À votre santé – conceptualizing the AO typology for luxury wine and spirits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The status of icewine as a luxury item is largely undisputed in popular perception. Despite this, icewine has received very little attention in the management literature. This paper aims to close this gap by developing a theoretical framework to segment the luxury wine and spirits market with a focus on icewine. Design/methodology/approach This paper is conceptual in nature. The authors adapt Berthon et al. ’s (2009) aesthetics and ontology (AO) framework for luxury brands to provide a theoretical lens for segmenting the luxury wine and spirits market into four distinct segments. Findings The main contribution of this paper is a theoretical framework for segmenting the market for luxury wines and spirits into four distinct segments: cabinet collectors, cellar collectors, connoisseurs and carousers. The authors then apply their framework to the icewine category and outline considerations for the marketing mix of icewine producers. Practical implications The AO framework for luxury wines and spirits is beneficial for icewine producers to help differentiate their current and future market segments. In addition, this paper outlines practical implications for icewine maker’s marketing mix that could enhance their competitive position today and in the future. Originality/value This is the first paper examining icewine in the context of luxury marketing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".