Using winery web sites to attract wine tourists: an international comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to report on a study of wine regions in five countries that assessed whether and how wineries use their web sites to provide information to and attract wine tourists. Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis of winery web sites from wine regions in five countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, France, USA) was conducted. Findings – While the majority of wineries in the study utilized web sites to provide information to consumers, there were significant differences in the effectiveness with which they did so. Wineries desiring to attract tourist visitors should ensure that basic information content is present (e.g. hours of operation, directions to the winery). Although some wineries have begun to engage consumers on mobile platforms, more can be done to ensure access to information at all stages of the tourist visit process. Research limitations/implications – Due to time and budget constraints, the study evaluated the web sites in only some wine regions of five wine-producing countries. Future researchers can build on this study by evaluating winery web sites in additional wine regions and countries. Practical implications – The authors identify practical ways in which wineries can enhance the information they provide via their web sites to attract winery visitors and augment cellar door sales. Originality/value – Previous research has examined winery web sites at the level of the destination marketing organization or individual winery within a country; the authors look at individual winery web sites in international comparison. Wineries seeking to attract tourists to their cellar door operations can thus evaluate their online communications in comparison with national and international competitors and best practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".