Analysis of consumer preferences for information and expert opinion using a discrete choice experiment

  • Tiago RibeiroEmail author
  • Armando Corsi
  • Larry Lockshin
  • Jordan Louviere
  • Simone Mueller Loose
Original Article


We present a study of consumer preferences for information in wine purchases. Consumers are presented with extra information in the form of qualitative product descriptions and quantitative expert ratings. We implement a discrete choice experiment in which we vary experimentally the presence of the descriptions and ratings and the values of the ratings themselves. Respondents are asked to choose amongst a set of 5 wine bottles in a sequence of 21 choice scenarios. We find that the presence of extra information and high expert ratings have a significant impact on the willingness to pay for a given wine. The dispersion of ratings for a given wine does not affect respondents’ choices. In our estimates high average ratings by experts carry a premium of AUD $10.


Stated preference survey Discrete choice experiments Experimental design Wine preferences Expert opinion 


Funding Information

Funding from Australian Grape and Wine Authority is gratefully acknowledged. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the institutions with which they are affiliated. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.


  1. Ali H, Lecocq S, Visser M (2008) The impact of gurus: Parker grades and en primeur. wine prices, Economic Journal, this issueGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashenfelter O, Jones GV (2013) The demand for expert opinion: Bordeaux wine. J Wine Econ 8(03):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buonanno P, Caggiano G, Galizzi MM, Leonida L (2008) Expert and peer pressure in food and wine tasting: evidence from a pilot experiment. Enometrica 1(1):51–68Google Scholar
  4. Cameron L, Cragg M, McFadden D (2013) The role of conjoint surveys in reasonable royalty cases. Law360Google Scholar
  5. Carson RT, Louviere JJ (2011) A common nomenclature for stated preference elicitation approaches. Environ Resour Econ 49(4):539–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chocarro R, Cortiñas M (2013) The impact of expert opinion in consumer perception of wines. Int J Wine Bus Res 25(3):227–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corsi AM, Cohen J, Lockshin L (2017) How consumptions occasions shape consumer preferences: a discrete choice experiment approach. In: 10Th international conference of the academy of wine business research, Sonoma State University, Rohnert ParkGoogle Scholar
  8. Dubois P, Nauges C (2010) Identifying the effect of unobserved quality and expert reviews in the pricing of experience goods: Empirical application on bordeaux wine. Int J Ind Organ 28(3):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Finch J, Mason J (1990) Divorce, remarriage and family obligations. Sociol Rev 38(2):219–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flynn TN, Louviere JJ, Peters TJ, Coast J (2007) Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J Health Econ 26:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friberg R, Grönqvist E (2012) Do expert reviews affect the demand for wine? Amer Econ J Appl Econ 4(1):193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31(3_supplement):S56–S73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hensher DA (1994) Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 21(2):107–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lockshin L, Mueller S, Louviere J (2010) The influence of shelf information on consumers’ wine choice. In: AWBR 2010 5th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research Conference. AWBR 2010 5th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  15. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait J (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AAJ (2015) Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ (2005) Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best-worst choices. J Math Psychol 49:464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka P (ed) Frontiers in econometrics, vol 4. Academic Press, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
  19. McFadden D, Train K (2000) Mixed mnl models for discrete response. J Appl Econom 15(5):447–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McFadden D (2014) The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being. In: Hess S, Daly A (eds) Handbook of choice modelling. Edward Elgar, pp 7–48Google Scholar
  21. McFadden D (2015) Direct elicitation of indirect preferences. Society for Economic Measurement Annual Conference (Paper 144)Google Scholar
  22. Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  23. Palma D, Dios Ortuzar JD, Casaubon G, Rizzi L, Agosin E (2013) Measuring consumer preferences using hybrid discrete choice models. Working Paper 137, AAWEGoogle Scholar
  24. Rossi PH, Nock SL (1982) Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. SAGE Publications, IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schiefer J, Fischer C (2008) The gap between wine expert ratings and consumer preferences: measures, determinants and marketing implications. Int J Wine Bus Res 20(4):335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Train K (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Villas-Boas SB, Bonnet C, Hilger J (2017) Wtp 4 Weo. Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt160178v4, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  28. Williamson PO, Lockshin L, Francis IL, Loose SM (2016) Influencing consumer choice: Short and medium-term effect of country of origin information on wine choice. Food Qual Prefer 51:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Economica e Gestao (ISEG) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Choice - University of South Australia Business SchoolAdelaideSouth Australia
  2. 2.Indera - Estudos Economicos, LdaRua do Campo AlegrePortugal
  3. 3.Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing ScienceUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.School of MarketingUniversity of South Australia Business SchoolAdelaideAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Wine and Beverage Business ResearchGeisenheim UniversityGeisenheimGermany

Personalised recommendations