The University of Georgia
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Wine Industry Survey
CR-09-05
January, 2009
Prepared by: Kyle Watts, Kent Wolfe, Archie Flanders and John
McKissick
www.caed.uga.edu
1
Introduction
The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development (CAED) conducted two surveys in the
summer and fall of 2008 to obtain detailed information on both wine operators and winery
visitors. There has been limited economic research into Georgia’s wine industry even though
there are 24 wineries currently in operation and a number more in the planning phase or
scheduled to open over the next couple of years. Given the size of the industry and its level of
growth, there has been little research into its economic impact on local and state economies as
well as winery visitor demographics.
Unlike several other states that have completed economic impact studies, Georgia does not have
a detailed analysis of the wine industry, with the exception of a 2005 overview study completed
by Tom Tanner, Carl Vinson Institute, for the Winegrowers Association of Georgia. Given the
number of wineries and acres of grapes in Georgia, the industry’s economic and employment
impact on local and state economies is significant. California, Texas, Colorado, and other states
conducted research to provide information on the wine and grape industry. Impact studies
typically provide brief historical information, a current summary of the industry, and finally data
on both the grape industry and the wine -making industry. More importantly, impact studies
provide an economic evaluation of all levels of the industry, from growing grapes to
agritourism.
Georgia wineries are broken into a northern region and a southern region due to differences in
climates. Pierce’s disease prevents lower elevations from growing viniferous grapes. Generally,
Georgia’s northern wineries produce more traditional vinifera wine in addition to muscadine
wine, whereas the wineries in the southern region of the state generally produce wine and other
products derived from muscadines or other fruits.
Methodology
Two surveys were created to collect detailed information on the industry. The first survey,
entitled Georgia Winery Survey, focused on collecting cost figures for operating a winery while
providing additional descriptive information regarding winery operations. A second survey,
Georgia Winery Visitor Survey, was created to obtain detailed expenditure data as well as
demographic characteristics from Georgia winery visitors to help understand their importance.
The expenditure information will be used to estimate the economic impact of Georgia’s winery
visitors.
The Georgia Winery Survey contains questions regarding visitor totals, marketing, grape
acquisition, expenditures, revenues and future plans as well as listing any obstacles encountered
by winery operators. Less than one-third of the questions in the winery survey are required for
impact analysis. The other questions pertain to marketing, traffic patterns, obstacles faced by
operators, and expansion plans and are included in the winery survey to provide descriptive
statistics of Georgia winery operations for potential winery operators and winery analysts.
Georgia wineries were identified using the Georgia Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division list.
The winery survey had a cover page created on the CAED letterhead thoroughly explaining the
study objectives and how the information obtained through the surveys will be used. The cover
letter also solicited cooperation from wineries in completing the survey and describes the
2
importance of the survey in defining the economic impact of the industry on both the state and
local levels. The survey packet included a consent form explaining the participant’s rights under
Federal Law and the University of Georgia’s Human Subjects Policy.
One significant component associated with wineries is visitors. Winery visitors can have a
significant impact on the local economy as they spend money on food, crafts, gas, lodging and
other products and services in the area. The second survey, Georgia Winery Visitor Survey, was
implemented to capture the impact of winery visitors and their expenditures associated with the
various activities they participated in as a result of coming to the area and visiting the winery.
The Georgia Winery Visitor Survey was created to captures per-person per-day spending in the
area surrounding the survey. This allows the derivation of an average expenditure per person
dollar amount. This figure can be used to estimate the total number of visitors at a winery
(winery visitor totals for 12 month period) and how much they spend. The participating wineries
were given 50 surveys to be administered to visitors. The wineries could request more if needed.
The survey had a page explaining the project as well as a consent form relaying the respondent’s
rights to not participate. The survey, cover page, and consent form were made available to
winery visitors. These materials will hopefully explain any questions or concerns the respondent
may have, but contact information for the CAED was included in the event any further questions
arose.
The Georgia Winery Visitor Survey was also distributed to participating wineries that are not
members of WAG. Winery festival visitors were surveyed to determine how similar or different
festival visitors were from those at non-festival winery visits. A total of 248 Georgia Winery
Visitor Surveys were completed by visitors. The Georgia Winery Survey started on June 27, 2008
and ended on October 24, 2008. The Georgia Winery Visitor Survey began on July 9, 2008 and
ended on October 26, 2008. A total of 17 Georgia wineries completed surveys and a total of 246
winery visitors participated in the study.
3
Section I.
Georgia Winery Survey Results
This section of the report provides descriptive information regarding the wineries that
participated in the research project and their associated activities and operations which are
derived from the Georgia Winery Survey.
Of the 24 wineries that were identified and sent surveys, a total of 17 participated in the study, a
71% response rate. Table 1 presents a summary of the results obtained from winery operators.
The results are presented in terms of all of Georgia’s wineries, the North Georgia Wine
Highway (NGWH) wineries and non-NGWH wineries.
Table 1. Georgia Winery Survey Summary Results
Variable
All GA Wineries NGWH Wineries Non-NGWH Wineries
Number of Wineries Surveyed
17
10
7
Years in Operation
Mean
6.9
9.2
6.6
Median
5.0
6.0
4.5
Experience Seasonality
Yes
94%
100%
87%
No
6%
0%
13%
Seasonal Traffic Patterns
Summer
23%
29%
19%
Fall
37%
38%
36%
Winter
20%
11%
27%
Spring
19%
22%
18%
Annual Visitors at Each Winery
Mean
9,863
35,943
15,271
Median
4,639
8,000
3,500
Visitor Percentage by Category
Winery visitors
70%
68%
73%
Special event visitors
14%
17%
10%
Gift shop visitors
9%
0%
17%
Restaurant visitors
7%
15%
0%
Lodging or other amenities
0%
0%
0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
4
Table 1. Georgia Winery Survey Summary Results - Continued
Variable
All GA Wineries NGWH Wineries Non-NGWH Wineries
Number of Wineries Surveyed
17
10
7
Out-of-State Visitors
Where most out-of-state visitors come from
(1 being most important and 6 being least important)
Florida
1.5
1.3
1.9
South Carolina
2.7
2.6
2.7
North Carolina
3.1
2.5
4.0
Alabama
3.9
4.3
3.3
Tennessee
4.4
4.4
4.5
Other
5.5
6.0
5.0
Instate Visitors
Where most in-state visitors come from
(1 being most important and 6 being least important)
Metro Atlanta
1.5
1.5
1.5
North Georgia
2.0
1.6
2.5
Savannah
3.2
3.6
2.0
Augusta
3.7
3.7
4.0
Other
4.6
4.5
5.0
Website
Yes
88%
100%
71%
No
13%
0%
29%
Percent of Business Derived From
Website
Mean
39%
42%
27%
Median
35%
50%
20%
Winery Visitor Draws
Scenery
27%
27%
23%
Events
24%
20%
31%
Culture
18%
23%
8%
Outdoor recreation/camping
27%
23%
38%
Other
4%
7%
0%
Work Individually With Local
Businesses to Promote Winery
Yes
65%
88%
50%
No
35%
13%
50%
5
Table 1. Georgia Winery Survey Summary Results - Continued
Variable
All GA Wineries NGWH Wineries Non-NGWH Wineries
Number of Wineries Surveyed
17
10
7
Total acreage (mean, median)
89.9, 50
83.8, 72.5
101.1, 31.0
Individual Vineyard Characteristics
Acreage in grapes (mean, median)
29.5, 16
23.6, 18.5
32.9, 11.0
Year vineyard was established
(mean, median)
1995, 1996
1999, 1999
1993, 1994
Acreage expansion plans in next 1 year
(mean, median)
4.9, 1.25
1.2, 0.5
8.8, 5.0
Acreage expansion plans in next 5 yrs.
(mean, median)
14.9, 5.5
1.5, 1.5
24.7, 25
Wineries That Stock and Sell Wine
From Other GA Wineries
Yes
19%
38%
0%
No
81%
63%
100%
Number of cases sold annually by each
winery (mean, median)
42, 50
42.3, 50
0, 0
Wineries That Would be Interested in
Selling Other GA Wine
Yes
30%
25%
33%
No
70%
75%
67%
Retail Wine Sales Price Ranges
Less than $10 per bottle
12%
0%
24%
$10 - $15 per bottle
42%
26%
58%
$16 - $25 per bottle
35%
53%
18%
Above $25 per bottle
11%
21%
0%
Production Capability for Maximum
Number of Cases (Annually) at Each Winery
Mean
6,418
7,625
5,954
Median
5,000
6,250
5,000
Winery Expansion Plans For Selected
Categories (mean)
Wine processing equipment
8%
21%
10%
Wine storage equipment
18%
19%
17%
Bottling equipment
26%
25%
15%
Acreage devoted to grapes
17%
4%
33%
Retail facility
23%
14%
33%
Event facility
20%
13%
29%
Gift shop facility
7%
13%
0%
Restaurant facility
21%
26%
14%
Lodging or other amenities
33%
38%
29%
Support Having American Viticulture Areas
in State
Yes
80%
100%
57%
No
20%
0%
43%
Seasonality
Ninety-four percent of participating wineries reported seasonality in customer traffic and sales.
Figure 1 presents the visitor traffic by seasons. The figure indicates breakdown of visitors by
season for all the wineries. Fall is the busiest season and winter and spring are the slowest. In
north Georgia, the increased visitor traffic can be partly attributed to autumn activities found in
6
the north Georgia mountains. These activities include fall festivities, leaf color observation; and
other autumn events. In contrast, a number of the wineries reported that they close their tasting
rooms during the winter season because of low visitor traffic levels.
Figure 1. Seasonal Traffic Patterns
Annual Visitors
The survey asked the wineries to provide an estimate of the total number of visitors they host
annually. On average, the wineries reported that they had 9,863 people visit their winery in
2007. However, this figure may be skewed because of the range of annual visitors reported by
each winery. The median may offer a better representation. The median number of visitors to
Georgia wineries was estimated to be 4,639 annually.
The mean value will be used to represent the number of visitors non-responding wineries
entertain annually. Extrapolating the mean annual visitors calculated from the participating
wineries to the non-participating wineries, it is estimated that Georgia’s 24 wineries had
236,723 visitor days in 2007. The 236,723 figure was calculated by using the mean visitor days
reported by the 17 participating wineries then multiplying that value (9,863) by 24 to represent
all of Georgia’s wineries. A visitor day represents each time a person visits a winery. Georgia
wineries range significantly in size from less than 1,000 visitors to 50,000 or more visitors.
Table 2. Annual Visitation
Variable
< 1,000
1,000 < 5,000
5,000 < 10,000
10,000 < 20,000
All GA Wineries NGWH Wineries Non-NGWH Wineries
Visitor Origins
7
Table 2 displays the percentage distribution which winery operators reported their customers
traveled. The table indicates that a majority (81.8%) of visitors are traveling up to 100 miles to
the winery. Nearly four out of ten (36) visitors are traveling 50 miles or less. A small but
significant number of visitors (18.2%) travel 100 miles or more to patronize the wineries. The
results indicate that visitors are not traveling moderate distances to visit Georgia wineries.
Table 2 Distance Customers Traveled to Winery
Miles
20 miles or less
20-50 miles
50-100 miles
100-500 miles
500 miles or more
Total
Percentage
9.1
36.4
36.4
13.6
4.6
100
The survey asked winery operators to rank five selected states and another category in which
they could add a state, in order of visitors’ origins. The question is used to examine where most
of the out-of-state visitors are coming from according to the winery operator.
Florida is perceived as the origin of most out-of state visitors to Georgia wineries. This ranking
is true among the NGWH wineries and those outside this designation. The ranking of the states
providing the most visitors, excluding Georgia, are listed in Table 3. The order of importance
(starting with most important) is as follows: Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama,
Tennessee, and Other. The results for the NGWH wineries and the non-NGWH wineries are
similar with the exception of a few entries. Non-NGWH wineries indicated more visitors came
from Alabama as opposed to North Carolina.
Similarily, winery operators were asked to rank different regions of Georgia with regard to
visitor residences as a measure of in-state visitor importance. For all Georgia wineries, most
visitors reside in metro Atlanta, North Georgia, Savannah, and Augusta These are major
population centers in the state and the results are not unexpected.
Non-NGWH wineries specified Savannah was more important than north Georgia regarding
visitor volume. Outside of North Georgia wineries, the next largest group is located in south
Georgia near Savannah. Figure 2 is a map of home locations of winery visitors obtained from the
visitor survey zip codes. The map illustrates that Florida visitors are the most significant. The
map indicates that Georgia visitors are likely from metro Atlanta and north Georgia.
8
Table 3 Importance of Surrounding States and Regions Within Georgia
All GA Wineries NGWH Wineries
Out-of-State Visitors
Where most out-of-state visitors come from
(1 being most important and 6 being least important)
Florida
1.5
1.3
South Carolina
2.7
2.6
North Carolina
3.1
2.5
Alabama
3.9
4.3
Tennessee
4.4
4.4
Other
5.5
6.0
Instate Visitors
Where most in-state visitors come from
(1 being most important and 6 being least important)
Metro Atlanta
North Georgia
Savannah
Augusta
Other
1.5
2.0
3.2
3.7
4.6
9
1.5
1.6
3.6
3.7
4.5
Non-NGWH Wineries
1.9
2.7
4.0
3.3
4.5
5.0
1.5
2.5
2.0
4.0
5.0
Figure 2. Home Location of Winery Visitors
10
Marketing
Marketing plays a significant role in attracting customers and increasing sales through
distribution channels. Table 4 shows the most common marketing strategies used by the wineries
that responded to the survey. Marketing through the internet is clearly the most popular
marketing activity, followed by the use of brochures. Internet marketing includes both the use of
a website and electronic mailing. The wineries use emailing databases to keep visitors informed
of upcoming events and specials. Eighty-seven percent of the participating wineries reported
having a website. Of the wineries using a website, the wineries attribute 39.2% of their business
to their website.
Table 4. Marketing Techniques Reported by Winery
Percentage
32.7
24.5
14.3
12.2
10.2
4.1
2.0
Internet
Brochures
Magazines
Travel Guides
Radio
Other
Television
Area Attractions
Table 5 shows winery responses on attractions that draw visitors to the area other than the
winery. Scenery, events, and outdoor recreation/camping were all important factors in attracting
visitors to a winery. North Georgia offers a wide variety of tourism activities and attractions
which lures large numbers of people from metro Atlanta and surrounding areas. Fall is the
busiest season due to all of the colorful autumn scenery and many events offered throughout the
state during that time of year.
Table 5 Winery Visitor Draws
Attraction
Scenery
Outdoor Recreation/ Camping
Events
Culture
Other
11
Percentage
26.7
26.7
24.4
17.8
4.4
Georgia Winery Facts
The wineries were asked the date the facility was created. Those wineries responding to the
survey are on average 6.6 years old. Given the range of years wineries were open, a better
indication may be the median number of years a winery has been in operation which is 4.8
years. This provides insight regarding the relatively new growth in Georgia’s wine industry1.
The average Georgia winery has a total of 89.9 acres. Of the 89.9 acres of property, 29.5 acres
are devoted to grape production. The survey results found that the average vineyard was
established in 1995. This does not reflect the average age of the winery (6.6 years). Many
wineries started out as vineyards prior to the addition of a wine-making facility. This is typical as
grape vines do not start producing significant fruit for three to five years. Interestingly, the study
found that over the next year, wineries plan to expand the acreage devoted to grapes by an
average of 4.9 acres and an additional 14.9 acres in the next five years.
Seventy percent of wineries reported purchasing grapes from other wineries or vineyards to meet
the demand for wine production. Respondents who acquired grapes or grape juice from outside
of Georgia purchased from California and New York.
Twenty-four percent of wineries reported selling grapes or grape juice to other wineries.
Wineries selling grapes or grape juice out-of-state sold their product in Alabama, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Wineries were asked about the contractual
agreement they had for purchasing grapes. Twenty-two percent of wineries reported purchasing
grapes using long-term contracts (3+ years), 22% using short-term contracts (less than 3 years),
and 56% purchased using the spot market. Interestingly, the results found no correlation between
the size of a winery and the use of contractual agreements.
Nineteen percent of participating wineries reported stocking and selling wines from other
Georgia wineries. One out of five Georgia wineries carries and sells wines from other Georgia
wineries. The wineries that sold other winery products sold an average of 42 cases of wine
produced elsewhere in Georgia.. The 81% of wineries that do not sell other winery products
were asked if they would be interested in stocking other Georgia produced wines. Thirty percent
of indicated that they would be interested in carrying other Georgia wines at their winery.
Interestingly, none of the non-NGWH wineries reported selling other Georgia wines. When nonNGWH wineries were asked if they would be interested in selling other Georgia wines, 33%
indicated they would be interested in selling other Georgia wines.
Table 6 provides the percentage of wine sales at specified price ranges. Nearly 75% of the wine
sold at Georgia wineries sells for between $10 to $25 per bottle. The NGWH wineries sell over
half of their wine in the $16 to $25 per bottle price range. The non-NGWH wineries sell 58% of
their wines between $10 to $15 per bottle.
1
The Tax and Trade Bureau reported only 9 wineries in 2000.
12
Table 6 . Retail Wine Sales at Given Price Ranges
Less than $10 per bottle
$10 - $15 per bottle
$16 - $25 per bottle
Above $25 per bottle
All GA Wineries
12%
42%
35%
11%
NGWH Wineries
0%
26%
53%
21%
Non-NGWH Wineries
24%
58%
18%
0%
When asked about production capabilities, on average, participating wineries reported the
capability to produce a maximum of 6,418 (median 5,000) cases of wine annually with their
present equipment and facilities. Interestingly, there were differences in maximum capacity by
region of the state. On average, the NGWH wineries reported being able to produce 7,625
(median 6,250) cases of wine annually with their equipment and facilities. The non-NGWH
wineries reported an average of 5,954 cases. Currently, Georgia wineries production capacity
ranges from a low of 675 cases annually to a high of 18,000 cases annually.
Table 7 presents anticipated expansion plans for selected aspects of wine production and
facilities. The percentages represent the mean percentage that participating wineries plan to
expand over the next three years. All Georgia winery operators plan to expand lodging or other
amenities by 33%. They also plan to expand bottling equipment by 26% over the same time
period. The smallest expansion plans are for gift shop facilities which are expected to expand
less than 10%. Results are similar between the NGWH wineries and the non-NGWH wineries
except for acreage devoted to grapes and the expansion of gift shop facilities. The non-NGWH
wineries reported expansion plans of 33% for acreage devoted to grapes while NGWH wineries
reported a 4% increase. Non-NGWH wineries do not anticipate expanding their gift shop
facilities over the next three years.
Table .7. Winery Expansion Plans for the Next Three Years
All Wineries
Percentage
NGWH Wineries
33
26
23
21
20
18
17
8
7
38
25
14
26
13
19
4
21
13
Category
Lodging or other amenities
Bottling equipment
Retail facility (wine tasting and retail)
Restaurant facility
Event facility
Wine storage equipment
Acreage devoted to grapes
Wine processing equipment
Gift shop facility
Non-NGWH
Wineries
29
15
33
14
29
17
33
10
0
Support for Viticulture Designation
An American Viticulture Area is a designated grape-growing region in the United States
distinguishable by geographic features, with boundaries defined by the United States Department
of Treasury Alcohol Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). Georgia currently does not have any
American Viticulture designation areas. The wineries were asked if they would support having
13
American Viticulture Areas in Georgia and the vast majority (80%) supported the idea with a
minority (20%) not supporting such a designation. The wineries that did not support the idea of a
viticulture designation were located outside of the NGWH region. Among the non-NGWH
wineries, 57% supported having an area designation, while the other 43% did not support the
idea.
Obstacles facing Georgia’s Wine Industry
Conversations with Georgia winery owners and operators along with responses from Question
29 in the Georgia Winery Survey indicate several obstacles faced by Georgia winery operators.
The question present in the survey is an open-ended response which allowed for operators to
express their opinions. The responses were very similar throughout by all participants in the
study. The biggest obstacle indicated by nearly 60% of wineries is the lack of support from the
local and state government. Acknowledgement of the benefits generated by winery visitor
expenditure and a greater push to promote the industry by government would help the wineries
economic growth.
Although Senate Bill 155, (passed in 2001), provided some aid to the industry, operators believe
more should be done to support the industry. Senate Bill 155 allowed for the designation of areas
for the placement of winery signs. The bill also allowed for wineries to sell and promote other
Georgia wines (Georgia Wine Country 2007). A greater push by the government to promote the
industry in the form of public awareness would greatly benefit the industry. States such as North
Carolina, Virginia, and Illinois promote the industry through the use of signage. Signage has
been put in place in Georgia, but operators feel a greater push would benefit the industry. With
24 wineries throughout the state, a greater support from the government would greatly promote
the industry. Respondents also reported a lack of educational viticulture and enology programs.
Twenty-five percent of respondents reported weather and climate as their main obstacle. Weather
and climate have a direct impact on the production of grapes. In 2007, a late frost on Easter
weekend severely dampened grape production. Grape juice was imported from other states,
including California, to offset the lost crop. Climate patterns such as drought and milder
temperatures have a dramatic effect on grape production.
In addition to weather and climate, disease is also another obstacle faced by grape growers and
wineries. Pierce’s Disease has a significant impact on the production of vinifera grapes. Pierce’s
Disease is a deadly disease which can cause devastating damage to grapevines by the bacterium
Xylella fastidiosa. The disease is carried by xylem-feeding leafhoppers and is responsible for
killing plants. The disease kills the plant by blocking the water-conducting vessels of the plant
(Medley 2003). Pierce’s Disease is a problem for several states including Georgia; primarily
(central and south Georgia). The mild winters do not kill off the disease as it does in higher
elevations. This problem significantly limits the grape varieties that can be grown in the state.
There are hybrid varieties that are resistant to the disease. Muscadines, a native grape, are also
available in resistant varieties (Omahen 2005).
Actions to Help Develop Georgia’s Wine Industry
A question in the Georgia Winery Survey examines actions that could be taken to help grow
Georgia’s wine industry. Responses to the question parallel responses given to the obstacle
question. Winery operators feel government involvement and support is the number one action
that could help promote the industry. Marketing in the form of signage would help to attract a
14
greater number of visitors. Although much of the data suggests that visiting a winery is their
primary reason for the visit, a significant number of people visit the winery as a secondary
reason associated with other activities. Signage would attract more people who are traveling
through the area.
Roughly 20% reported education as a main concern. Public awareness could do a lot to help
educate people and encourage them to learn more about the wineries. Some respondents
suggested television programs, possibly aired on a station similar to PBS, would go a long way
towards providing insight into the industry. This would help to portray the industry in a much
better light and even promote the health benefits of wine. Education for winery operators and
vineyard operators would also be very beneficial. Programs in the form of viticulture and
enology would be an asset for the industry.
15
Section II.
Georgia Winery Visitor Survey Results
The purpose of this section is to provide descriptive statistics on information from the Georgia
Winery Visitor Survey. Wineries were asked if they would be willing to administer the surveys to
visitors. A total of eight wineries participated in administering the surveys or allowed the CAED
to survey on their premises. Participating wineries asked visitors if they would be willing to fill
out a short survey. A total of 246 Georgia winery visitors were interviewed for the data used in
the study. In order to provide an accurate estimate for the impact of winery visitors, winery
festival visitors were also surveyed to determine if the results of winery festival visitors were
similar or different than those of non-festival winery visitors. Of the 246 completed surveys, 33
were conducted at two different winery festivals. Table 8 is a summary table of the visitor survey
results. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the small sample size.
Demographic Profile of Winery Visitors
The average age of the respondents was 47.9 years old with respondents ranging frm 21 to 78
years of age. The respondents tended to be more female (56%) than male (44%) which is in line
with the findings from the Adams Wine Handbook 2007, which reported that wine drinkers are
42.4% male and 57.6% female.
Nearly 63.5% of the respondents reported being employed full-time with 26.2% being retired.
Approximately ten percent were either employed part-time (6.4%) or were students (3.9%). All
of the respondents reported having at least a high school degree. Forty-two percent reported
having completed a 4-year college degree, 33.2% have a graduate or professional degree, and
16.8% had a 2-year college degree or technical degree. The final 8.4% had a high school degree.
16
Table 8 Demographic Information for Georgia Winery Visitor Survey Statistics
Variable
Georgia Winery Visitor
Age
Mean
47.9
Median
49.0
Gender
Male
Female
44%
56%
Household Income
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,000
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $124,999
$125,000 - $149,000
$150,000 or more
Median
2%
2%
8%
17%
15%
15%
16%
27%
$112,500
Education
Less than high school degree
High school degree
2-year college/tech/associates degree
4-year college degree
Graduate/professional degree
0%
8%
17%
42%
33%
Race and Ethnic Composition of Winery Visitors
Table 9 compares the percentage of wine drinkers based on ethnicity. There is a similar
distribution between Adams Wine Handbook and results obtained from the Georgia Winery
Visitor Survey. A majority of the Georgia winery visitors surveyed where of white ethnicity
(93.1%). The race and ethnicity of the respondents were slightly different than the results
reported by the Adams Wine Handbook 2007 study. The Georgia wine visitors were more likely
to be white and less likely to be non-white than the respondents in the Adams Wine Handbook.
Other ethnicities made up the remaining 1%.
Table 9 Race and Ethnic Origin
Distribution of Wine Consumers by Category
Percent
US
Georgia
White
82.3
93.1
Black
9.2
3.9
Asian
3.8
0.9
Hispanic
8.9
2.2
Source: Adams Wine Handbook 2007 and 2008 Georgia Winery Visitor Survey
Wine Visitor Household Income
Figure 3 displays percentages for ranges of annual household incomes before taxes for survey
participants. An average income of $105,000 (median of $112,500) indicates that winery visitors
tend to be more affluent. The visitors affluence may be attributed to their being well educated
and older which is generally correlated with increased household income. From an economic
17
standpoint, higher income households may have more disposable income to spend on traveling
which is clearly evident by the average income of Georgia winery visitors. Although, the median
household income for the typical winery visitor is relatively high, lower household incomes visit
wineries as well.
Figure 3. Income Distribution of Georgia Winery Visitors
Wine Consumption Frequency
Table 10 shows the drinking frequency of winery visitors. The typical winery visitor does not
consume wine on a daily basis (78.5%). Those who consume wine 2-3 times per week (35.2%)
represent the largest percentage. Next largest is daily (21.5%), weekly (18.6%), 2-3 times per
month (11.3 %), and a small group consuming monthly or less than monthly (13.4%). Georgia
and Colorado have a similar distribution of drinking frequency. As found in both states,
approximately one-third of respondents reported drinking wine 2-3 times per week.
Table 10 Drinking Frequency of Winery Visitors
Georgia (%)
Daily
21.5
2-3 times per week
35.2
Weekly
18.6
2-3 times per month
11.3
Monthly
7.7
Less than monthly
5.7
Wine Consumption Occasions
Visitors were asked for what occasion they usually drink wine and were asked to include
multiple responses. Table 11 presents the occasions the respondents reported in which they
consume wine. Meals, socializing and special occasions are events that nearly one-quarter of
respondents reported they consume wine. Interestingly, only 9.5% reported drinking wine at
bars. Drinking wine with meals at home was the most popular choice (23.8%).
18
Table 11 Drinking Occasions
Meals at home
When socializing
At restaurants
Special occasions/Holidays
At bars
Other
Percentage
23.8
22.0
21.5
21.4
9.5
1.9
Wine Preference
Winery visitors preferred drinking dry wine over sweet wine. However, this question may not
reflect the true sugar content classification of dry or sweet wine. It was up to the respondent to
identify what he or she chose as dry or sweet. Sixty-seven percent preferred dry wine while 33%
preferred sweet wine.
Table 12 shows the wine preferences based on wine type. Nearly half of the respondents (46.1%)
preferred red wine. The next largest category was white wine at 33.8%. Muscadine, other fruit
flavored wine, and sparkling wine made up the smallest group (11.8%). However, as mentioned
earlier, it may be possible that respondents may have confused muscadine and other fruit
flavored wine with the “red”, “white”, and “blush” wine choices due to the color of the wine
rather than the wine type. Responses from the Georgia Winery Survey indicate muscadine wine
sales make up a significant portion of sales for Georgia wineries.
Table 12 Wine Preference
Wine Type
Red wine
White wine
Blush wine
Sparkling wine
Other fruit flavored
Muscadine wine
Percentage
46.1
33.8
8.4
4.2
3.9
3.7
Wine Purchases
Table 13 reveals where surveyed visitors purchase wine. When participants were asked to
answer where they most purchase wine, a majority (37%) bought from a grocery store or
supermarket. Nearly half purchased from a package store (25.9%) and from a winery (21.9%).
Surprisingly, internet purchase made up only two percent.
Table 13 Locations Where Visitors Purchase Wine
Percentage
37.1
25.9
21.9
11.4
2.0
1.7
100
Grocery Store/Supermarket
Package Store
Winery
Restaurant/Bar
Internet
Other
Total
19
During the past month, respondents reported purchasing an average of 8.79 bottles, 0.13
boxes of wine and 2.19 glasses of wine. Table 14 indicates the price ranges for bottled wine
purchases reported during the last month. It is clear that a majority (42.9%) of respondents
spend $10-$15 for bottled wine. The less than $10 and $16-$25 price ranges have similar
percentages of roughly 25% each. Another important question was included to find out how
much visitors spend on wine each month. The average visitor surveyed reported spending
approximately $95.80 on wine during a typical month.
Table 14 Price Ranges for Bottled Wine
Percentage
24.1
42.9
25.8
7.2
Less than $10
$10-$15
$16-$25
Above $25
20
Origin of Wine Purchased
Figure 4 indicates the regions from which respondents reported purchasing wine in the previous
month. California and international purchases make up a majority of the graph. A significant
amount (22%) reported purchasing Georgia wines.
Figure 4 Georgia Winery Visitor Wine Purchase by Region
Reason for Visiting Winery
One important question from the visitor survey asks people what brings them to visit the winery.
Table 15 presents reasons why Georgia residents and non-Georgia residents visit wineries.
Forty-four percent of visitors were visiting a winery as the primary reason. The other 56% were
visiting the winery as part of an overall trip to the area. People who fall into this category may
have been planning on a road trip to visit the scenery and subsequently stopped off at the winery.
The results indicate that 75% of out-of-state visitors are coming to the winery as a secondary
reason. Nearly half of Georgia resident visitors are visiting as a primary reason.
Table 15 Reason for Visiting Winery
Primary Reason
Secondary Reason
Georgia Resident
47.1
52.9
Percentage
Non-Georgia Resident
25.0
75.0
All Visitors
44.0
56.0
Table 16 indicates how familiar participants are with Georgia’s wine industry. Almost half of all
visitors (44.5%) reported “Not Very” as their choice. Georgia residents are more familiar with
the industry than out-of-state residents. A majority (72.2%) of out-of-state visitors are not very
familiar with Georgia’s wine industry. This statement reflects some of the statements made by
winery operators for obstacles faced by Georgia wineries. As mentioned in the previous section,
several operators felt there was a need for better public awareness and education on Georgia’s
wine industry.
Table 16 Georgia Wine Industry Familiarity
Percentage
21
Very
Somewhat
A Little
Not Very
Georgia Resident
16.8
26.7
16.9
39.6
Non-Georgia Resident
5.6
5.6
16.7
72.2
All Visitors
15.1
23.5
16.8
44.5
Forty-eight percent of respondents visited another winery while on their trip. Those who visited
another winery visited anywhere from one to five (mean 2.0) wineries during their trip. Several
of north Georgia’s wineries are located on the Georgia Wine Trail which is a useful guide for
visiting multiple wineries. The remaining 52% did not visit any other wineries while on their
current trip. Out-of-state residents visited a mean of 2.0 wineries while instate residents visited a
mean of 2.1 wineries during their current visit. The survey results indicate that residency does
not have any significant impact on the number of wineries visited.
Many respondents reported their visit as being their first to a Georgia winery. Thirty-two percent
of visitors reported their current visit as being the first visit. Sixty-eight percent of the visitors
had reported visiting a winery within the last year. Of those who had visited a winery prior to
their current visit, they reported visiting a winery an average of 2.8 times per year. Wine festival
attendance was significantly less than the non-festival winery attendance. Twenty-six percent of
visitors reported attending a wine festival. Of those who had reported attending a festival, they
reported attending an average of 1.5 festivals per year. Seventy-four percent of visitors had never
attended a wine festival in Georgia.
22
Distance Customers Traveled
Table 17 indicates that the typical Georgia winery visitor travels 100 miles or less. In fact, 65%
of visitors come from 100 miles or less. Twenty-five percent traveled 100-500 miles. A handful
(9.7%) of visitors traveled 500 miles or more. Respondents reported an average visit of 2.9 days
to the area. Fifty-eight percent of visitors indicated that they were staying overnight for their
visit. The other 42% were visiting for a day trip.
Table 17 Distance Customers Traveled
Miles
0-50
50-100
100-500
500-1000
1000-2000
Over 2000
Percentage
32.4
33.2
24.8
7.6
1.3
0.9
Lodging
Table 18 indicates where customers were likely to stay during their overnight visit. Parties
lodged primarily at a hotel/motel, followed by a bed and breakfast, or stayed with a friend. Those
that reported “Other” identified their lodging choice as a cabin or in a timeshare.
Table 18 Lodging Places
Hotel/Motel
With a friend or family
Other
Bed and Breakfast
RV park /Camping
Percentage
33.3
25.7
22.2
13.2
5.6
The typical visitor party size was 2.71 people. Respondents reported spending an average of 67%
(median 80%) of their time within a 10-15 mile radius of the winery their party was currently
visiting.
The next set of tables (Tables 19-21) was derived from the visitor survey. The visitor
expenditure data is required to estimate the economic impact of visitor expenditure.
23
Table 19 Survey Lodging Results
Category
Hotel/Motel
Bed & Breakfast
RV/Camping
Other
Friends/Relatives
Total
Percent
All Visitors
NGWH Visitors
33.3
34.3
13.2
13.6
5.6
5.7
22.2
22.9
25.7
23.6
100.0
100.0
Visitor Days at Facility Type
All Visitors
NGWH Visitors
45,548
36,547
18,030
14,466
7,591
6,091
30,365
24,364
35,110
25,126
136,644
106,594
Table 20 Visitor Lodging Results
Category
Hotel/Motel
Bed & Breakfast
RV/Camping
Other
Friends/Relatives
Total
$/Person/Day
All Visitors
NGWH Visitors
43.04
43.04
66.19
66.20
16.64
16.64
31.66
31.67
NA
NA
Table 21 Other Visitor Spending Results
$/Person/Day
Category
All Visitors
NGWH Visitors
Restaurant
13.53
13.90
Grocery
3.20
3.29
Souvenirs
6.61
6.53
Fuel
11.36
11.51
Entertainment
4.30
4.33
Total
24
Total ($)
All Visitors
NGWH Visitors
1,960,259
1,572,855
1,193,483
957,616
126,342
101,373
961,574
771,539
NA
NA
4,241,658
3,403,383
All Visitors
3,202,917
758,346
1,564,392
2,688,117
1,017,244
9,231,016
Total ($)
NGWH Visitors
2,394,060
566,317
1,125,099
1,982,475
745,986
6,813,937
Section III. Economic Impact of Georgia’s Wine Industry on the State of Georgia
The impact of grape production represents the value of grapes produced at the wineries and the
value of grapes grown by other Georgia growers which are used for wine production at Georgia
wineries. A few wineries purchased grapes from out-of-state which are not included in this study
because they do not apply to the state impact. The mean value of grapes produced by the winery
for its own production is $97,971. This value is multiplied by 24 wineries to represent the total
value of grapes produced by all Georgia wineries that are used for the wineries own production
needs. This value is $2,351, 304. Wineries also purchase grapes from other Georgia growers. A
mean of $33,689 represents the value of grapes purchased by each of the 24 wineries. The total
of purchased grapes is $808,545. Combining the value for both categories, grapes produced at
own winery, ($2,351,304), and grapes produced by other Georgia grape growers, ($808,545),
indicates the direct impact of grape production is $3,159,841.
Table 22 presents results of the impact of grapes produced in Georgia for Georgia wineries. The
direct impact of $3.2 million worth of output estimated from the responses in the winery survey
is similar to the $3.1 million represented in the Georgia Farm Gate Fruits and Nuts Report for
2007. Grape production operations generate $3.2 million worth of output (sales) which accounts
for the direct impact. The indirect output impact is $3.5 million. Summing the direct and indirect
impacts generates a total state output impact of $6.6 million. Labor income represents wages and
benefits for employees and proprietary income. A total of $3.0 million in labor income is
generated from those who work directly in grape production or are associated in an indirect way.
Fifty-seven jobs are directly involved with wine grape productions and adding indirect
employment leads to a total employment impact of 92 jobs because of grape production. A total
value-added impact of $2.3 million is generated by grape production for Georgia wineries. The
direct impact of value added is $215, 608. Value added is output minus purchase inputs
therefore, the value $215,608 appears to be low according to the definition. However, value
added consists of profits, net equity exchange, and property income. Property income is a
negative value in IMPLAN for fruit farming which explains why the value added component is
low. Grape production generates $160, 401 in state taxes and an additional $154,613 for local
governments throughout the state.
Table 22 Georgia Economic Impact of Grape Production for Georgia Wineries
Direct Impact
Indirect Impact
Output ($)
3,159,841
3,465,724
Labor Income ($)
1,706,075
1,281,004
Employment
57
35
Value Added ($)
215,608
2,041,895
State Taxes ($)
Local Taxes ($)
Sum of Taxes ($)
Total Impact
6,625,565
2,987,079
92
2,257,499
160,401
154,613
315,014
The second component of the three part analysis is the impact of the winery itself. The first
component accounted for the grape production alone used by wineries, therefore the impacts
presented in Table 23 do not include grape production. Wineries generate a significant impact to
the state economy through visitor expenditures. Table 23 does not account for the visitor
expenditure impact generated by the wineries. A direct impact of $11.1 million worth of output
25
is calculated as generated by the wineries. Secondary effects generate an indirect impact of $6.7
million worth of output. When summing the direct and indirect impacts, $17.9 million worth of
total output is generated. Labor income accounts for $3.9 million for a total employment of 141
jobs generated because of wineries. The wineries generate $27,787 worth of labor income for
each worker. The total value-added component generates $5.6 million. Wineries generate
$377,998 worth of tax revenue for the state and $363,148 of tax revenue for the local
government for a total of $741,146 worth of tax revenue.
Table 23 Economic Impact of Georgia Wineries Excluding Grape Production
Direct Impact
Indirect Impact
Output ($)
11,148,881
6,736,007
Labor Income ($)
1,688,747
2,229,160
Employment
99
42
Value Added ($)
2,098,841
3,532,857
State Taxes ($)
Local Taxes ($)
Sum of Taxes ($)
Total Impact
17,884,883
3,917,907
141
5,631,699
377,998
363,148
741,146
Winery visitor expenditures are presented in Tables 19-21. Table 24 presents the results of the
economic impact generated by winery visitors. The direct impact of output from the visitors is
$13.5 million which generates an indirect impact of $6.8 million. A total impact of $20.3 million
worth of output is generated because of the visitor expenditures. A total labor impact of $5.7
million in wages and benefits to employees and proprietary income is created. A total of 197 jobs
are involved which generates $29,136 worth of labor income to each worker. A total value added
impact of $9.1 million is generated from expenditures associated with winery visitors. Finally,
winery visitors generate $631,750 worth of state taxes and an additional $545,271 worth of tax
revenue for local governments for a total tax revenue of $1.2 million.
Before presenting the visitor impact, it is worthwhile to mention import substitution and exports.
As indicated by the visitor survey results, 83.7% of respondents are Georgia residents. This is
known as import substitution which captures the spending that would otherwise be spent in other
states if Georgia wineries did not exist. The other 16.3%, which are out-of-state residents, are
exports. Exports capture the out-of-state visitors. The goal of the wineries is to capture as much
spending as possible.
26
Table 24 Economic Impact From Winery Visitors
Direct Impact
Output ($)
13,472,674
Labor Income ($)
3,498,666
Employment
147
Value Added ($)
5,231,672
State Taxes ($)
Local Taxes ($)
Sum of Taxes ($)
Indirect Impact
6,807,242
2,241,078
50
3,850,391
Total Impact
20,279,916
5,739,744
197
9,082,056
631,750
545,271
1,177,021
Table 25 presents the total economic impact for Georgia wineries and associated operations. The
overall impact was presented in the form of three components: grape production, wineries less
grape production and winery visitor expenditure, and lastly visitor expenditure. The reference to
“wineries less grape production and winery visitor expenditure” will be referred to as “winery”
or “wineries” in future references for ease of reporting. The total impact represented in Table 25
is the sum of total impacts for the three components. It is important to understand that the direct
impact accounts for the initial revenue generated by the three components of the winery industry.
A total impact of $40.8 million worth of output is generated because of the wine industry in
Georgia. A total labor income of $12.6 million represents the wages and benefits for employees
and proprietor income. A total of 430 jobs exist because of Georgia wineries and the associated
operations. Total value added accounts for $17.0 million. The total impact generates $1.1 million
worth of tax revenue to the state governments, and an additional $1.0 million worth of tax
revenue to the local governments creating a total of $2.1 million worth of tax revenue.
Table 25 Total Economic Impact of Grape Production,
Wineries, and Visitor Expenditures
Total Impact
44,790,364
12,644,730
430
16,971,254
1,101,521
1,032,640
2,134,161
Output ($)
Labor Income ($)
Employment
Value Added ($)
State Taxes ($)
Local Taxes ($)
Sum of Taxes ($)
Wineries have the greatest output impact of $17.9 million, followed by a visitor output impact of
$20.3 million, and lastly grape production with $6.6 million. Although the numbers are useful in
representing the total impact, they are extremely helpful for decision makers. Winery operators
reported that signage could help increase the output of wineries. By using a ratio of the output to
state taxes, a dollar value is generated to represent how much tax money is generated from
output. In the case winery total impact for all 24 wineries, a total output of $17.9 million
generates $377,998 in state tax revenue. The ratio indicates that for every $47.31 of output
generated, $1 is generated in state tax revenue. For example, if state taxes were used to purchase
and install signs for a total cost of $10,000, it would require an additional $473,148 of output for
the tax money to pay for all of the signs.
27
Economic Impact of North Georgia Wine Highway Counties
The previous section identified the impact that all 24 wineries have on the state of Georgia. This
section defines the impact that the North Georgia Wine Highway counties2 (NGWH) have on
Georgia’s economies. Ten of Georgia’s wineries are present in these counties. Several of the
state’s largest wineries are found in this region.
Table 26 is the impact of grape production for NGWH wineries. It is important to understand
that this impact accounts for grapes produced in NGWH for NGWH wineries. The calculations
used to determine the state impact of grape production were also used to determine the grape
value for the NGWH wineries. The mean value of grapes produced by the winery for its own
production is $94,098. This value is multiplied by 10 wineries to represent the total value of
grapes produced by Georgia wineries that are used for the wineries’ own production needs. This
value is $940,984. Wineries also purchase grapes from other Georgia growers. A mean of
$50,657 represents the value of grapes purchased by each of the 10 wineries. The total of
purchased grapes is $506,576. Combining the value for both categories, grapes produced at own
winery, ($940,984) and grapes produced by other Georgia grape growers, ($506,576), indicates
the direct impact of grape production is $1,447,560. Grape production operations generate $1.5
million of annual revenue. The secondary effects create an indirect impact of $1.6 million.
Summing the direct and indirect impacts generates a total state impact of $3.1 million. Labor
income represents wages and benefits for employees and proprietary income. The total of $1.4
million is labor income for those who work directly in grape production or are associated in an
indirect way. Twenty-six jobs are involved because of the direct impact and when combining the
indirect impact, a total of 42 jobs are involved with grape production in NGWH. A total valueadded impact of $1.0 million is generated by grape production in NGWH. The same value-added
explanation applied to the state impact of grape production applies to the NGWH wineries. The
value added direct impact is low because of the negative property income value in IMPLAN.
The grape production generates $73,482 in state taxes and an additional $70,830 for local
governments throughout the state, creating a total tax revenue of $144,312.
Table 26 Economic Impact of Grape Production for 10 NGWH Wineries
Direct Impact
Indirect Impact
Output ($)
1,447,560
1,587,687
Labor Income ($)
781,573
586,838
Employment
26
16
Value Added ($)
98,773
935,408
State Taxes ($)
Local Taxes ($)
Sum of Taxes ($)
Total Impact
3,035,249
1,368,411
42
1,034,187
73,482
70,830
144,312
A direct output impact of $7.904 million is generated by the NGWH wineries. Secondary effects
generate an indirect output impact of $4.8 million worth of output. When summing the direct and
indirect impacts, $12.7 million worth of total output is generated. Labor income accounts for
$2.8 million for a total employment of 99 jobs involved with NGWH wineries. The total value
added component is $4.0 million. NGWH wineries generate $267,995 worth of tax revenue for
2
Jackson, Hall, Lumpkin, Union, Towns, White, Habersham, and Rabun Counties.
28
the state and $257,467 of tax revenue for local governments leading to a total of $525,462 worth
of tax revenue.
Table 27 Economic Impact of 10 NGWH Wineries Excluding Grape Production
Direct Impact
Indirect Impact
Total Impact
Output ($)
7,904,383
4,775,723
12,680,104
Labor Income ($)
1,197,295
1,580,447
2,777,742
Employment
70
29
99
Value Added ($)
1,488,046
2,504,747
3,992,787
State Taxes ($)
267,995
Local Taxes ($)
257,467
Sum of Taxes ($)
525,462
North Georgia Wine Highway winery visitor expenditure impacts are presented in Table 28. The
direct output impact from visitors is $10.2 million which generates an indirect impact of $5.2
million. A total impact of $15.4 million worth of output is generated because of the visitor
expenditures. A total impact of $4.4 million in wages and benefits to employees and proprietary
income is created. A total of 151 jobs are involved with NGWH winery visitors. A total value
added impact of $6.982 million is associated with winery visitors. Lastly, winery visitors
generate $481,581 worth of state taxes and an additional $415,828 worth of tax revenue for local
governments for a total tax revenue of $897,409.
The import substitution for NGWH counties is 83.9% which is represented by Georgia residents.
The other 16.1% is exports which represents out-of-state visitors. The NGWH counties have
172,250 visitor days annually while 106,594 visitor days (61.9%) represent overnight stays.
Table 28 Economic Impact of Visitor Expenditure Generated by NGWH Winery Visitors
Direct Impact
Indirect Impact
Total Impact
Output ($)
10,217,320
5,232,534
15,449,854
Labor Income ($)
2,683,060
1,725,056
4,408,116
Employment
112
39
151
Value Added ($)
4,021,695
2,960,504
6,982,186
State Taxes ($)
481,581
Local Taxes ($)
415,828
Sum of Taxes ($)
897,409
Table 29 represents the total economic impact for NGWH wineries and the associated
operations. The overall impact was divided into three components: grape production, wineries
less grape production and winery visitor expenditure, and lastly, visitor expenditure. A total
impact of $31.2 million worth of output is generated from the NGWH wine industry. A total
labor income of $8.6 million represents the wages and benefits for employees and proprietor
income. A total of 292 jobs are involved with NGWH wineries and associated operations. Total
value added accounts for $12.0 million. The total impact generates $823,059 worth of tax
revenue to the state government, and an additional $744,124 worth of tax revenue to the local
governments creating a total of $1.6 million worth of tax revenue.
29
Table 29 NGWH Total Impact of Grape Production, Wineries,
and Visitor Expenditures
Total Impact
31,165,207
8,554,269
292
12,009,160
823,059
744,124
1,567,183
Output ($)
Labor Income ($)
Employment
Value Added ($)
State Taxes ($)
Local Taxes ($)
Sum of Taxes ($)
Conclusion
From analyzing the operational characteristics of Georgia’s wineries, one can conclude that
Georgia’s wineries are not that old, and attract 5,000 visitors on average. An analysis of Georgia
winery visitors indicates that visitors are likely to be 45-50 years of age, well-educated, and will
have a high income.
Georgia wineries generate $44.790 million and $16.971 million in output and total value added,
respectively, while creating 430 jobs throughout the state’s economy. NGWH wineries generate
$31.165 million in output and represent $12.009 million in total value added.
30
Appendix A
Demographic Profile of Wine Visitors
31
Table A Summary of Georgia Winery Visitor Survey Statistics
Variable
Age
Mean
Median
Gender
Male
Female
Georgia Winery Visitor
47.9
49.0
44%
56%
Household Income
Less than $25,000
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $49,000
$50,000 - $74,999
$75,000 - $99,999
$100,000 - $124,999
$125,000 - $149,000
$150,000 or more
Median
2%
2%
8%
17%
15%
15%
16%
27%
$112,500
Education
Less than high school degree
High school degree
2-year college/tech/associates degree
4-year college degree
Graduate/professional degree
0%
8%
17%
42%
33%
Race/Ethnicity
White
Black
Asian
American Indian
Hispanic
Other
93%
4%
Less than 1%
Less than 1%
2%
1%
Occupational Status
Full-time
Part-time
Student
Retired
64%
6%
4%
26%
Wine Drinking Frequency
Daily
2 - 3 times a week
Weekly
2 - 3 times a month
Monthly
Less than monthly
21%
35%
19%
11%
8%
6%
Wine Drinking Occasions
Special occasions/holidays
At restaurants
Meals at home
When socializing
At bars
Other
21%
21%
24%
22%
10%
2%
Preference of Wine Sugar Content
Dry
67%
32
Sweet
33%
Preference of Wine Type
Red wine
White wine
Blush wine
Muscadine wine
Other fruit flavored wine
Sparkling wine
46%
34%
8%
4%
4%
4%
Wine Purchases Over the Past Month
Bottles (mean)
Glasses (mean)
Region in Which Wine was Produced For Wine Purchase Over the
Past Month
Georgia
Southeast
International
Northeast
Midwest
New York
California
Washington/Oregon
Southwest
22%
3%
25%
1%
2%
1%
43%
4%
0%
Facility Where Respondent Purchases Wine
Grocery store/supermarket
Package store
Restaurant/bar
Internet
Winery
Other
37%
26%
11%
2%
22%
2%
Price Range of Bottled Wine Purchase
Less than $10
$10 - $15
$16 - $25
Above $25
24%
43%
26%
7%
Wine Expenditure for Typical Month
Mean
Median
$95
$60
Reason for Visiting Winery
Primary reason
Part of an overall attraction
44%
56%
Familiarity of Georgia Wine Industry
Very
Somewhat
A little
Not Very
15%
24%
17%
45%
Distance Traveled to Visit Winery
0-50
50-100
100-500
500-1000
1000-2000
Over 2000
32%
33%
25%
8%
1%
1%
Residency
33
8.8
2.2
Georgia
Out of state
84%
16%
Number of Days Visiting Area
Mean
Median
2.9
2.0
Planning on Lodging Overnight
Yes
No
58%
42%
Overnight Percentages By Facility
Hotel/motel
Bed & Breakfast
RV park/Camping
With a friend or family
Other
Lodging Rates ($/Person/Day for Overnight Visitors Only)
Hotel/motel
Bed & Breakfast
RV park/Camping
With a friend or family
Other
33%
13%
6%
26%
22%
$43
$66
$17
$0
$32
Other Visitor Expenditures ($/Person/Day for All Visitors)
Restaurants
Grocery
Souvenirs
Fuel
Bottles of Wine
Entertainment
$14
$3
$7
$11
$10
$4
Party Size
Mean
Median
2.7
2.0
34
The Center for Agribusiness
and Economic Development
The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development is a unit of the College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences of the University of Georgia, combining the
missions of research and extension. The Center has among its objectives:
<
To provide feasibility and other short term studies for current or potential Georgia
agribusiness firms and/or emerging food and fiber industries.
<
To provide agricultural, natural resource, and demographic data for private and
public decision makers.
To find out more, visit our Web site at: http://www.caed.uga.edu/
Or contact:
John McKissick, Director
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development
301 Lumpkin House
The University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia 30602-7509
Phone (706)542-0760
caed@uga.edu
The University of Georgia and Fort Valley State University, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. Cooperative Extension offers educational
programs, assistance and materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, age,
gender or disability.
An equal opportunity/affirmative action organization committed to a diverse work force.
CR-09-05
January, 2009
Issued in furtherance of Cooperation Extension Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, the University of
Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture cooperating.
J. Scott Angle
Dean and Director
35
36