Sensory perception plays an important role in marketing and purchasing decisions. A study analyzed consumer preferences for white wines, including Chardonnay, Riesling, and Sauvignon Blanc varieties. Sensory testing with trained participants identified key attributes like oak, fruit flavors, and sweetness that differentiated the wines. Additional consumer testing found preferences varied between demographic groups. A second study specifically on Riesling wines similarly found varietal attributes and winemaking styles like oak influenced consumer sensory preferences and segmentation.

1. Sensory Perception – its Role in
Marketing and Purchasing Decisions
Isabelle Lesschaeve
Consumer Insights and Product Innovation
June, 2010 © 2009 Vineland Research and Innovation Centre

2. Sensory experience
Cultural
practices
Processing
practices End product End product sensory
composition profile: Intrinsic quality
Extrinsic cues and other factors
triggering quality
End product Acceptability

3. Determinants of Wine choice
• “Taste” is one of the most important factors cited by
consumers for choosing wine (Thompson and Vourvachis,
1995; Charters, 2003)

4. Outline
• Case studies investigating sensory attributes
driving consumer preferences
• Findings and discussion
• Other factors contributing to the overall
sensory experience
• What does it all mean

5. Case studies
• White wine sensory preferences
– Lesschaeve, Neudorf & Bruwer, 2009
• (Research) Riesling sensory preferences
– Lesschaeve, Mathieu, Willwerth and Reynolds,
2008

6. Study 1- White wine preferences
Objective:
Define Ontario consumers preference of white wine
Method:
Screening for representative wines
($15-20)
23 Riesling, 34 Chardonnay, 34 Sauvignon Blanc
Sorting and Matching Task
18 wines
Descriptive Analysis
Consumer Test
12 wines

7. Wines selected and included
in sensory tests
Study Code Grape varietal Country of Origin Vintage Price $
1 Chardonnay Australia 2007 15.75
2 Chardonnay Ontario 2007 15.00
3 Chardonnay USA 2007 18.70
4 Chardonnay Ontario 2007 16.75
5 Chardonnay Australia 2006 18.75
6 Chardonnay Ontario 2006 19.75
7 Riesling Ontario 2008 15.95
8 Riesling Ontario 2008 18.50
9 Riesling Germany 2007 18.75
10 Riesling Ontario 2006 16.95
11 Riesling Ontario 2008 17.20
12 Riesling France 2007 22.75
13 Sauvignon blanc New Zealand 2008 13.35
14 Sauvignon blanc Ontario 2007 15.95
15 Sauvignon blanc New Zealand 2008 18.75
16 Sauvignon blanc New Zealand 2008 15.75
17 Sauvignon blanc Ontario 2006 15.75
18 Sauvignon blanc South Africa 2008 17.75

8. Protocol to determine consumer
sensory preferences

9. Sensory Analysis of 18 wines
• 10 members of Vineland trained
panel participated in twelve 2-hour
sessions:
o 6 sessions for vocabulary
development and alignment;
o 6 sessions for measurements in
duplicate, 29 attributes
80
70
• Wines evaluated in clear ISO wine
Average Intensity Scores
60
glasses at 13-14C /55-57 F without any 50
40
marketing information 30
20
• Sensory tests were conducted in the 10
0
Vineland tasting room
Flychee
Burning
Puckering
Otinpeas
Fgreenapple
Foak
OorangBlos
Oblkpepper
Fpetroleum
Ooak
Opetroleum
Fapricot
Smooth
Opeach
Oily
Prickly
Omelon
Sweet
Wine Descriptors

10. Sensory map- Synthesis
Observations (axes F1 and F2: 65.43 %) Variables (axes F1 and F2: 65.43 %)
60
1
09
0.75
40 FOak Smooth
09 OOak
03 Sweet
0405 05 0.5
04 03
06
20
02 07 0.25
Oily
07
06 11 FLychee
Prickly
F2 (20.52 %)
02
F2 (20.52 %)
0
OPeach
01 10 15 OBlkPepper
0
14 15 OPetroleum OOrangeBlo
17 13 11 Burning
14
13 08 10 12 -0.25
18 17 16 12 FPetroleum
-20 16 08
-0.5 OTinPeas
01 18
FGrApple
-0.75
-40 Puckering
-1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
-60
F1 (44.91 %)
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
White wines positioning on the
F1 (44.91 %)
Sensory attributes describing
the white wine sensory space in duplicate the white wine sensory space
The prefixes O and F used on the correlation circle of
Wines are coded from 1 to 18; 1-6: attributes signals that the attribute was evaluated as an
Chardonnay; 7-12: Riesling; 13-18: Sauv. Blc odour or a flavour
© 2009 Lesschaeve

11. Hedonic analysis of 12 wines
• 120 pre-recruited white wine
consumers
– VQA drinkers (Cell A):
• consumed at least 20% VQA wines in
last 6 months
– Imports Drinkers (Cell B):
• consumed at least 85% imported
wines in last 6 months; consumed 1-
3% of VQA
9.000
– Millenials (Cell C): 19-34 y.o.
Average Liking Scores
8.000
7.000
6.000
• Two sessions
5.000 – Liking score on 9-pt hedonic scale
4.000
3.000 – Attitude questionnaire
2.000
1.000
– Wines were presented coded in clear
1 10 11 12 14 16 18 3 5 6 7 9 wine glasses at 13-14C, without
Wines marketing information
– Outsourced in Great Toronto Area

12. Consumer tests
A wine sample coded ____________ is now presented. Please make sure the
code on the glass is the same as the code on the questionnaire.
Please taste the wine sample as if you tasted this wine casually at home.
Then indicate how much you enjoy it on the following scale:
 Like extremely (9)
 Like very much
 Like moderately
 Like slightly
 Neither like nor dislike
 Dislike slightly
 Dislike moderately
 Dislike very much
 Dislike extremely (1)
Instructions and hedonic scale used for the hedonic assessment

13. Hedonic scores of 12 white wines
• Liking scores varied between consumer cells
• 18 moderately liked by cell B but disliked by others.
• 11 was preferred by cell C but less liked by cell A
9.000
8.000
7.000
Average Liking Scores
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
5 16 6 18 14 3 12 1 10 7 9 11
Wines CellA Cell B Cell C
© 2009 Lesschaeve VQA drinkers (Cell A); Imports Drinkers (Cell B); Millenials (Cell C)

14. Liking score synthesis:
Preference Map
Observations (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %)
15
1
6
10
0.75
15 54
55 37 14 10
63 49 115
32 1
109 74
82 110
0.5 90
21
75
11
19 5 3
4 79 113 78
106 7
119
120 24 33 31 7
0.25 68
96977
52
25 44 0
12
F2 (12.27 %)
93 103 116
73 97 1
9260 27 8
6 13 11
67 14 16 38
F2 (12.27 %)
72 87565 41 43 91
2 50
30 112 105 42
0 58
23
70 104 20
40 3 5 18 9
76
34 86 35 95 98 53 62 117
99
51
65 -5
17
114
107 101 102 28 83 66
89
59
-0.25 36 57 64 100 39
111 81
18 48 26 -10
85 29 46
71 4712
-0.5 22 10
61 80 108 16
45 88 94
118 96 -15
84
-0.75
-20
-1 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 F1 (35.91 %)
F1 (35.91 %)
Consumers’ position on the White wines positioning on the
the white wine preference space the white wine preference map
Each point represents the liking direction of a consumer
Wines are coded from 1 to 18;1-6: Chardonnay; 7-12:
Riesling; 13-18: Sauv. Blc
Majority of consumer liking directions point towards wines 7, 11, and 9
© 2009 Lesschaeve

15. Variables (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %)
1
Cluster2
2 2 1
2
2 2
0.75 2 1
2 1
2
1 1
Observations (axes F1 and F2: 48.18 %)
2 2
2 1
0.5
2
Fpetroleum 2 A
1
15
2
1
2 1 6
Foak Opetroleum 1 1 1 1
1
2 1
11
Ooak 1
1 1 10
14 10
0.25 1 1 1 11 1 1 11
1 1 1
2 1 1 1 11 1
1
Burning 3 Oily 1 1 1 1
1 11 1
Fapricot 1 1 C 5 3
F2 (12.27 %)
3 1
0 1
3
Fgreenapple
1
1
1
1
B 12
7
F2 (12.27 %)
3
Puckering
3 11
11
1
1
1
1 1 Cluster 1 0
11
33 1 1 1 1
1
1
1 5 18 9
3
Otinpeas 1
1 1 Smooth -5
-0.25 Omelon
1 1
Sweet
3 1 1
Opeach
Cluster 3 3
OorangBlos 1
1
1
-10
3 11 1
1 1
16
1
-0.5 1 1 1 -15
1 1
Prickly Oblkpepper 1 Flychee -20
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.75 F1 (35.91 %)
-1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F1 (35.91 %)
Liking + Sensory =
Active variables Supplementary variables Sensory segmentation
© 2009 Lesschaeve

16. Summary of Case study 1
• Sensory preferences are not explained by
demographics-psychographics segmentation
• Sensory preferences are driven by winemaking
styles: oak to sweet (RS)
• Grape varietal attributes: tropical fruits
petroleum 2nd preference dimension

17. 2- Sensory Preferences of Riesling
(Research) Wines
• Six dry Riesling wines
• 80 consumers (29 males, 51 females), involved
in wine and Riesling drinkers
• Eleven trained panelists from Brock
– 21 attributes, 2 replicates
– Wines served in ISO clear glasses at 14C+/-2C

18. Riesling Preference map
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 58.26 %)
1 Vegetal Aroma Liking
Vegetal Flavour
0.75
Petrol Flavour Mineral/Flint Aroma
0.5 Citrus Aroma Sweet
0.25
F2 (25.20 %)
Mineral/Flint Flavour
0
Citrus Flavour
Astringency
-0.25 Tropical Fruit
Flavour
-0.5 Sour Honey Flavour
Apple/Pear Flavour
Baking Spice
-0.75 Aroma Honey Aroma
-1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F1 (33.06 %)

19. YES BUT THIS IS ONTARIO, ISN’T IT?

20. Intense Smell and Flavor
Some Vanilla Chardonnay (USA)
Toasted Oak Flavor
Sweet Taste
Fruity Smell
and Flavor
Alcohol
Smooth
H ISmell and
A Flavor
F
J
G
N K R
Berry V Lingering
W M
O T D Aftertaste
C S
P E L Spicy oak
Q
U
B
Liking
Sour Taste
Bitter Taste
Lesschaeve et al, 2001 Dry, Puckery

21. Sauvignon blanc (New Zealand)
• “Consumers in this study preferred wines that
presented sweet sweaty passion fruit,
capsicum, passion fruit skin/stalk, and fresh
asparagus overtones. “ Lund et al Am. J. Enol.
Vitic. 60:1 (2009)

22. YES BUT THESE ARE WHITES

23. Red Wine Preference Map (USA)
ASTRINGENT
TOASTED OAK
VANILLA
W8 W10 W12
BACK LPEPPER
VISCOUSW9 G3 W13
BUTTER
W6 W7
W5 W14
W4 W15
BERRY JAM W3 HOT
BITTER AT BANDAID
SMOOTH W2 W16
W1
RASPBERRY GRASSY
G2 SMOKY
ASPARAGUS
G1
SWEET
CASSIS
COOKED FRUIT
Lesschaeve et al , 2000

24. Red wine preferences of
Chinese consumers
(Osidacz and Francis,
2009)

25. Key message is NOT
Make sweet, fruity, and unoaked wines
and be successful

26. Key messages
• Blind preferences for 50-80% consumers are driven
by sweetness (or perceived sweetness), fruitiness,
less oak, less burning, i.e. less “complex” wines
• Blind preferences were measured in lab conditions ≠
Real life
• Value of measuring preference blind: Measure the
impact of non sensory factors on consumer
behavioural choice

27. Interpretation of blind preferences
• Even involved wine drinkers prefer simple
wines when presented blind.
• Consistent with current knowledge of
development of food preferences
– Innate likes for sweet and innate dislikes
for bitter and sour foods
(Birch, 1982)
– Like familiar foods, neophobic beings

28. How do we learn to like wine?
• Introduction to wine in early adulthood
• Sensory properties of wine:
– Taste sour and bitter
– Smell unfamiliar (food) aromas
• Oak, floral, petroleum
– Feel astringent and irritating
• Wine could fit the
“unpalatable substance”
category (Rozin, 1986)

29. How do we learn to like less familiar
flavours?
• Results in desirable post digestive effects
• Is developed by associative learning
– Environmental and socio-cultural factors
– Positive sensory experience each time
• Preference increases with exposure
and familiarity; the “mere exposure effect”
(Zajonc, 1968)

30. Real wine preferences: it’s more
complex than just “sweet and fruity”
Socio-Economic
Wine Consumer
context
Perception of Price, availability,
Physical and Chemical Sensory Attributes Brand, Region of
characteristics
Origin
Nutritional Value
Social-cultural factors
Psychological Factors:
Involvement,
knowledge, perceived
risks, attention
Physiological effects: Attitudes towards
Sensory Attributes,
Satiety, hunger, thirst, Health/Nutrition,
appetite Choice/Consumption
/Preference Price/value
(Adapted from Shepherd, 1985)

31. Consumer variability
• Consumer personal characteristics
– Gender, Age group, Generation
• Consumer psychological characteristics
– Involvement
– Motivation
– Self-confidence
• Socio-cultural and environmental factors
– Lifestyle

32. Wine Involvement
• “Higher involvement consumers utilise more information and
are interested in learning more, while low involvement
consumers tend to simplify their choices and use risk reduction
strategies”. (Lockshin, 2006)
– Highly involved consumers in New Zealand tended to use extrinsic quality cues
other than price to lead their choice (Hollebeek et al. 2007)
– Highly involved Australian consumers conceptualized wine quality more
objectively, by using more cognitive dimensions (interest or complexity)
(Charters and Pettigrew, 2006)
• Low involvement consumers:
– “No thrills”: loyal to a wine style or a wine brand
– Low confidence: price, award or recommendations

33. Consumer Motivation
Self-Concept Personal
Relevance
Types of Needs
Values, Goals,
Identifying Needs Needs
Types of Risk
Involvement Perceived Risk
33

34. Consumer Motivation - Needs
TYPE OF NEED E.g., with wine purchase
Functional: needs that satisfy a It pairs well with this food.
consumption-related problem.
Symbolic: needs connected to the To fit in with my friends;
sense of self (how we are perceived everybody buys local.
by others).
Hedonic needs: needs that fill a desire To feel the sensation of
for sensory pleasure and emotional taste; to experience the
arousal. hedonic and sensory
qualities.
Cognition or stimulation needs: need To perform a challenging
for mental and sensory challenge. taste test, and compare
it with another wine.
34

35. Consumer Motivation - Perceived Risk
The extent to which a consumer is uncertain
about the personal consequences of
buying or drinking a wine.
35

36. Consumer Motivation - Perceived Risk
• Confusing factors (Casini et al. 2008)
– Unprecedented levels of product proliferation
– Available access to increasing amounts of information
– Increasing use of imitation strategies
– Consumers shopping in new or unfamiliar
environments
36

37. Extrinsic Cues Consumers use to
Minimize Risks
• Price
• Awards
• Third party recommendations
• Front label attributes
– Design
– Region of origin, Appellation of Origin
– Brand name
• The type of cues chosen as a RSS depends on
consumer involvement, knowledge and self-
confidence
37

38. Expected versus experience quality
• Prevalence of extrinsic cues over the sensory experience has
been shown by Lange (2000) on Burgundy wines and Lange et
al. (2002) on Champagne wines. Wines were different.
• D’ Hauteville et al. (2007) showed that the region effect on
perceived quality could vary with the type of wines and the
level of respondent expertise.
• Price also moderated the quality experienced by consumers
when tasting similar wines
– Positively for Cluster 1, negatively for Clusters 2 and 3
– Almenberg and Dreber (2009) reported that disclosing the high
price of a wine before tasting increased quality rating by women

39. Effect of Information on Sensory
Experience
100.000
90.000 *
80.000
**
**
(*)
Liking scores
70.000
60.000 MeanExp
50.000 MeanBli
40.000 MeanInf
30.000
20.000
10.000
0.000
CS HOP WB WI
Wines

40. Summary
• Majority of consumers like simple, fruity, “sweet”
wines in blind condition
• Wine is learned to be acceptable by repeated
exposures, positive effects, and associative learning
• Every sensory experience with wine is encoded in
consumer memory along the contextual factors,
emotions and feelings
• Cueing these positive effects is key for triggering
consumer repurchase of the brand, varietal, or
region.

41. Acknowledgements
• Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs
• Canada-Ontario Orchard Vineyard Transition Program
• Wine Council of Ontario and Grape Growers of
Ontario
• Collaborators:
– Dr. Mantonakis (Brock), Dr. Johan Bruwer (U. Adelaide)
– Erika Neudorf, Nicolas Mathieu, Jim Willwerth, Amy Bowen

42. To stay in contact:
Email:
isabelle.lesschaeve@vinelandresearch.com
Blog (incl. presentations):
www.ilesschaeve.wordpress.com
Twitter:
@innovinum

43. © 2009 Vineland Research and Innovation Centre