Chikhi, K., Martine P., 2014. L’alimentation en Algérie: quelles formes de modernité? New Medit. 13, 50-58. hal-02163637. [26] Reay, T., Jaskiewicz, P., Hinings, C., 2015. How Family, Business, and Community Logics Shape Family Firm Behavior and “Rules of the Game” in an Organizational Field. Fam. Bus. Rev., 28. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0894486515577513. [27] Remmers, G. G. A., 1993. Agricultura tradicional y agricultura ecológica: vecinos distantes. Agricultu- ra y sociedad: revista ed. por la Secretaría General Técnica del Ministerio de Agricultura. Madrid. pp. 201-220. [28] Gere, A., Radványi, D., Moskowitz, H., 2019. Chap- ter 3 - Consumer Perspectives About Innovations in Traditional Foods, Editor(s): Charis M. Galana- kis, Innovations in Traditional Foods, Woodhead Publishing, 53-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 12-814887-7.00003-4. [29] Vanhonacker, F., Lengard, V., Hersleth, M., Ver- beke, W., 2010. Profiling European traditional food consumers. Br. Food J., 112, 871–886. https://doi. org/10.1108/00070701011067479. [30] Allen, M.W., Spialek, M.L., 2017. Young millenni- als, environmental orientation, food company sus- tainability, and green word-of-mouth recommen- dations. J. Food Prod. Mark., 24, 803–839. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2017.1415827. [31] Atkin, A.T., Thach, L., 2012. Millennial wine consumers: Risk perception and information search. Wine Econ. Policy, 1, 54–62. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wep.2012.08.002. [32] Bollani, L., Bonadonna, A., Peira, G., 2019. The Millennials’ Concept of Sustainability in the Food Sector. Sustainability, 11 (10), 2984, https://doi. org/10.3390/su11102984. [33] Murley, T., Chambers, E., IV., 2019. The influence of colorants, flavorants and product identity on perceptions of naturalness. Foods, 8, 317. https:// doi.org/10.3390/foods8080317. [34] Pomarici, E., Vecchio, R., 2014. Millennial genera- tion attitudes to sustainable wine: an exploratory study on Italian consumers. J. Clean. Prod., 66, 537- 545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.058. [35] Cavallo, C., Materia, V.C., 2018. Insects or not insects? Dilemmas or attraction for young genera- tions: A case in Italy. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn., 9 (3), 226-239. https://doi.org/10.18461/ijfsd.v9i3.932. 144 Elói Jorge, Ernesto Lopez-Valeiras, Maria Beatriz Gonzalez-Sanchez [36] Schäufele, I., Hamm, U., 2020. Wine consumers’ reaction to prices, organic production and origins at the point of sale: an analysis of household pan- el data. Renew. Agric. and Food Syst., 35, 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217051800056X. [37] Teagle, J., Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., 2010. How do millennials’ wine attitudes and behaviour differ from other generations? Proceedings 5th Interna- tional Academy of Wine Business Research Con- ference. Auckland, New Zealand. [38] Agnoli, L., Begalli, D., Capitello, R., 2011. Gen- eration Y’s perception of wine and consump- tion situations in a traditional wine-producing region. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res., 176-192. https://doi. org/10.1108/17511061111143025. [39] Gallet, C.A., 2007. The demand for alcohol: a meta‐analysis of elasticities. Aust. J. Agri. Resour. Econ., 51: 121-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8489.2007.00365.x [40] Sellers, R., 2016. Would you pay a price premium for a sustainable wine? the voice of the spanish consumer. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia, 8, 10-16. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2016.02.003. [41] Stasi, A., Nardone, G., Viscecchia, R., Seccia, A., 2011. Italian wine demand and differentiation effect of geo- graphical indications. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res., 23 (1), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511061111121407. [42] Subbaraman, M. S., Mulia, N., Kerr, W. C., Patter- son, D., Karriker‐Jaffe, K. J., Greenfield, T. K., 2020. Relationships between US state alcohol policies and alcohol outcomes: differences by gender and race/ ethnicity. Addiction, 115, 1285–1294. https://doi. org/10.1111/add.14937. [43] Troiano, S., Marangon, F., Tempesta, T., Vecchiato, D., 2016. Organic vs local claims: substitutes or complements for wine consumers? A marketing analysis with a discrete choice experimente. New Medit, 15 (2), 14-21 [44] Iazzi A., Scorrano P., Pierfelice R., Balakrishna G., 2019. Millennial generation preferences for rosé wine: An exploratory study of the Italian and French wines, Br. Food J., 122 (8), pp. 2443-2461. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-07-2019-0478. [45] Creswell, J. W., 2009. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage. [46] Schmit, T. M., Rickard, B. J., Taber, J., 2013. Con- sumer valuation of environmentally friendly pro- duction practices in wines, considering asym- metric information and sensory effects. Jour- nal of Agri.c Econ., 64 (2), 483-504. https://doi. org/10.1111/1477-9552.12001. [47] Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E., 2010. What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. J. Bus. Psy- chol., 25, 325-344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869- 010-9181-6. [48] Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. Pod- sakoff, N. P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the lit- erature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [49] Preston, C. C., Colman, A. M., 2000. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reli- ability, validity, discriminating power, and respond- ent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104 (1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5. [50] Colman, A. M., Norris, C. E., Preston, C. C., 1997. Comparing rating scales of different lengths: Equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychol. Rep., 80, 355-362. https://doi. org/10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.355. [51] Sachdev, S. B., Verma, H. V., 2004. Relative impor- tance of service quality. J. Serv. Res., 4(1), 93-116. [52] Buttle, F., 1996. SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda. Eur. J. Mark., 30. 8-32. https://doi. org/10.1108/03090569610105762. [53] Itani L, Chatila H, Dimassi H, El Sahn F., 2017. Development and validation of an Arabic question- naire to assess psychosocial determinants of eat- ing behavior among adolescents: a cross-sectional study. J Health Popul Nutr., 36 (1). https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s41043-017-0086-0. [54] Taber, K. S., 2018. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instru- ments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ., 48, 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016- 9602-2. [55] Cortina, J. M., 1993. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psy- chol., 78 (1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.78.1.98. [56] Goetzke, B., Nitzko, S., Spiller, A., 2014. Consump- tion of organic and functional food. A matter of well-being and health?. Appetite, 77, 96-105. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.012. [57] Corduas, M., Cinquanta, L., Ievoli, C., 2013. The importance of wine attributes for purchase deci- sions: A study of Italian consumers’ perception. Food Qual. Prefer., 28 (2), 407-418. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.11.007. [58] Higgins, L.M., Llanos, E., 2015. A healthy indul- gence? wine consumers and the health benefits of 145Millennial university students’ valuation of traditional wine: Evidence from an experimental auction wine. Wine Econ. Policy. 4 (1), 3e11. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wep.2015.01.001. [59] Henley, C. D., Fowler, D. C., Yuan, J., Stout, B. L., & Goh, B. K., 2011. Label design: impact on mil- lennials’ perceptions of wine. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 23 (1), 7-20. https:// doi.org/10.1108/17511061111121371. [60] Almenberg, J., Dreber, A., 2011. When Does the Price Affect the Taste? Results from a Wine Experi- ment. J. Wine Econ., 6(1), 111-121. https://doi. org/10.1017/S1931436100001085. [61] Nuttavuthisit, K., Thøgersen, J., 2017. The impor- tance of consumer trust for the emergence of a market for green products: The case of organic food. J. Bus. Ethics, 140 (2), 323-337. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10551-015-2690-5. [62] Rebolo, S., Peña, R. M., Latorre, M.J., Garcìa, S., Botana, A. M., Herrero, C., 2000. Characterisa- tion of Galician (NW Spain) Ribeira Sacra wines using pattern recognition analysis. Analytica Chim- ica Acta, 417 (2), 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0003-2670(00)00929-6. [63] Olmeda Fernández, M., Bernabéu Cañete, R., 2002. Estrategias del sector vinícola en Castilla-La Man- cha. Cuenca: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Uni- versidad de Castilla-La Mancha. [64] van Damme, E. E. C., and Börgers, T., 2004. Auction theory for auction design. In M. Janssen (Ed.), Auc- tioning Public Assets. Analysis and Alternatives (pp. 19-64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [65] Loureiro, M. L., Umberger, W. J., Hine, S., 2003. Testing the initial endowment effect in experimen- tal auctions. Appl. Econ. Lett., 10 (5), 271-275. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1080/1350485032000056855. [66] Tobin, J., 1958. Estimation of relationships for lim- ited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26 (1), 24–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/1907382. [67] Kleiber, C., Zeileis, A., 2008. Applied Econo- metrics with R, Springer, 1, 141-143. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-0-387-77318-6. [68] Hothorn T., Bretz F., Westfall P., 2008. Simulta- neous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biom. J., 50(3), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ bimj.200810425. [69] Lewis, K.E., Grebitus, C., Nayga, R.M., Jr., 2016. The Importance of taste in experimental auctions: consumers’ valuation of calorie and sweetener labe- ling of soft drinks. Agric Econ., 47, 47-57. https:// doi.org/10.1111/agec.12208. [70] Szolnoki, G., Hoffmann, D., 2014. Consumer segmentation based on usage of sales channels in the German wine market. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res., 26 (1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJW- BR-10-2012-0028. [71] Bell R., Marshall D.W., 2003. The construct of food involvement in behavioural research: scale develop- ment and validation, Appetite, 40, 235-244. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00009-6. [72] Schäufele, I., Hamm, U., 2017. Consumers’ per- ceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J. Clean. Prod., 147, 379-394. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118. [73] Bach-Faig, A., Berry, E., Lairon, D., Reguant, J., Trichopoulou, A., Dernini, S., Medina, F. X., Bat- tino, M., Belahsen, R., Miranda, G., Serra-Majem, L., 2011. Mediterranean diet pyramid today. Sci- ence and cultural updates. Public Health Nutr., 14 (12A), 2274-2284. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1368980011002515. [74] Brignardello, M., 2018. Changes and continui- ties in agricultural work: The case of small and medium-sized vineyards in Mendoza, Argen- tina. Cah. Agric., 27 (3). https://doi.org/10.1051/ cagri/2018025. [75] Costanigro, M., Appleby, C., Menke, S. D., 2014. The wine headache: Consumer perceptions of sulfites and willingness to pay for non-sulfited wines. Food Qual. Prefer., 31, 81-89. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.002. [76] O’Keefe, J.H., Bhatti, S.K., Bajwa, A., DiNicolanto- nio, J.J., Lavie, C.J., 2014. Alcohol and cardiovas- cular health: the dose makes the poison… or the remedy. Mayo Clin. Proc.. 89 (3), 382e393. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.11.005. [77] Yamoah, F. A., Acquaye, A., 2019. Unravelling the attitude-behaviour gap paradox for sustain- able food consumption: Insight from the UK apple market. J. Clean. Prod., (217), 172-184. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.094. [78] Jiang, H., Livingston, M., Room, R., Callinan, S., 2016. Price elasticity of on- and off-premises demand for alcoholic drinks: A Tobit analysis, Drug Alcohol Depend., 163, 222-228. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.04.026. [79] Milgrom, P., Weber, R., 1982. A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding. Econometrica, 50 (5), 1089-1122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911865. [80] Famularo, B., Bruwer, J., Li, E., 2010. Region of origin as choice factor: wine knowledge and wine tourism involvement influence. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res.. 22 (4), 362-385. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/17511061011092410.