Marketing Challenges and Trends Influencing Wine Producers and Consumers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global wine market is constantly evolving, and wine producers need to adapt to climate change and, in some cases, to new marketing trends to remain competitive and sustain their business. The main aim of this article is to highlight, conceptually, the main marketing issues and trends that can affect both consumers and wine producers. To meet this objective, we have adopted a conceptual approach. We draw on a recent literature review, our understanding of the wine industry and a few statistics and professional articles, to describe how these marketing trends influence consumer choices and, in some cases, the marketing strategies of wineries. This article therefore provides a more general and synthetic view of some of the marketing issues and trends that can impact both producers and consumers in the wine industry. We'll be focusing on six trends: wine in boxes and bags, e-commerce, digital marketing, immersive experiences, natural and organic wine, and transparent labeling. More specifically, we'll look at the impact these can have on both wine consumers and producers, mostly treated independently in academic research. Although our article is conceptual, it offers an integrative and complementary perspective on certain marketing issues and trends.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".