Hedonic Modelling for Australian Wine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Hedonic Modelling for Australian Wine Tim Davis and Fredoun Ahmadi-Esfahani* Agricultural and Resource Economics The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Contact: [email protected] Abstract The Australian wine industry has been under the pressure of oversupply for many years. Export promotion appears to potentially serve as an effective strategy to partially address this problem. An Hedonic price function is employed to estimate premia and discounts for various varieties, regions and vintages of Australian wine, within the US retail market. Some preliminary results are presented. These results may be used to develop an optimal allocation of Australian wine to various overseas and domestic markets. Keywords: Wine exports, Hedonic pricing, surplus disposal * Contributed paper presented at the 49th Annual Conference at the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society held at the Novotel Coffs Harbour on 9-11 February, 2005 1 1. Introduction Currently the Australian wine industry finds itself suffering the effects of oversupply. This paper seeks to show how Hedonic price analysis could be used to gain a better understanding of how consumers abroad view Australian wine. In current times, where exports are vital to the industry’s progress, such information would be of significant value to Australian wine producers and marketers. Classical surplus disposal policies that recommend the use of world markets (with corresponding price discounting) have the potential to negatively affect an industry’s reputation and appeal. This is of particular concern to the Australian wine industry, which has strived to build its reputation as a premium producer. It is hypothesised that through the analysis of consumer preferences for the attributes of Australian wine, in export markets around the world as well as the domestic market, a more efficient and effective surplus disposal policy could be determined. Section 2 presents some background information to the current industry situation. Section 3 includes an overview of relevant literature in this area. Section 4 outlines the theory underlying the empirical estimation. Section 5 presents a model of the US market for Australian wine. Section 6 presents the results from this model, with the corresponding implications being discussed in Section 7. 2. Background From 1985 to 2002, wine production has increased approximately 188%. In the same period, Australian wine consumption increased nearly 23% (Winetitles 2004; Anderson 2000). Even when export markets are included as a source of demand, production still exceeded consumption by 43% in 2002 (Winetitles 2004). Future growth of the Australian wine industry relies on a careful and comprehensive solution to this oversupply problem. There are a variety of reasons that may explain why the industry is in its current position of oversupply. Causes may include increased investor popularity and public exposure, lifestyle factors attracting new producers and lucrative grape contracts. In 2 reality, it is most likely a combination of all of these factors that has led to the current situation. From the industry’s current position there are several directions that could be taken. Firstly, excesses could be liquidated on whatever market possible, at whatever price necessary, in an effort to bring the industry back into equilibrium. Secondly, supply could be physically reduced via crop thinning or by decreasing area under vine. Thirdly, the situation could lead to a supply side correction, where many producers simply bow out of the market. All of these outcomes have negative ramifications for the industry’s growth and reputation. This paper seeks to present a fourth alternative. Through careful and comprehensive research into the relative preferences for Australian wine in both domestic and foreign markets, it would be possible to solve the current problem of oversupply, whilst also minimising the adverse effects that surplus disposal policies often produce. The current market situation of the wine industry may present an opportunity for growth, rather than consolidation. That is, the key to the industry’s problems, it is suggested here, may lie in demand side, rather than supply side, policies. 3. Literature Review Several papers have been written in the area of Hedonic modelling of wine markets. The intention of such studies was to gather information on consumer preferences for the various attributes of wine in the domestic market. No previous studies appear to have specifically modelled the demand for a domestically produced product in a foreign market using Hedonic methods1. Despite specific differences among the many Hedonic analyses of wine markets, all are based on the theory set out by Rosen (1974), the pioneering paper on Hedonic pricing. This analysis, along with other underlying theoretical considerations, will be covered in the following section. 1 Schamel (2000) studied Australian (and other) wine within the US domestic market, but did so using a different framework and objective to that of this paper. Labys (1976) modelled the demand for imported wine in the US market, but did not do so with hedonic methods, and did not distinguish between the different import source countries. 3 Of the wine-specific hedonic studies that have been conducted, the majority set out to determine whether quality ratings have a significant effect on price2. Despite the fact that this paper does not include quality ratings in its model, the topic is of likely interest to Australian producers, and justifies some discussion here. Many papers have attempted to examine a single nominated wine critic’s influence on price; however, a potentially more valuable area of research would be to determine how much influence different wine critics had in relative terms. Anderson and Schamel (2003) attempt a task similar to this, despite it not being their primary objective. Two different wine critics (James Halliday and Winestate Magazine) were used to determine the effect of quality ratings on price. A direct comparison between these critics is difficult as the other variables used in the two models were not the same. However, some idea can be gained from the results as to which wine critic has the greater influence over the decisions of consumers. The specifications of the model used in Anderson and Schamel (2003) provided the basis of the model that is presented in this paper. In contrast to some previous studies (for example, Combris et al (1997); Nerlove (1995)), Anderson and Schamel (2003) used relatively objective characteristics for independent variables. Characteristics such as vintage, region and variety are found on almost every bottle of wine sold at retail level, no searching or unreasonable levels of prior knowledge is required by the consumer. This is in contrast to research cited above, which uses sensory characteristics such as “astringency” and “volatile acidity” as factors on which consumers would base their decisions. These factors are commonly discussed in winemaking and wine-connoisseur circles; however, there is a low likelihood that the average wine consumer would consider such factors consciously, when choosing which wine to buy. These are also factors that can only be determined and gauged after the wine is bought and tasted, implying that the consumer has already made his/her decision whether or not to buy the bottle based on some other factors. For these reasons, this paper follows the work of 2 Such studies include, but are not limited to, Anderson and Schamel (2003), Combris et al (1997), Combris et al (2000), Fogarty (2002), Ling and Lockshin (2003), Oczkowski (1994), Oczkowski (2001) and Schamel (2000). 4 Anderson and Schamel (2003) by only analysing attributes that are available for the consumer’s appraisal at time of purchase. The previous studies outlined above were used predominantly in constructing the model used in this paper. Therefore, despite the previous studies’ differing objectives from that of this paper, their contribution is still directly relevant. Past literature has predominantly been involved with determining a quality-price relationship using hedonic price analysis, while this paper focuses on that same methodology but with the objective of analysing Australia’s wine oversupply problem. 4. Theory The theory, on which this paper’s analysis is based, stems from an economic school where products are not themselves the focus, but rather it is the attributes of those products that are of interest. This is linked closely to the theory of derived demand, but in terms of attributes rather than production inputs as is more classically the case. Lancaster (1966) provided a new way of thinking about consumer theory based on this theory of derived demand. This paper also paved the way for the development of hedonic pricing theory. The paper postulated that traditional consumer theory had been honed and refined so that it can “extract the minimum of results from the minimum of assumptions” (Lancaster 1966, p.132). Lancaster (1966) suggested that it was not the good itself that dictated consumer behaviour toward it, but rather its intrinsic or implicit characteristics within that good. This theory leads on directly to the work of Rosen (1974) on hedonic pricing. Therefore, any study of consumer behaviour is better to focus on a good’s characteristics, rather than the good itself. The model outlined by Lancaster (1966) is strikingly similar to later developed hedonic pricing models, except that only implicit characteristics themselves were discussed rather than the prices of these characteristics, as is the case in hedonic price analysis. The study postulated that a product can be defined as the sum of its intrinsic characteristics; more clearly: 5 x j = ∑ ayjk k k where a is determined by the intrinsic properties of the good, x and y represents the relationship between the level of activity k, and the goods consumed within that activity. In the above condition, simply letting xj = p(xj) and ajk = p(ajk), we can obtain the hedonic model implied by Rosen (1974); more specifically that the sum of the prices of the implicit characteristics of a product will be equal to the overall price of that good.