Next Article in Journal
Investigation of the Influence of Different Camellia sinensis Teas on Kombucha Fermentation and Development of Flavored Kombucha with Brazilian Fruits
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Alternative Potentialities of Portuguese and Spanish Craft Beers: Antioxidant and Photoprotective Activities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Beverages
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/beverages11010012
beverages-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Highlighting Wine Labels: A Systematic Literature Review of Dominant Informational Parameters as Communicative Elements

by
Eleni Anagnostou
1,*,
Theodosios Tsiakis
1 and
Ioannis Zervas
2
1
Department of Organization Management, Marketing and Tourism, International Hellenic University, Sindos, 57400 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Department of Applied Informatics, University of Macedonia, 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Beverages 2025, 11(1), 12; https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11010012
Submission received: 3 December 2024 / Revised: 29 December 2024 / Accepted: 7 January 2025 / Published: 13 January 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wine communication management is a continuous effort to deliver a communication framework that is built on many factors such as the terroir, the grape variety, the geographical indication, the geomorphological profile of each wine zone, the producer’s philosophy, the winemaking methods, and finally the general cultural and social contribution. This paper attempts to run a systematic literature review in the field of wine communication focused on wine labels. The research is based on the combined keywords, “wine label” and “wine label communication” on databases in a range between 2010 and 2024. The purpose of this paper is to provide useful insights to researchers, students, and interested parties in the wine industry about the way dominant label information is decoded by consumers. The contribution of this work is to set a specific conceptual framework for wine label information that could be useful in the field of wine communication strategies.

1. Introduction

The wine label is a very powerful tool functioning in two directions: on the one hand, it aims to inform consumers, providing useful information, and, on the other hand, it is a dynamic communicational tool to attract consumers [1]. According to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2011), information that is mandatory due to legislation include degrees of alcohol, geographical region of origin, health warnings, and details related to production and vinification [2].
This systematic literature review is an attempt to examine the communicative function of wine labels and understand the extent, the depth, and the central semantic informative pillars of wine labels. The back label of a wine bottle contributes to the interaction between the consumer and the wine producer because it provides useful feedback to consumers and, in this way, influences the purchase decision [3]. Effective label design not only attracts consumers but also communicates a narrative that adds value and creates a credible relationship between the winery and its target group [4]. Artistic labels based on color and symbolism especially define the way consumers view wine quality, authenticity, and brand reputation [5]. QR codes and augmented reality greatly improve wine labels by providing interactive and immersive digital content that increases value and enhances consumer satisfaction [6]. However, it is a field that evolves rapidly and constantly, not only because technology is changing but also because there are still obstacles that should be overcome such as insufficient regulation and technical difficulties [7]. Wine labels offering nutritional and health-related information are increasingly valued by consumers, especially younger generations who seem to be more aware of health issues and sustainability. Additionally, it has been found that there is a strong interest in clear and detailed labeling [8]. In relation to the price element, studies reveal that price impacts how consumers evaluate wine; in correlation with other factors such as label design and quality marks, effective labeling that communicates details about quality, including origin, quality indicators, and production methods, is crucial for influencing consumer preferences [9]. Organic certifications and indications about regional origin highlight the necessity for wineries to incorporate these elements into their marketing strategies [10]. Clear informational labeling remains the core aspect that defines consumers’ evaluations regarding wine selection [11,12].
This work aims to examine the basic key concept of research surrounding wine labels, focusing on their role as communicative tools in the wine industry. By mapping out the current state of knowledge, identifying key themes, and highlighting research gaps, this review attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the ways in which wine label information functions in various dimensions.

2. Materials and Methods

This review is based on data selection (Table 1) from databases, in a date range from 2010 to 2024, which have been extracted, studied, and synthesized with the main consideration of the communicative role of the label as a channel between the producer and the consumer. For the bibliographic analysis, the VOSviewer tool (version 1.6.20) was used (Figure 1), which allowed the creation of networks regarding the concepts associated with wine label communication. The analysis included extraction of thematic clusters based on the concepts that appear most often in the articles and visual representation of clusters through diagrams to understand relationships between dominant information elements.
Data collection was made by searching the following databases: Academia, Emerald Insight, Google Scholar, Research Gate, Sage, Science Direct, Semantic Scholar, Springer, and Taylor & Francis. We ran the study in these databases because they are recognized sources of academic literature and include high-quality peer-reviewed scientific journals. This ensured that the articles selected were based on evidence-based data and valid methods. Moreover, these databases gather specialized knowledge about wine communication, offer easy and open access, and provide us with advanced search capabilities by using keywords and filtering based on authors, topics, or content type, which helped in the targeted selection of highly relevant articles.
We divided our search into two main categories using a combination of keywords. In the first case, we used the term “wine label” and the term “wine communication” in the second (Table 2).
We found 2327 articles, many of which were duplicates due to the similarity of the topic and the content of the databases. The duplicate entries were removed, resulting in 644 articles (Table 3).
We proceeded with the next step, including reading the abstracts for an initial assessment of relevance to the research question. In this phase, 177 articles were selected for full reading and in-depth analysis. The criteria we used to select these final articles were as follows: (1) the focus on communicative dimensions of wine labels; (2) the analysis of information related to design, taste, sustainability, use of technologies such as QR codes, and quality; (3) the fact that these studies were based on primary data, meta-analyses, or theoretical approaches.
The process of our search is given schematically in Figure 2.
We reported a specific number of papers depending on the journal they were found in (Table 4). Furthermore, we examined an overview according to the year and each parameter (Table 5).
The final synthesis of the data was carried out through a structured and iterative process based on three dimensions: (1) Each selected article was studied in detail, with the aim of extracting the main informational elements related to communication through wine labels. (2) The data were organized into eight main thematic categories, which emerged from the analysis of the articles (back label, design, nutrition, price, quality, smart labels, sustainability, and verbal communication). (3) After thematic categorization, findings from different studies were compared to detect similarities, differences, and possible gaps between results in order to provide a final synthesis, which is thoroughly presented in the Results About Wine Label Communication Through Literature Section.

3. Research Questions

The dynamic and multifaceted nature of wine labels as communicative tools necessitates a deeper understanding of their informational parameters and their impact on consumer behavior. This study’s literature review revealed a complex interplay between design elements, nutritional information, sustainability cues, and technological innovations, all of which contribute significantly to consumer perceptions and purchasing decisions. Despite extensive research, key gaps persist regarding the systematic integration of these elements within a cohesive communication strategy for the wine industry. Addressing these gaps is crucial, as wine labels serve not only as carriers of mandatory regulatory information but also as powerful storytelling devices that bridge the winery’s identity with the consumer’s expectations. The analysis of prior studies has highlighted the need to further explore how dominant informational elements on wine labels interact with consumers, influence their interpretations, and shape their overall experience. Guided by these findings, this research seeks to contribute to the discourse by formulating specific research questions that delve into the relationship between wine label information and its strategic communicative functions. These questions aim to provide actionable insights into the ways wineries, public authorities, and related stakeholders can enhance their communication strategies through optimized label design and content. Through this, the study aspires to shed light on the practical and theoretical implications of wine labels, paving the way for innovative approaches in wine communication [3,9,13].
The informational elements of wine labels serve as critical touchpoints that influence consumer decision-making by combining practical functionality with emotional engagement. These elements, such as design aesthetics, sustainability markers, and technological integrations not only inform but also enhance the consumer’s experience by creating meaningful connections with the product. Visual features, including color schemes, layouts, and symbolic imagery, have been shown to evoke strong sensory and emotional responses, shaping perceptions of quality and brand credibility. The back label further extends this communicative function by offering detailed insights into production methods, geographical authenticity, and nutritional attributes, thus enriching the narrative conveyed to the consumer. In parallel, the integration of smart technologies, such as QR codes, provides interactive opportunities that align with the preferences of modern, tech-savvy audiences. Sustainability indicators and organic certifications have emerged as particularly significant, resonating with environmentally conscious consumers who value transparency and ethical practices in product marketing. The effectiveness of these elements lies in their ability to balance clarity with authenticity, fostering trust while enhancing the perceived value of the product. As such, understanding which specific elements dominate consumer interaction is essential for developing more targeted communication strategies within the wine industry. This focus forms the basis of the first research question [13,14,15]:
RQ1: What are the dominant wine information elements on the label that interact with the consumers?
Building upon the identification of dominant informational elements on wine labels, it is equally important to explore how these elements function as communicative tools that bridge the gap between wineries and consumers. Wine labels serve not merely as passive carriers of information but as dynamic interfaces that transmit narratives, evoke emotions, and build trust. The interplay of visual design, textual details, and interactive technologies enhances the consumer’s understanding of the product while simultaneously influencing their perception of its value. Clear and aesthetically pleasing visuals draw initial attention, while detailed back label content provides a deeper context, fostering an emotional connection with the product. Elements such as sustainability certifications or nutritional information resonate with specific consumer values, creating alignment between consumer expectations and the winery’s brand identity. Additionally, technological integrations like QR codes amplify communication by enabling interactive experiences that connect consumers with a broader array of information, from production processes to brand storytelling. This multi-layered communication fosters a sense of authenticity and transparency, essential for building long-term consumer trust. Ultimately, the convergence of these informational elements not only informs but also engages consumers, shaping their preferences and deepening their relationship with the brand. This leads to the second research question [16,17,18,19]:
RQ2: In what way does all this information contribute to communication with consumers?
Having established the significance of wine label elements in shaping consumer perceptions and facilitating communication, it is essential to examine how these elements can be strategically implemented across different sectors. The wine industry, public authorities, and healthcare providers each stand to benefit from utilizing dominant informational parameters to enhance their communication strategies. For wineries, label design offers an opportunity to create a competitive advantage by aligning product narratives with consumer expectations, fostering brand loyalty through authenticity, and incorporating interactive technologies to personalize the customer experience. Public authorities, on the other hand, can leverage labeling regulations to promote transparency and consumer protection while ensuring compliance with sustainability and health-conscious standards. This could involve mandating clear nutritional information, organic certifications, or sustainability indicators that resonate with modern consumer values. For healthcare providers, wine labels present a platform to disseminate critical information about alcohol consumption and its potential health impacts, enabling the promotion of informed decision-making. By integrating these elements into their respective strategies, these stakeholders can utilize wine labels not only as tools of information but also as vehicles for fostering trust, enhancing public awareness, and driving social and economic value. This perspective frames the third research question [20,21,22,23]:
RQ3: How can the dominant wine information be implemented in relation to the wine industry, public authorities, and healthcare providers regarding communicational strategies?

4. Results About Wine Label Communication Through Literature Review

4.1. Back Label

Gmuer et al. [3] conclude that the variety of information on the back label of wine creates a good interaction with consumers and can indeed set the conditions for further added value of wine at an economic level. Mueller et al. were the first to study the application of a model approach to the choice and final purchase of wine, and they also emphasize the importance of back label information, with the difference being that they place a greater emphasis on analyzing the demographic differences among potential buyers [24]. The important contribution of back label information is also pointed out by Danner et al. [25], who concluded that consumers consider it decisive for their wine choice. Therefore, the wine label becomes an important issue both for the producer and for the wider management of wine communication, especially in relation to the appropriate information in the limited space of the back label of the bottle (Table 6).

4.2. Design|Visual Information

The visual representation of the wine label has a long history and has increasingly become significant in understanding the wine we consume [17]. It is a fact that since the 18th century when lithography was invented, wine labels were printed in masse with a focus on art, design, and powerful colors. At the beginning of the 20th century, producers began to collaborate with famous artists in order to communicate through label characteristics, such as quality and authenticity [26]. The art of wine labeling has always been the mechanism of winery brand reputation, showcasing the dynamics and impact of the measured constructs on brand reputation [18]. König and Lick showed the importance of a semiotic code that emphasizes the aesthetic part of the label and mainly the color. They summarized that soft colors of the label are more attractive and friendly to potential buyers, especially for those who consider the price of the wine to be a crucial factor [14]. Celhay and Passebois moved in the same direction, regarding the importance of the aesthetic part of the label, demonstrating through their relevant research the preference of potential buyers for labels that are mainstream and typical from a visual point of view. However, they went a step further by delving into five different types of conditions, in which respondents seem to tend to choose fewer standard labels in terms of design [5]. Celhay et al. gave a different dimension to the visual communication of the wine label, as they examined the factor of cultural differentiation [5]. The key finding of their study was that a concept with aesthetic appeal could effectively resonate with diverse cultures [13]. Labels might also be examined within the framework of wider market trends or cultural influences [27]. Crichton-Fock et al. [28] used specific symbols that illustrated the dominant element of flavor and the responses of the respondents were particularly positive. Elliot and Barth explored the impact of the aesthetic part of the label, especially on the generation of millennials, which is an important target group for branding and wine communication planning. They concluded that millennials tend to prefer more modern aesthetic labels, mainly in terms of color and design parameters, than traditionally designed labels [29]. Designs that attract this age group for personal or casual use are characterized by simplicity and a streamlined aesthetic [30]. In this perception, labels influence directly millennials’ choices because they combine certain tastes and qualities with certain types of labels [31]. The opposite conclusion was reached by Sherman and Tuten, who studied three different types of labels (traditional, modern, and innovative). They claimed that the research participants preferred traditional labels, especially those that suggested associative familiarity with specific brands. Tradition seems to play an important role in activating consumers to choose and buy wine, as they equate it in their minds with authenticity, duration, and quality [32]. So, it seems that labels with a traditional design gained consumers’ trust in relation to more modern designs [33]. The element of authenticity is also examined in the research by Borghini, which concluded that consumers, collectors, and wine lovers perceived the element of authenticity through labels with specific backgrounds (color and typography) [34]. The effect of non-traditional branding techniques in terms of label design was studied by Orlowski et al. [35], who, through specific studies, found that consumers react positively to non-traditional branding techniques and especially to eco-friendly labels with the logic that they wished to focus on products with special and unique characteristics. Special labels like eco-labels can command higher, premium prices [36].
The use of color, whether on a label or within the product itself, can significantly affect how consumers perceive and respond to it [37]. The color of a wine label is also crucial for Lick et al., who claim that color is the most defining factor on the wine label and largely determines the buyer’s final choice of wine. They consider that color can be a source of investment for the consumer and, in fact, they link this to the sensory nature of wine. Their research showed that visual contact with the color of the label motivated consumers’ attitudinal approach to the taste and wider enjoyment of the wine [38]. In particular, Celhay et al. concluded that consumers are more receptive to colors such as white, pale yellow, and ocher, while the depictions on labels of the type of castles and vineyards created particularly positive effects on the public and mainly feelings associated with prestige, tradition, and class. As far as the promotion of the color strategy is concerned, there are differences between the online and offline designs mainly in the capture of the color (tone and shade) [39]. The type of colors and their visual performance appear to influence the relationship between receptive enjoyment and authenticity [40]. Flanagan et al. analyzed tasting notes to visualize wine characteristics and emphasized the importance of the aesthetic relationship across the label between consumers and producers [41]. The research by Celhay and Remaud contributed even more to the use of label design semiotics, as they confirmed that through a specific label layout, a specific associative connection with the consumer could be generated [42]. Similar research was conducted by Pelet et al., who studied the semiotic significance of labels in terms of the vibrancy of colors and the complexity of the label design. They concluded that through the interaction created between wine producer and consumer, the label (color, design) is the subject of a mental process in the subconscious of the consumer and potential buyer. Through this procedure, ideas, feelings, or a wider concept could be conveyed to potential buyers [43]. In the visual communication created between the label and the consumer, even the way the brand is written plays an important role. This is reflected in the research by Grijalba et al., who carried out a chemical analysis of the ink used in a specific sample of labels. They were led to the conclusion that a specific way of imprinting the brand on the label created a sense of authenticity for the consumer [44]. Jaud and Melnyk contributed to the importance of visual design through their research on the latent mechanism of effective reception of the signified messages of labels, which tend to influence consumers’ taste, purchase, and even evaluation [45]. This is precisely the direction of the research by Monteiro et al., which underlined not only how important the visual interaction of the label is but also the competition that develops between the different labels when the potential buyer tries to make a specific choice [40].
The wine choice can be appreciated completely differently when additional information and details are provided and depicted in an attractive visual label design [46]. Regarding the illustrated language depicted in the design, a very interesting element is that of the research by Sillani et al., who studied various elements depicted on the labels and found that labels that depict a vineyard in one way or another are more liked by consumers and drive more purchase intent [47]. The label’s picture, in combination with the wine’s origin on the label, seems to be an interesting preference for potential buyers [48]. The visual representation of the label has the greatest influence on consumers even when compared to the shape of the bottle, which does not seem to be able to prevail in consumer preferences [49]. The visual presentation of a label incorporates a special code of conversation between the producer and the consumers, which includes history, family tradition, emotions, and ultimately a holistic understanding of the product [50]. The same importance of the variety and conceptual labels that trigger consumers is also analyzed in the research by Serafini et al. [51]. In fact, a better understanding of the wine seems to be achieved when the labels do not have humorous content or corresponding humorous depictions [52]. The eye-tracking research used by Laeng and Suegami showed that labels with a strong layout and attractive images created a more positive relationship with the potential buyer, so the choice of the bottle became more likely [53]. A similar eye-tracking study by Merdian et al. pointed out the difference between conscious and unconscious wine selection based on the visual representation of the label. They found that although the participants noticed impressive labels subconsciously for some time, this fact did not add value to the wine itself [54]. In addition, the same eye-tracking method that was used to study the purchase decision through three different types of labels in Italian wineries indicated that a product must be eye-catching and instantly recognizable, while at the same time maintaining the consumer’s constant attention [9]. Female consumers in particular seem to be more influenced during the decision-making process by the wine label [55]. In this direction, the research by Van Tonder and Mulder also agrees, as they found that the visual effect of the label is important for the decision to buy a wine in the female niche market [21]. Jarvis et al. studied the relationship between the image and words on the label and assumed that the image resonated more with the consumer audience than the standard factors indicating the designation of origin or wine variety [56].
Buying wine based on the label involves a large degree of subjectivity, which comes from the degree of confidence the consumer has in himself/herself. For example, the influence of modern label layouts is preferred by consumers with low self-confidence [55]. The degree of reaction to the label design is also influenced by other factors, such as purchasing power, marital status, and age. For example, buyers over 35 preferred wines with easy-to-understand labels that somehow depicted the place of origin of the specific variety [57]. Additionally, the label design appears to have a relation during the purchase decision with the price. In research by Galati et al., it seemed logical that labels with more earthy colors would have a lower price. Some winemakers choose to label more artistically, such as the famous labels assigned to Baron Philippe de Rothschild [58]. However, this artistic approach of a label does not always signal quality [59]. According to Spence, the choice of wine is directly related to the psychology that the potential buyer forms about the wine and is largely due to the way the label is presented. Wine is one of the only products where psychology plays such a decisive role because it is a complex and constantly evolving product [60]. That is why marketers are constantly developing new strategies in terms of designing and promoting the label, with the aim of more efficient and more convenient acceptance by niche markets [61].
Barrena et al. examined aspects of consumer personality through the wine purchase decision cycle, with a dominant element being the label, which is the main interface with wine quality [62]. The influence of the label on potential buyers is so powerful that wine marketers should take seriously the creation of a relationship with the consumer that is based on pure emotion and can lay a solid foundation to establish relative branding [63]. The symbolic communication that is built between the product and the consumer gives the chance for deep involvement and the expression of personal preferences [22]. The wine industry has centralized the design of labels as the basic core of the branding experience creation [64]. Furthermore, Chrysakis et al. concluded through their research based on the MiB System that the label delivered a narrative experience through wine labels, enhancing awareness by offering precise and transparent information about the entire wine production process [65]. A particular factor that must be considered in relation to how the design of the label affects the decision-making is related to the conditions under which the purchase is to be made, for example, if it is for a special occasion, gift, or everyday use [66]. Habegger studied specific cases of labels, concluding that the structure of artistic label design enables multiple communicative functions [67]. Consumers’ expressed preferences or desires might not always match their actual behaviors or choices. Factors such as subconscious influences, social pressures, and emotional reactions can significantly affect their real decisions, often diverging from what they say they want [24]. Wine label design is frequently evaluated based on how effectively it communicates to generate potential leads, which ultimately contributes to sales [68]. The correlation points appear in Table 7.

4.3. QR Code|Smart Label

QR technology is the key element that defines a label as smart. The communication achieved through its use by consumers is both hedonic and useful, thereby creating added value to the wine. The effects of QR-delivered content on the perceived product value have been analyzed [20]. The use of digital and interactive technologies, such as QR codes, in sales and labeling remains inadequately regulated, allowing the industry to exploit these technologies for its benefit and profit [70]. Del Mastio et al. thoroughly studied SMARTVINO, a system that helps to communicate digital content through watermarking. The effectiveness of the QR code, through the information grid, helped consumers not only at the informational level but also offered them holistic satisfaction, which justified the added value of the product [71]. The specific research also argues for the important conclusion of the connection that exists between the effectiveness of the QR code and the quality of the digital content provided [72]. Adding a hedonic symbol, like a “Glass”, to a wine product greatly improves consumers’ perceptions of the product. Furthermore, this enhancement affects their evaluations of the product’s attitude and taste, which are key aspects of overall product perception [23].
Technology has affected consumers in such a way that they are now involved in a more complex process in terms of buying wine. The results of the research by Higgins et al. showed that people who see themselves as wine enthusiasts or experts, enjoy conversing about wine, and prefer wines that are locally made, organic, or sustainable are more likely to use technology in their purchasing decisions [19]. A similar conclusion is reached with the research by Triantafillidou et al., according to which the use of augmented reality (AR) creates such an experience in receivers, which translates into satisfaction and a positive attitude towards wine. In addition, the interesting insight that emerges from this research is that the participants showed familiarity with smartphone applications and particular involvement with the smart label [73]. This aspect also agrees with the research by Robertson et al., who found out that AR technology is an essential element of the smart label and is related to all the modern changes in the GDPR data, which can provide a framework for the protection and expansion of the already existing protection principles [74]. Angeli et al. noted that the use of this technology in smart tags could involve various challenges and difficulties. For this reason, they designed and implemented the system of augmented wine recognition (AWR), which recognizes and analyzes the text of the label. This study offered a comprehensive overview of the necessary domain knowledge and technical expertise required to develop the AWR wine recognition application [75]. In their 2022 study, Kiselev et al. examined how information and communication technologies (ICT) contribute to the promotion of Russian wines. This study concluded that ICT tools, including social media, digital marketing platforms, and online sales channels, are vital for improving the visibility and appeal of Russian wines. These technologies enabled a broader audience reach and more effective consumer engagement [76]. Internet and mobile technology have positively influenced wine trade patterns, according to Fleming, Thiemann, and Mueller [77]. An important element of the modern smart label is also related to the modern changes regarding GDPR data, providing a comprehensive and updated framework for data protection that reaffirms and expands upon previous data protection principles [78]. The correlation points appear in Table 8.

4.4. Nutritional|Taste Information

The label is a channel that helps wine producers communicate better with potential consumers who are particularly interested in accessing health-related nutritional details and have an interest in being aware of all side effects due to excessive alcohol consumption [84]. Based on the findings of Higgins and Lanos [19], the health benefits of wine could be effectively used as a marketing strategy. Annunziata et al. [84] focused on Generation Y consumers’ preferences for health warnings on labels. According to their research data, this generation is more aware and more involved than others when it comes to providing useful information on labels. An interesting factor remains that alcohol consumption is the cause of 25% of deaths in this age group. The research concluded that warnings through labels can set the stage for a regulated labeling system. On the contrary, Lategan et al. [90] claim that African Generation Y considered nutritional information only in relation to taste, which seemed to be their main interest. On the other hand, Mokrý et al. [79] studied the perception of Generation Z about the informational value of labels in relation to nutrition and found that the respondents assessed the significance of information about the wine producer, variety, growing region, country of origin, vintage year, and sugar content. It should be taken into consideration that different levels of subjective knowledge influence wine consumption behaviors among young adults [80].
Jürkenbeck and Spiller [81] found that sensory quality signals are crucial, and participants prefer sensory descriptions to names of varieties or interpretive sensory labels. The conclusion reached by Pabst et al. [6] is also interesting because most of the consumers surveyed did not seem to find the nutrition information on the label particularly useful. Additionally, Pabst et al. [82] claimed that consumers across all three sampled countries (Germany, Italy, and Australia) placed a high value on transparency regarding nutritional information for wine, and nutrition information had a notable influence on their wine selection. Rupprecht et al. [10] conducted research across five countries (Japan, USA, Germany, China, and Thailand) and came to the conclusion that there is a high level of public trust in scientific experts for ensuring food safety and quality, suggesting a strong demand for information sourced from these experts in the food market. Kubota et al. [83] examined Japanese consumer preferences for additive-free wine labeling, concluding that women value the antioxidant-free label more and that more broadly, marketers strategically use labels with dominant hygiene information to ensure consumer trust.
As reported by Vecchio et al. [91], consumers have limited knowledge about the nutritional value of wines but at the same time show great interest when they see such a label. Moving forward with their research in this direction, they were led to the conclusion that consumers are more interested in labels with the traditional way of displaying nutritional information in compliance with the self-regulated industry. Yoo et al. [85] compared consumers’ preferences in Asia and Australia and concluded that Korean consumers are more inclined to select wine products based on their potential health benefits. The cross-country analysis of Annunziata et al. [84] regarding the consumers’ interest in nutritional labeling showed very useful insights for the development of future policies about the optimization of labels concerning information about health. Through the results run in Italy, France, and Spain, they saw that consumers were particularly confused about the issue of nutritional labeling; however, they wanted all this necessary information to be written on a label and even considered it decisive for their final choice. For example, the research by Costanigro et al. [87] investigated consumers’ perceptions of sulfites and their willingness to pay for wines without sulfites. Although the number of consumers who are sensitive to sulfites is relatively small, the belief that sulfites may have negative health effects is more widespread. For instance, Popovich and Velikova [88], who investigated how consumers viewed nutrition labels on wine and how this information influenced their perceptions of the wine’s health benefits, found that consumers who implement nutritional boundaries give different meanings to nutritional information. In fact, there is a connection between environmental awareness and consumer motivation, as Vecchio et al. [8] studied European consumers’ perceptions of the health effects of moderate wine consumption and concluded about the perceived connection between environmental labeling and the health benefits of wine. It is a fact that the European Union wine market is subject to extensive regulation. Although these regulations have led to numerous market distortions, efforts to reform them have been challenging [89]. Regarding the issue of labeling regulations, Parga-Dans and Alonso González [7] discussed that the absence of labeling regulations negatively impacted winemakers focused on producing high-quality wines, creating significant information gaps that could ultimately reduce the overall quality of wine. The correlation points appear in Table 9.

4.5. Price

This subsection includes studies that have price as the dominant information on the label as their main subject.
Galati et al. [58] studied how red Italian wines are sold in the Chinese market and found that there is a direct correlation between the external appearance of the label (design and color) and price as a determinant of the label. Roma et al. [92] compared datasets of Sicilian wines sourced from reputable wine guides. Their findings indicated that wine prices are significantly influenced by objective factors such as vintage, alcohol content, geographical origin, grape variety, producer size, and aging potential. Quality marks on wine labels generally have a positive effect on wine price [93]. Zhao and Zhou [94] showed that a specific wine’s geographical test score from critics, in addition to other general status indexes that are constantly positive, could lead to an increase in its price. Werner et al. [95] implemented an experiment to examine the way price information affects people’s subjective experience and perception of wine. Their outcome was that the impact of price on consumers’ experience ratings was particularly significant for both consumer behavior and the planning of wine pricing strategies. Bruwer et al. [96] studied how sensory attributes of wine influenced consumer preferences and claimed that there were specific differences in wine consumption behavior and sensory preferences between men and women, and between different generational groups, such as Millennials and older adults. In relation to the price, women drink less wine and spend less money on it but they typically choose wines with a higher price per bottle, possibly as a risk reduction strategy. Spence [60] showed that the price, as a dominant information cue, influenced the way consumers’ perception of the product quality was built. Cembalo et al. [97] discerned that consumers have in their intentions the expectation for wines with affordable prices. Atkin and Thach [98] delved into what is happening in the case of wine co-labeling in Sonoma County and found that prospective consumers’ price beliefs appear to be affected by the introduction of co-labeling. The correlation points appear in Table 10.

4.6. Quality

In this sub-section, research refers to the communicative use of the label with quality information as the dominant element. We consider it appropriate to point out that this categorization includes studies concerning sub-parameters such as origin, purity, and organic wine.
To understand the way consumers perceive the term quality, the interested parties in the wine industry need to interpret quality indicators and identify consumers’ preferences [99]. Especially regarding sensory marketing, wine branding strategies attempt to emphasize the critical cue of quality [100]. Wine lovers have raised awareness of concentrating on label information in correlation with quality indicators. By extension, this led them to look for the inscription “natural” on the label and information about ingredient content, production methods, and sensory characteristics [101]. Kustos et al. [102] attempted to clarify the quality of Australian wine, with the Chardonnay and Shiraz varieties as the study object. In their results, it is claimed that respondents identified wine quality with diversity and balance. Research by Mann et al. [103] also agrees. They studied the “organic” parameter, with respondents answering that the organic cue in the quality element is the most important information to them. The female respondents especially connected this information with the perception of good health. Tardy and Medema [104], on the other hand, argued that producers were unsure how to effectively promote their labels, a fact that led to a lack of customer understanding regarding the significance of organic labels. The characteristic term organic on the label creates the conditions for a completely different perspective in the branding strategy, as it creates a positive attitude toward the consumer [16]. Quality information is often related to the socioeconomic background of the consumers. Consumers with a high educational background are more familiar with the geographical indications and characteristics of specific wine regions. Therefore, they take into account the “origin” factor on the label more [105]. For both experts and wine lovers with little knowledge, additional aspects of wine quality are the origin wine zone, the vineyard, and variety [106]. Deselnicu et al. [107] seem to agree as they examined how authenticity and uniqueness are linked with geographical indications. Coppin et al. [108] argued that subjective responses about quality wines are influenced by factors such as self-reported expertise in wine, tasting conditions, and perception of the wine’s reputation. Quality and subjectivity are both relevant to the different age categories of the niche market [109]. Young adults who perceive themselves as cognizant of wine quality will probably want to participate in wine-related activities like tastings, vineyard visits, and wine events [110]. Their drinking habits reveal a variety of wine types they choose to enjoy [80]. The combination of objective and subjective knowledge about wine combination led to the identification of four categories of consumers: novices, snobs, modest, and experts [111]. Atkin and Johnson [112] researched, in 46 states in the US, a sample of 400 wine consumers who correlated their choice based on their perception of quality regarding the origin. The participants found information about the brand and place of origin, such as region, country, and state, to be very important for their wine selection [113]. Sensory experiences strongly shape consumers’ preferences, which is why the wine industry needs a clear understanding of what equals quality for potential consumers [114]. Another important idea is that consumers sometimes feel that they are succeeding quickly in their wine purchase goals, a fact that could be creatively exploited by communicators and marketers [115]. The “organic” cue affects both the hedonic evaluation of wine and the purchase intention [116]. Wineries producing such wines may benefit from being able to add SO2 to wines labeled “organic” [117]. Hilger et al.’s [118] experiment showed that the sense of wine quality may determine the relationship between purchases and reviews The study by Martin et al. [15] provided useful insights about the link between the regional identity of wine in Australia and how the perception of consumers is shaped in relation to the corresponding quality. Zanzig [119] proposed that the US and China could cooperate by taking measures to strategically strengthen the protection of geographical indications in order to have both countries benefit and at the same time manage quality in the wine trade. An example is the one of Monterey County, with wine labels based on regional appellations enhancing the recognition of the region’s wines. Thus, it was easier for them to identify the quality of wine [120]. Banks and Overton [121] suggested another aspect regarding the quality perception of wine quality by understanding the mixtures of wine regions. The process of shaping consumers’ preferences must always be harmonized with modern life habits and consequently with what quality actually means in every different period of time [122]. Famularo et al. [123] highlighted the significant impact of regional origin on consumer choices by examining the way knowledge and wine tourism are linked with it. Additionally, they found out that in many cases, consumers become very sensitive about climate change, and this reflects their wine choice in relation to how they perceive its quality. In this direction, Simard [124] underlines that it is a necessity for the wineries to communicate their protective attitude toward climate change.
Consumers tend to associate the idea of natural wine primarily with the methods of production rather than with certification and labeling standards, as proposed by Bazzani et al. [125]. The VAB (value–attitude–behavior) model research by Dong and Gao [126] indicated that the process of purchasing organic wine involves several stages, starting from consumer values, progressing through attitudes, and ultimately influencing behavioral intentions toward organic wine. Consumers are progressively appreciating the importance of terroir—the interplay of soil, climate, and vineyard practices—in shaping the quality and unique characteristics of local wines, such as in the case of local wine in Ukraine [127]. Warman and Lewis [128] claimed that terroir is the key factor for boosting the value of premium wines, especially regarding the way quality could be better communicated. From another point of view, the experiments of Russell and Boakes [129] are interesting, as they linked the communicative tactic of quality with the characteristics of smell. Precise labeling of wine aromas seemed to improve the capability of distinguishing quality elements. Ponce [130] added an interesting dimension to quality parameters, revealing that precise translation enables consumers to better comprehend product information, which could be positive for sales. Effective labels and marketing strategies that clearly convey this information can significantly predict consumer decisions [131]. Recently, the internet and social media have become crucial tools for attracting new consumers focusing on high-quality products [132]. Also, reviews and recommendations seem to play an important role in shaping consumer choices. The clear and effective communication of these elements can significantly affect purchasing decisions [133]. The correlation points appear in Table 11.

4.7. Sustainability

In this sub-section, studies concerning the communication of the label with the central element being sustainability are included.
Wine marketing attempts to raise awareness of sustainable wine production by promoting information related to environmental factors [134]. Consumers seem to be interested in sustainability certifications but they do not always understand fully them, and this is reflected in their purchase decisions [135]. Berghoef and Dodds [136] studied consumers’ interest in eco-labeling in the Ontario wine industry. They found that most respondents do not regularly prefer a wine based on eco-labelling but are positive about the idea of a label that leads to digital content about ecology. Consumers need to feel confident about the eco-labels before they decide to pay for trustworthy eco-labeled products. Eco-labeling certification is very important because only accredited organizations can confirm the suitable standards [137]. Sogari et al. [138] examined Italian consumers’ attitudes towards eco-labels and sustainable wine. Their findings indicated that the eco-label on a wine bottle leaves a positive impression on the consumers and proposed that all stakeholders should take into consideration eco-labels as a strategic tool for shaping opinion. However, Delmas and Grant [139] claimed that the successful appeal of eco-labels is relative because they may be competitive but there is not a clear link between a target group and specific characteristics. In another study by Delmas and Lessem [134], it is discovered that while some consumers are prepared to pay more for eco-labeled organic wines because they perceive them as premium products, others consider them to be poorer in quality. Tait et al. [140] questioned participants who consumed Californian Sauvignon blanc and found that certifications regarding organic elements are very important to how they consider the specific wine in their consuming conscience. Ugaglia et al. [141] compared different eco-friendly labels and concluded that for French consumers, it is very important to understand that eco-labels are transparent.
Mazzocchi et al.’s [142] experiment regarding wine choice showed, firstly, that the wine industry could use biodiversity labels to reinforce consumers’ credibility and, secondly, that a lack of information regarding the agricultural production methods could lead to informational gaps, especially for the promotion of organic wine. Rahman et al. [143] proposed that wine producers and marketers should consider promoting essential product features that harmonize with consumer values. This fact is also proposed by Flores [144], who studied the way communication of sustainability is implemented in labeling, underlining that wineries should establish specific targets in communicating the sense of sustainability to wine consumers. Sellers-Rubio and Nicolau-Gonzalbez [145] combined sustainability with the price factor and concluded that Spanish wine consumers are willing to pay more for a label that reflects the element of sustainability. In the same direction, Castellini et al. [146] recommend that biodynamic wines achieve wider market acceptance because better consumer education and industry support have spread knowledge of the advantages of eco-friendly practices.
Newsome et al. [147] also agree that it is very important for the consumers to be informed properly about sustainable practices in the wine industry to better understand the communicative function of this element on the label. On the other hand, Sgroi et al. [148] found a certain lack of awareness of sustainability issues regarding wine labeling mainly due to confusion within the industry. Rugani et al. [149] argued about carbon footprint assessments and pointed out that their analysis could assist wineries in reducing their environmental impact. Parga-Dans and González [7] suggested that the natural wine industry especially struggles between managing a wider consumer acceptance, without losing the initial basic principles, and succeeding in their sustainability goals. Fernández-Serrano et al. [150] proposed that incorporating logos into sustainability labels could eventually multiply the chances of selecting sustainable products. Borrello et al. [146] tried an experiment that led to the assumption that when consumers received information about sustainability, such as the use of organic methods, they considered the wines of better quality and were more willing to pay for them. Mantere [151] studied the circumstances in the Finnish wine market and argued that there are indeed nuggets of skepticism due to transparency problems in relation to the consumers’ beliefs and suggested sustainability initiatives to solve this problem. The correlation points appear in Table 12.

4.8. Verbal Communication

This subsection includes research regarding verbal elements on the wine label.
López Arroyo and Roberts [154] claimed that wine producers use traditional ways to describe the wine on the label but suggested that this is not enough to properly communicate the taste and quality of the wine. They explained that this occurs because the wine language is influenced to a severe degree by the cultural background. For example, French consumers often focus on traditional and terroir-related qualities, whereas Portuguese and South African consumers consider important factors like price or branding more [155].
Basic verbal cues on the label provoke potential purchases because they convey core emotional elements that create consumer awareness [108]. Esau [135] conducted research divided into five phases and applied the consumer culture theory as a conceptual text. He concluded that the label’s typographic elements can influence consumers’ expectations regarding wine tasting. Nevertheless, he claimed that these elements could create a potential basis for establishing a strong perception of the wine. Jaud and Melnyk’s [45] experiment demonstrated the results of comparing labels with only verbal content and labels with a combination of image and verbal text. It was recorded that most participants had more positive reactions towards the label with a double message, visual and verbal, than those that had only one verbal one. When Burgundy wine consumers selected wines, they seemed to emphasize external factors and considered them more valuable than qualities like taste and aroma [156]. In some cases, the names of specific varieties with appropriate inscriptions become objects of special interest because consumers consider them to be premium and create an identification with prestige in their mind [157].
Sillani et al. [47] found differences in their questioned target groups in relation to the way they receive the verbal or visual message of the label. More specifically, wine experts preferred the verbal part over the photographic language, while wine tourists did not show any preference for any of the two types. The qualitative content analysis by Wang et al. [158] was used to compare what occurs when different description types are used on the label. Wines were described with metaphorical language, which led to better memory recall among participants compared to those described with plain, literal language. Regarding the verbal information on the label, Ferreira et al. [159] showed that there was a differentiation in the degree of preference in relation to gender. Men tended to prefer information regarding the variety and history of the wine, while women showed a preference for information regarding the origin and possible wine awards. The verbal load that a producer communicates through the label is even influenced by the etymology of the winery’s name and acquires a historical and symbolic message that not only gives good marketing results but creates a strong innovative structure in the wine industry [160].
Labels with foreign brands make it easier for consumers to perceive the credibility of the winery and if it is competitive in a global market; on the other hand, they convey the risk of eventually failing to meet the consumers’ expectations [156]. In South Africa, it is common to name wines after historical figures, which harmoniously blends branding with historical and cultural context [161]. In particular, wine tourists who want to plan a relative trip to USA wine zones systematically rely on sources such as the safety of a winery’s label based on verbal cues about the region [162]. The final selection of wine through label communication could also be related to phonetic pronunciation, which, according to Marbach et al. [163], affects the perception of sophistication and conceptualization. The same assumptions are included in the study by Teodorescu [164], who argued about the importance of verbal content, which is especially critical for experienced consumers who seek relevant information to confidently make their purchase decisions. Verbal-centered labels give the opportunity for more organized descriptions and seem to capture the complexity of sensory experiences as they evolve over time [158]. Especially when it comes to premium wines, Wright et al. [165] claimed that wine characterization through verbal description on the label is as complex as the wine itself.
Consumers who have a certain degree of previous knowledge about wine influence the way they attempt to categorize external information about it [166]. The verbal element of a label that describes geographical information could link much more effectively with the local market and create a specific wine identity [167]. Labels with direct information, simple cues, and easy access make consumers evaluate the wine in a whole different way, which benefits promotion and sales [3]. Communication based on the regional wine zone as an extension of the label could contribute a lot to the commodification of wine products [168]. This is why it is important for wine producers not only to simply translate the verbal cues or the brand name of a wine but to adjust to the conceptual text of each market as well [169]. Lupu [170] went one step further and studied paraverbal cues concerning wine communication through advertising and promotion and concluded that these elements are also important for the wine industry in general. The correlation points appear in Table 13.

5. Discussion

5.1. The Contribution of Wine Information Elements as a Basic Communication Framework

Informational parameters contribute to the differentiation of the product in the market, to the enhancement of the consumer’s experience, and to the formation of their preferences and choices [60]. Through them, wine labels do not simply function as a source of information but also function as strategic storytelling tools that involve the consumer in a journey of understanding and identification with the product [55]. The papers we reviewed had one key point in common: the use of specific label information conveys the main information and, by extension, is the main axis of communication with consumers. Based on this criterion, we categorized all relevant studies and classified them according to the predominant element each time.
After a thorough study upon completion of this review, we arrived at a conceptual framework (Figure 3) based on eight dominant informational factors that interact with consumers in terms of communication through the label. The main correlation points on which the research converges in relation to the factors of the above framework are as follows:
  • The back label has the potential to interact communicatively with consumers, especially if combined with the communicative use of price [3,25,65,69].
  • Visual communication seems to remain the central point on which wine communication should focus, along with the concept of sense of place, as the authenticity and historicity of the place are elements with great influence on consumers [13,26].
  • Smart labels communicate very effectively with consumers through the enhancement of the shopping experience; however, it is a field that still needs a lot of research, mainly regarding issues of personal data [88,97].
  • Focusing on nutritional information is crucial in today’s era, where there is generally a shift towards a healthy lifestyle, a fact that is reflected in Generations Z and Y [19,79].
  • The price combined with the visual presentation of the label constitutes a timeless element of communication with consumers that continues to add value to wine [60,97,112].
  • Quality is effectively communicated mainly through the term “natural” in certain niche markets, particularly to consumers who have prior knowledge of the identities of various wine regions [104,108,111].
  • Regarding the sustainability factor, a crucial point is the transparency of information and the trust that must be communicated to consumers [136,172].
  • Verbal information on the label can be effective but care needs to be taken due to different cultural contexts and the effectiveness of the reception of the appropriate message [47,135,160].
At a second level of conclusion (Table 14), an interesting element that we observed is the fact that in all the research analyzed, the largest percentage (31%) concerns the factor of visual communication; in fact, there was a difference compared to the second factor, which is the communication of quality, with a percentage of 19%. This is followed by verbal information (13%), information on sustainability (12%), nutritional information (11%), information based on QR data (6%), information related to price (5%), and finally the information that is dominant on the back label (2%).
This analysis leads us to the conclusion that the communication strategy of the wine industry should focus mainly on visual information, which interacts at a very good level with consumers (Figure 4).
However, the element of information regarding quality that can be interconnected with the communication of terroir, historicity, and the broader concept of the wine experience is also interesting, especially if we combine it with storytelling techniques and augmented reality. We consider this point to be crucial for the business communication of wineries, which has a large scope for research, development, and application (Figure 5).
An effective wine label, especially with a dominant information parameter as a communicational core works as an ultra-useful communicational channel that functions in three dimensions: differentiation, emotional bonding, and even educational improvements on the consumption of wine [173]. This paper aims to open discussion about using information elements as core communicative aspects in wine communication and offer valuable insights to researchers, students, and stakeholders in the wine industry about how consumers interpret the prominent information on labels.
This review’s contribution lies in providing a framework for understanding how the decoding of key label information combined with appropriate communication strategies can contribute to public authorities, the wine industry, and healthcare providers:
As far as public authorities are concerned, it is important to constantly evaluate and revise regulations for all the mandatory elements that must be present on the label. Also, there needs to be regulations regarding the additional information that can be integrated through QR technology in an effective and suitable manner. The current needs for transparency and consumer confidence make the work of public authorities on health consciousness, sustainability culture, and consumer protection important [11,88].
In relation to the wine industry, this review highlights the importance of label design not only for conveying mandatory information but also for creating an engaging narrative that touches consumers’ emotions. Wineries could invest in their communication strategy by designing elements that align with their identity and communicate trust, authenticity, and quality at the same time [50]. This is how emotional connections can be created, which will even more effectively influence the consumer’s perceptions. Smart labels that include detailed product information and enhance interaction are an innovation that could create a unique value proposition [75]. Clear communication about organic product certifications, sustainable practices, and nutritional information could attract socially responsible consumers, contributing to brand differentiation [76].
In relation to healthcare providers, this study aims to contribute to potential public health campaigns aimed at raising awareness of the health effects of alcohol consumption. Additionally, they could support the inclusion of clear and accurate health information on product labels, such as alcohol content, calories, nutritional values, and warnings about excessive alcohol consumption [85].
The managerial implications of this research emphasize the crucial role of wine labels as a communicative channel of effective communication. By prioritizing design, transparency, digital innovation, and consumer preferences, wine producers can strengthen their wine communication strategy and customer loyalty while maintaining compliance with regulations [89].

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

This work reviewed research about the way particular dominant elements on the wine labels affect consumers’ perceptions and decisions in a variety of ways. Language, cultural factors, information availability, and aesthetics are important influences on customer preferences, especially in the way the label attracts attention, desire, and intention and creates the conditions of the actual purchase [174]. Nevertheless, this study has certain limitations:
  • Given the constantly shifting wine market landscape and consumer expectations, the dynamic relationship between wine labels and consumer behavior is constantly evolving
  • The identification of dominant elements in wine labels involves subjective interpretation, which may introduce bias or variability depending on the researchers’ perspectives and methodology.
Although relevant studies about wine communication in South America are limited, there lies an unexploited field for further research [175,176,177].
In conclusion, future research could be focused on the depth or weight of each parameter in terms of its impact on consumers’ perceptions. By addressing these limitations and pursuing these future research directions, the field of wine communication can continue to evolve and provide more effective strategies for engaging consumers through wine labels.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.A. and T.T.; methodology, E.A. and T.T., data curation, E.A. and T.T. writing—original draft preparation, E.A.; writing—review and editing, E.A. and T.T., visualization, E.A.; supervision, T.T., funding acquisition, E.A. and I.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Thomas, A.; Pickering, G. The Importance of Wine Label Information. Int. J. Wine Mark. 2003, 15, 58–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Binder, J.-H.; Gortsos, C.V. The European Banking Union: A Compendium; Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2015; ISBN 978-1-5099-0956-8. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gmuer, A.; Siegrist, M.; Dohle, S. Does Wine Label Processing Fluency Influence Wine Hedonics? Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 44, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Boyraz, A. Enlarging Storytelling Methods to Influence Wine Customer Buying Behavior; Universitat Rovira i Virgili: Tarragona, Spain, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Celhay, F.; Passebois, J. Wine Labelling: Is It Time to Break with Tradition? A Study of the Moderating Role of Perceived Risk. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 318–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pabst, E.; Szolnoki, G.; Mueller Loose, S. The Effects of Mandatory Ingredient and Nutrition Labelling for Wine Consumers—A Qualitative Study. Wine Econ. Policy 2019, 8, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Parga-Dans, E.; Alonso González, P. From Paper to Soil: The Impact of New EU Alcoholic Drinks Labeling Regulations for Wine Regions. J. Consum. Prot. Food Saf. 2018, 13, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vecchio, R.; Decordi, G.; Grésillon, L.; Gugenberger, C.; Mahéo, M.; Jourjon, F. European Consumers’ Perception of Moderate Wine Consumption on Health. Wine Econ. Policy 2017, 6, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barbierato, E.; Berti, D.; Ranfagni, S.; Luis, H.-A.; Iacop, B. Wine Label Design Proposals: An Eye-Tracking Study to Analyze Consumers’ Visual Attention and Preferences. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2023, 35, 365–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Fujiyoshi, L.; McGreevy, S.R.; Tayasu, I. Trust Me? Consumer Trust in Expert Information on Food Product Labels. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 137, 111170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Annunziata, A.; Pomarici, E.; Vecchio, R.; Mariani, A. Health Warnings on Wine: A Consumer Perspective. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 647–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zhang, X.K.; Jeffery, D.W.; Li, D.M.; Lan, Y.B.; Zhao, X.; Duan, C.Q. Red wine coloration: A review of pigmented molecules, reactions, and applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2022, 21, 3834–3866, Erratum in Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023, 22, 1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Celhay, F.; Cheng, P.; Masson, J.; Li, W. Package Graphic Design and Communication across Cultures: An Investigation of Chinese Consumers’ Interpretation of Imported Wine Labels. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2020, 37, 108–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. König, B.; Lick, E. Wine Labels in Austrian Food Retail Stores: A Semiotic Analysis of Multimodal Red Wine Labels. Semiotica 2014, 2014, 313–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Martin, A.E.; Watling, R.J.; Lee, G.S. The Multi-Element Determination and Regional Discrimination of Australian Wines. Food Chem. 2012, 133, 1081–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bauer, H.H.; Heinrich, D.; Schäfer, D.B. The Effects of Organic Labels on Global, Local, and Private Brands. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1035–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Preoteasa, I.F.; Giuaea, N.; Maracineanu, C.L. Studies on the Evolution of the Wine Label, from Art to Brand. Analele Univ. Din Craiova-Biol. Hortic. Tehnol. Prelucr. Prod. Agric. Ing. Mediu. 2016, 21, 203–206. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shi, F.; Gu, Q.; Zhou, T. Understanding Brand Reputation: A Case Study of Chinese Wineries. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2024, 36, 2774–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Higgins, L.M.; McGarry Wolf, M.; Wolf, M.J. Technological Change in the Wine Market? The Role of QR Codes and Wine Apps in Consumer Wine Purchases. Wine Econ. Policy 2014, 3, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Acuti, D.; Vocino, A.; Mazzoli, V.; Donvito, R. The Effects of QR Delivered Content on Perceived Product Value. J. Strateg. Mark. 2022, 30, 510–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van Tonder, E.M.; Mulder, D. Marketing Communication for Organic Wine: Semiotic Guidelines for Wine Bottle Front Labels. Communicatio 2015, 41, 131–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chiesa, C.D.; Dekker, E. Communicating Identity: How the Symbolic Meaning of Goods Creates Different Market Types. Rev. Soc. Econ. 2024, 82, 76–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Szymkowiak, A.; Garczarek-Bąk, U.; Faganel, A. Enriching Product Exposure in E-Commerce through a Hedonistic and Utilitarian Cue. Wine Econ. Policy 2024, 13, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mueller, S.; Lockshin, L.; Louviere, J.J. What You See May Not Be What You Get: Asking Consumers What Matters May Not Reflect What They Choose. Mark. Lett. 2010, 21, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Danner, L.; Johnson, T.E.; Ristic, R.; Meiselman, H.L.; Bastian, S.E.P. “I like the Sound of That!” Wine Descriptions Influence Consumers’ Expectations, Liking, Emotions and Willingness to Pay for Australian White Wines. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cortassa, D. The Labelling and Packaging of Wine in European and Italian Perspectives. Wine Law 2021, 1, 187–223. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lei, P.; Jolibert, A. Non-Personal and Personal Determinants of Red Wine Purchase Rather than Other Wines among Chinese Consumers: Modelling Multilevel and Cross-Level Interactions. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2016, 29, 542–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Crichton-Fock, A.; Spence, C.; Mora, M.; Pettersson, N. Enhancing the Design of Wine Labels. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1176794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Elliot, S.; Barth, J.E. Wine Label Design and Personality Preferences of Millennials. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2012, 21, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kellershohn, J.; Lumby, N.; Kozar, M. Label Design, Packaging, and the Canadian Millennial/Gen Z Wine Consumer. J. Foodserv. Bus. Res. 2023, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Henley, C.; Fowler, D.; Yuan, J.; Stout, B.; Goh, B. Label Design: Impact on Millennials’ Perceptions of Wine. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sherman, S.; Tuten, T. Message on a Bottle: The Wine Label’s Influence. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tang, V.C.M.; Tchetchik, A.; Cohen, E. Perception of Wine Labels by Hong Kong Chinese Consumers. Wine Econ. Policy 2015, 4, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Borghini, A. On Being the Same Wine. Riv. Estet. 2012, 52, 175–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Orlowski, M.; Lefebvre, S.; Back, R.M. Thinking Outside the Bottle: Effects of Alternative Wine Packaging. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 69, 103117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Persuric, A.S.I.; Damijanić, A.T.; Kerma, S. The Relationship between Autochthonous Wine Attributes and Wine Consumption Motives. Екoнoмика Пoљoпривреде 2018, 65, 1337–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Joshi, S.; Mulcahy, R.; Ladlow, C.; Eskridge, B.; Andonopoulos, V.; Northey, G. A Curious Tale of Wine Labelling: How the Colour of a Wine Label Influences Purchase Intention. J. Wine Res. 2024, 35, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lick, E.; König, B.; Kpossa, M.R.; Buller, V. Sensory Expectations Generated by Colours of Red Wine Labels. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2017, 37, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Celhay, F.; Folcher, P.; Cohen, J. Decoding Wine Label Design: A Study of the Visual Codes of Bordeaux Grand Crus. In Proceedings of the 7th AWBR International Conference, St Catharines, ON, Canada, 12–15 June 2013. [Google Scholar]
  40. Monteiro, P.; Guerreiro, J.; Loureiro, S. Understanding the Role of Visual Attention on Wines’ Purchase Intention: An Eye-Tracking Study. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2019, 32, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Flanagan, B.; Wariishi, N.; Suzuki, T.; Hirokawa, S. Predicting and Visualizing Wine Characteristics Through Analysis of Tasting Notes from Viewpoints. In Proceedings of the HCI International 2015—Posters’ Extended Abstracts, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2–7 August 2015; Stephanidis, C., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 613–619. [Google Scholar]
  42. Celhay, F.; Remaud, H. What Does Your Wine Label Mean to Consumers? A Semiotic Investigation of Bordeaux Wine Visual Codes. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 65, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pelet, J.-É.; Durrieu, F.; Lick, E. Label Design of Wines Sold Online: Effects of Perceived Authenticity on Purchase Intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 55, 102087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Grijalba, N.; Maguregui, M.; Unceta, N.; Morillas, H.; Médina, B.; Barrio, R.; Pécheyran, C. Direct Non-Invasive Molecular Analysis of Packaging Label to Assist Wine-Bottle Authentication. Microchem. J. 2019, 154, 104564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jaud, D.A.; Melnyk, V. The Effect of Text-Only versus Text-and-Image Wine Labels on Liking, Taste and Purchase Intentions. The Mediating Role of Affective Fluency. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Monia, S.; Giraud, G. The Differentiated Effect of Information on the Sensorial Appreciation of Wine. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2639–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sillani, S.; Miccoli, A.; Nassivera, F. Different Preferences for Wine Communication. Wine Econ. Policy 2017, 6, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Xie, Y. Wine Bottle Design and Consumer Preferences. Lect. Notes Electr. Eng. 2013, 227, 639–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chamorro, A.; García-Gallego, J.M.; Trindade-Carlos, H. da C. Study on the Importance of Wine Bottle Design on Consumer Choices. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 577–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. De Luca, P.; Penco, P. The Role of Packaging in Marketing Communication: An Explorative Study of the Italian Wine Business. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Wine Business Research Conference, Montpellier, France, 6–8 July 2006. [Google Scholar]
  51. Multimodal Content Analysis: Expanding Analytical Approaches to Content Analysis—Frank Serafini, Stephanie F Reid. 2023. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1470357219864133 (accessed on 23 October 2024).
  52. Lunardo, R.; Rickard, B. How Do Consumers Respond to Fun Wine Labels? Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2603–2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Laeng, B.; Suegami, T.; Aminihajibashi, S. Wine Labels: An Eye-Tracking and Pupillometry Study. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2016, 28, 327–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Merdian, P.; Piroth, P.; Rueger-Muck, E.; Raab, G. Looking behind Eye-Catching Design: An Eye-Tracking Study on Wine Bottle Design Preference. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2021, 33, 134–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Barber, N.; Ismail, J.; Taylor, D.C. Label Fluency and Consumer Self-Confidence. J. Wine Res. 2007, 18, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. A Latent Analysis of Images and Words in Wine Choice—Wade Jarvis, Simone Mueller, Kathleen Chiong. 2010. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.ausmj.2010.05.001 (accessed on 23 October 2024).
  57. Lutskova, V.; Martirosyan, I.; Krupytska, L. Analysis of consumer preferences when choosing wine. Ukr. J. Food Sci. 2020, 8, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Galati, A.; Tinervia, S.; Tulone, A.; Crescimanno, M.; Rizzo, G. Label Style and Color Contribution to Explain Market Price Difference in Italian Red Wines Sold in the Chinese Wine Market. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2018, 30, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McCann, S.R. Art, Labels and Wine: You Can’t Judge a Book by Its Cover. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020, 55, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Spence, C. Cognitive Influence on the Evaluation of Wine: The Impact and Assessment of Price. Food Res. Int. 2024, 187, 114411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chrea, C.; Melo, L.; Evans, G.; Forde, C.; Delahunty, C.; Cox, D.N. An Investigation Using Three Approaches to Understand the Influence of Extrinsic Product Cues on Consumer Behavior: An Example of Australian Wines. J. Sens. Stud. 2011, 26, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Barrena, R.; García, T.; Pindado, E. The structure of consumer decision-making and sensory innovations in wine labeling. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 19, e0111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chalmers, N. Wine Labels: What’s on the Outside Matters. Aust. N. Z. Grapegrow. Winemak. 2020, 614, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
  64. Chisholm, R. The Design in Wine. Des. Manag. Rev. 2010, 21, 64–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chrysakis, I.; Papadakos, P.; Patkos, T.; Flouris, G.; Samaritakis, G.; Angelakis, D.; Tsampanaki, N.; Basina, N.; Baritakis, P.; Pratikaki, A. Towards Creating a Customized Wine Story for Engagement and Transparency. In Proceedings of the HAICTA2022: The 10th International Conference on ICT in Agriculture, Food & Environment; CEUR, Athens, Greece, 22–25 September 2022; Volume 3293, pp. 284–290. [Google Scholar]
  66. Dobele, A.; Greenacre, L.; Fry, J. The Impact of Purchase Goal on Wine Purchase Decisions. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2018, 30, 19–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Habbeger, K. Sustenance for the Body & Soul: Food & Drink in Amerindian, Spanish and Latin American Worlds; Liverpool University Press: Liverpool, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-1-78284-738-0. [Google Scholar]
  68. Yariktas, A. Wine Design as an Artistic Intermediary in Discovery of Cultural Identities; Universitat Rovira I Virgili: Tarragona, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mueller, S.; Lockshin, L.; Saltman, Y.; Blanford, J. Message on a Bottle: The Relative Influence of Wine Back Label Information on Wine Choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ramšak, M. Social Impact of Wine Marketing: The Challenge of Digital Technologies to Regulation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mastio, A.D.; Caldelli, R.; Casini, M.; Manetti, M. SMARTVINO Project: When Wine Can Benefit from ICT. Wine Econ. Policy 2016, 5, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Acuti, D.; Magherini, L.; Mazzoli, V.; Bandinelli, R.; Donvito, R.; Rinaldi, R.; Aiello, G. QR Code and the Wine Sector: What Contents? An Exploratory Research Study on the Wine Industry. In Business Models and ICT Technologies for the Fashion Supply Chain; Rinaldi, R., Bandinelli, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 293–304. [Google Scholar]
  73. Triantafillidou, A.; Vrigkas, M.; KleftodimosYannacopoulou, A.; Gkoutzios, S.; Lappas, G. Consumer Experience and Augmented Reality Wine Label Application. In Digital Economy. Emerging Technologies and Business Innovation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 263–273. ISBN 978-3-031-42787-9. [Google Scholar]
  74. Robertson, J.; Ferreira, C.; Kietzmann, J.; Botha, E. Message on a Bottle: The Use of Augmented Reality as a Form of Disruptive Rhetoric in Wine Marketing. J. Wine Res. 2024, 35, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Angeli, A.; Stacchio, L.; Donnatielo, L.; Marfia, G. Making Paper Labels Smart for Augmented Wine Recognition. Vis. Comput. 2023, 40, 5519–5531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kiselev, V.; Kiseleva, T.; Petropavlovskaya, A.; Fedorova, A.; Plyushcheva, L.; Gorokhova, A. Information and Communication Technologies in the Promotion of Russian Wines. Nexo Sci. J. 2022, 35, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fleming, E.; Thiemann, F.; Mueller, R.A.E. Information and Communication Technology and the Global Flow of Wine: A Gravity Model of ICT in Wine Trade. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Congress, Zurich, Switzerland, 30 August–2 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mittal, S. Old Wine with a New Label: Rights of Data Subjects Under GDPR. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. 2017, 8, 67–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mokrý, S.; Birčiaková, N.; Slováčková, T.; Stávková, J.; Nagyová, Ľ. Perception of Wine Labels by Generation Z: Eye-Tracking Experiment. EBSCOhost. Available online: https://openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/doi:10.5219%2F647?sid=ebsco:plink:crawler&id=ebsco:doi:10.5219%2F647 (accessed on 23 October 2024).
  80. Hristov, H.; Kuhar, A. Subjective Knowledge as a Determinant of Young Adult Consumers Wine Behaviour. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 2930–2946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jürkenbeck, K.; Spiller, A. Importance of Sensory Quality Signals in Consumers’ Food Choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 90, 104155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pabst, E.; Corsi, A.M.; Vecchio, R.; Annunziata, A.; Loose, S.M. Consumers’ Reactions to Nutrition and Ingredient Labelling for Wine—A Cross-Country Discrete Choice Experiment. Appetite 2021, 156, 104843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kubota, S.; Sawano, H.; Kono, H. Japanese Consumer Preferences for Additive-Free Wine Labeling. Agric. Food Econ. 2017, 5, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Annunziata, A.; Pomarici, E.; Vecchio, R.; Mariani, A. Nutritional Information and Health Warnings on Wine Labels: Exploring Consumer Interest and Preferences. Appetite 2016, 106, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Yoo, Y.J.; Saliba, A.J.; MacDonald, J.B.; Prenzler, P.D.; Ryan, D. A Cross-Cultural Study of Wine Consumers with Respect to Health Benefits of Wine. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 531–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Annunziata, A.; Agnoli, L.; Vecchio, R.; Charters, S.; Mariani, A. Health Warnings on Wine Labels: A Discrete Choice Analysis of Italian and French Generation Y Consumers. Wine Econ. Policy 2019, 8, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Costanigro, M.; Appleby, C.; Menke, S.D. The Wine Headache: Consumer Perceptions of Sulfites and Willingness to Pay for Non-Sulfited Wines. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Popovich, D.; Velikova, N. The Impact of Nutrition Labeling on Consumer Perceptions of Wine. J. Consum. Mark. 2023, 40, 748–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Meloni, G.; Swinnen, J. The Political Economy of European Wine Regulations. J. Wine Econ. 2013, 8, 244–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lategan, B.W.; Pentz, C.D.; Du Preez, R. Importance of Wine Attributes: A South African Generation Y Perspective. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 1536–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vecchio, R.; Annunziata, A.; Mariani, A. Is More Better? Insights on Consumers’ Preferences for Nutritional Information on Wine Labelling. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Roma, P.; Di Martino, G.; Perrone, G. What to Show on the Wine Labels: A Hedonic Analysis of Price Drivers of Sicilian Wines. Appl. Econ. 2013, 45, 2765–2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Boatto, V.; Defrancesco, E.; Trestini, S. The Price Premium for Wine Quality Signals: Does Retailers’ Information Provision Matter? Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 669–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zhao, W.; Zhou, X. Status Inconsistency and Product Valuation in the California Wine Market. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 1435–1448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Werner, C.P.; Birkhaeuer, J.; Locher, C.; Gerger, H.; Heimgartner, N.; Colagiuri, B.; Gaab, J. Price Information Influences the Subjective Experience of Wine: A Framed Field Experiment. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 92, 104223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bruwer, J.; Saliba, A.; Miller, B. Consumer Behaviour and Sensory Preference Differences: Implications for Wine Product Marketing. J. Consum. Mark. 2011, 28, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Cembalo, L.; Caracciolo, F.; Pomarici, E. Drinking Cheaply: The Demand for Basic Wine in Italy. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2014, 58, 374–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Atkin, T.; Thach, L. Millennial Wine Consumers: Risk Perception and Information Search. Wine Econ. Policy 2012, 1, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Sáenz-Navajas, M.-P.; Ballester, J.; Peyron, D.; Valentin, D. Extrinsic Attributes Responsible for Red Wine Quality Perception: A Cross-Cultural Study between France and Spain. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 35, 70–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bortolotti, A.; Cannito, L.; Anzani, S.; Palumbo, R. Wine Chromatics: The Colorful Language of Wine’s Characteristics. Cult. E Sci. Colore-Color Cult. Sci. 2024, 16, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Galati, A.; Schifani, G.; Crescimanno, M.; Migliore, G. “Natural Wine” Consumers and Interest in Label Information: An Analysis of Willingness to Pay in a New Italian Wine Market Segment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kustos, M.; Goodman, S.; Jeffery, D.W.; Bastian, S.E.P. Using Consumer Opinion to Define New World Fine Wine: Insights for Hospitality. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 83, 180–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mann, S.; Ferjani, A.; Reissig, L. What Matters to Consumers of Organic Wine? Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tardy, M.; Medema, T. Using the Organic Label in Spanish Wine Marketing; Aeres Hogeschool: Girona, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  105. Čačić, J.; Tratnik, M.; Gajdoš Kljusurić, J.; Čačić, D.; Kovačević, D. Wine with Geographical Indication–Awareness of Croatian Consumers. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Honoré-Chedozeau, C.; Lelievre-Desmas, M.; Ballester, J.; Chollet, S.; Chatelet, B.; Valentin, D. Vineyards and Grape Varieties: What Is Going on in Wine Professional and Consumer Minds? In Proceedings of the XI International Terroir Congress, McMinnville, OR, USA, 10–14 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
  107. Deselnicu, O.C.; Costanigro, M.; Souza-Monteiro, D.M.; McFadden, D.T. A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels? J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2013, 38, 204–219. [Google Scholar]
  108. Coppin, G.; Audrin, C.; Monseau, C.; Deneulin, P. Is Knowledge Emotion? The Subjective Emotional Responses to Wines Depend on Level of Self-Reported Expertise and Sensitivity to Key Information about the Wine. Food Res. Int. 2021, 142, 110192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Baiano, A. An Overview on Sustainability in the Wine Production Chain. Beverages 2021, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Silva, P. Low-Alcohol and Nonalcoholic Wines: From Production to Cardiovascular Health, along with Their Economic Effects. Beverages 2024, 10, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ellis, D.; Caruana, A. Consumer Wine Knowledge: Components and Segments. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2018, 30, 277–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Atkin, T.; Johnson, R. Appellation as an Indicator of Quality. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2010, 22, 42–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Boneva, V.; Ivanova, T.; Grozeva, N.; Slavcheva, M.; Dimitrova, D. Ethnobotany of Zmeyovski Pelin: A Traditional Artemisia-Flavored Wine from Bulgaria. Beverages 2024, 10, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Martinho, V.J.P.D. Contributions from Literature for Understanding Wine Marketing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Huang, S.-C.; Zhang, Y. Motivational Consequences of Perceived Velocity in Consumer Goal Pursuit. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 1045–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Apaolaza, V.; Hartmann, P.; Echebarria, C.; Barrutia, J.M. Organic Label’s Halo Effect on Sensory and Hedonic Experience of Wine: A Pilot Study. J. Sens. Stud. 2017, 32, e12243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Grogan, K.A. The Value of Added Sulfur Dioxide in French Organic Wine. Agric. Food Econ. 2015, 3, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hilger, J.; Rafert, G.; Villas-Boas, S. Expert Opinion and the Demand for Experience Goods: An Experimental Approach in the Retail Wine Market. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2011, 93, 1289–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zanzig, L. The Perfect Pairing: Pr Airing: Protecting U.S. Geogr Otecting U.S. Geographical Indications with Aphical Indications with a Sino-American Wine Registry. Wash. Law Rev. 2013, 88, 723. [Google Scholar]
  120. Firstenfeld, J. Monterey Wants Conjunctive Wine Labels—Document—Gale Academic OneFile. Available online: https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=anon~745d007d&id=GALE%7CA410642472&v=2.1&it=r&sid=googleScholar&asid=d9cf9184 (accessed on 27 December 2024).
  121. Banks, G.; Overton, J. Old World, New World, Third World? Reconceptualising the Worlds of Wine. J. Wine Res. 2010, 21, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Corduas, M.; Cinquanta, L.; Ievoli, C. The Importance of Wine Attributes for Purchase Decisions: A Study of Italian Consumers’ Perception. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Famularo, B.; Bruwer, J.; Li, E. Region of Origin as Choice Factor: Wine Knowledge and Wine Tourism Involvement Influence. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2010, 22, 362–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Simard, S. (Ed.) Climate Change and Variability; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2010; ISBN 978-953-307-144-2. [Google Scholar]
  125. Bazzani, C.; Maesano, G.; Begalli, D.; Capitello, R. Exploring the Effect of Naturalness on Consumer Wine Choices: Evidence from a Survey in Italy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2024, 113, 105062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Dong, Y.; Gao, L. Consumer Attitude and Behavioural Intention towards Organic Wine: The Roles of Consumer Values and Involvement. Br. Food J. 2024, 126, 1743–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hanchukova, O.; Velikova, N.; Motuzenko, O. A Toast to Emerging Terroir: Exploring Consumer Attitudes toward Local Wine in Ukraine. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2024, 36, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Warman, R.D.; Lewis, G.K. Wine Place Research: Getting Value from Terroir and Provenance in Premium Wine Value Chain Interventions. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2019, 31, 493–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Russell, A.M.T.; Boakes, R.A. Identification of Confusable Odours Including Wines: Appropriate Labels Enhance Performance. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ponce, G.P. Legal Labelling Regime and Its Relevance on the Translation of Wine Labels (EN-ES-FR). In Text and Wine: Approaches from Terminology and Translation; Balbuena Torezano, M.d.C., Álvarez Jurado, M., Eds.; IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature; John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 78–89. ISBN 978-90-272-1420-1. [Google Scholar]
  131. Alpeza, I.; Nižić, I.; Lukač, Z. What Influences Croatian Consumers’ Wine Choice? Mark.-Trž. 2023, 35, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Sykalia, D.; Chrisostomidou, Y.; Karabagias, I.K. An Exploratory Research Regarding Greek Consumers’ Behavior on Wine and Wineries’ Character. Beverages 2023, 9, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Malik, M.; Bhatnagar, D.A.; Kumar, D.J. Patterns of Decision-Making and Driving Factors among Indian Wine Drinkers: When Picking out a Bottle of Wine. J. Surv. Fish. Sci. 2023, 10, 2104–2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Tsiakis, T.; Anagnostou, E.; Granata, G.; Manakou, V. Communicating Terroir through Wine Label Toponymy Greek Wineries Practice. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Piras, F. A Systematic Literature Review on Technological Innovation in the Wine Tourism Industry: Insights and Perspectives. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Berghoef, N.; Dodds, R. Potential for Sustainability Eco-labeling in Ontario’s Wine Industry. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2011, 23, 298–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Delmas, M.A.; Gergaud, O. Sustainable Practices and Product Quality: Is There Value in Eco-Label Certification? The Case of Wine. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 183, 106953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sogari, G.; Mora, C.; Menozzi, D. Sustainable Wine Labeling: A Framework for Definition and Consumers’ Perception. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Delmas, M.A.; Grant, L.E. Eco-Labeling Strategies and Price-Premium: The Wine Industry Puzzle. Bus. Soc. 2014, 53, 6–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Tait, P.; Saunders, C.; Dalziel, P.; Rutherford, P.; Driver, T.; Guenther, M. Estimating Wine Consumer Preferences for Sustainability Attributes: A Discrete Choice Experiment of Californian Sauvignon Blanc Purchasers—ScienceDirect. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 412–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ugaglia, A.A.; Niklas, B.; Moscovici, D.; Gow, J.; Valenzuela, L.; Mihailescu, R. Consumer Preferences for Certified Wines in France: A Comparison of Sustainable Labels. Wine Econ. Policy 2021, 10, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Mazzocchi, C.; Ruggeri, G.; Corsi, S. Consumers’ Preferences for Biodiversity in Vineyards: A Choice Experiment on Wine. Wine Econ. Policy 2019, 8, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Rahman, I.; Stumpf, T.; Reynolds, D. A Comparison of the Influence of Purchaser Attitudes and Product Attributes on Organic Wine Preferences. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 55, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Flores, S.S. What Is Sustainability in the Wine World? A Cross-Country Analysis of Wine Sustainability Frameworks. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2301–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Sellers-Rubio, R.; Nicolau-Gonzalbez, J.L. Estimating the Willingness to Pay for a Sustainable Wine Using a Heckit Model. Wine Econ. Policy 2016, 5, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Borrello, M.; Vecchio, R.; Barisan, L.; Franceschi, D.; Pomarici, E.; Galletto, L. Is Wine Perception Influenced by Sustainability Information? Insights from a Consumer Experiment with Fungus Resistant Grape and Organic Wines. Food Res. Int. 2024, 190, 114580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Newsome, R.; Balestrini, C.G.; Baum, M.D.; Corby, J.; Fisher, W.; Goodburn, K.; Labuza, T.P.; Prince, G.; Thesmar, H.S.; Yiannas, F. Applications and Perceptions of Date Labeling of Food. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 745–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Sgroi, F.; Maenza, L.; Modica, F. Exploring Consumer Behavior and Willingness to Pay Regarding Sustainable Wine Certification. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Rugani, B.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Benedetto, G.; Benetto, E. A Comprehensive Review of Carbon Footprint Analysis as an Extended Environmental Indicator in the Wine Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 54, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Fernández-Serrano, P.; Tarancón, P.; Bonet, L.; Besada, C. Consumers’ Visual Attention and Choice of ‘Sustainable Irrigation’-Labeled Wine: Logo vs. Text. Agronomy 2022, 12, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Mantere, S. Assessment of Trustworthiness of Sustainability Claims—The Case Study of the Finnish Wine. Master’s Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  152. Stockl, A.F.; Moscovici, D.; Tischler, S.; Eitle, M.W.; Dolezal, C. Consumer Knowledge and Preferences for Organic and Sustainably Certified Wines: Lessons from the DACH Region—Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Castellini, A.; Mauracher, C.; Troiano, S. An Overview of the Biodynamic Wine Sector. Int. J. Wine Res. 2017, 9, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. López Arroyo, B.; Roberts, R.P. What Wine Descriptors Really Mean A Comparison between Dictionary Definitions and Real Use. J. Wine Res. 2020, 31, 301–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Fairbairn, S.; Brand, J.; Ferreira, A.; Valentin, D.; Bauer, F. Cultural Differences in Wine Conceptualization among Consumers in France, Portugal and South Africa | Scientific Reports. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 15977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Bonn, M.A.; Chang, H.; Cho, M. The environment and perceptions of wine consumers regarding quality, risk and value: Reputations of regional wines and restaurants. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Oczkowski, E. The Impact of Different Names for a Wine Variety on Prices. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2018, 30, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Wang, Q.J.; Thomadsen, J.K.; Amidi, A. Can Metaphors Help Us Better Remember Wines? The Effect of Wine Evaluation Style on Short-Term Recognition of Red Wines. Food Res. Int. Ott. Ont 2024, 179, 114009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Ferreira, C.; Lourenço-Gomes, L.; Pinto, L.M.C.; Silva, A.P. Is There a Gender Effect on Wine Choice in Portugal?—A Qualitative Approach. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2019, 31, 618–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Croidieu, G.; Soppe, B.; Powell, W.W. CRU, GLUE, and Status: How Wine Labels Helped Ennoble Bordeaux. In Multimodality, Meaning, and Institutions; Höllerer, M.A., Daudigeos, T., Jancsary, D., Eds.; Research in the Sociology of Organizations; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2017; Volume 54B, pp. 37–69. ISBN 978-1-78743-332-8. [Google Scholar]
  161. Neethling, B. The Role of Anthroponymic Commemoration on Wine Labels in South Africa. Names 2017, 65, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Bruwer, J.; Thach, L. Wine Tourists’ Use of Sources of Information When Visiting a USA Wine Region. J. Vacat. Mark. 2013, 19, 221–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Marbach, C.; Botezatu, A.; Hall, C. Exploring the Impact of Phonetic Pronunciation Guides on Wine Choice and Perceived Sophistication. Wine Bus. J. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Teodorescu, G. Sciendo. Ann. Valahia Univ. Târgovişte Agric. 2024, 16, 29–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Wright, D.K.; Yoon, H.; Morrison, A.M.; Šegota, T. Drinking in Style? Literature Review of Luxury Wine Consumption. Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 679–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Robertson, J.; Ferreira, C.; Botha, E. The Influence of Product Knowledge on the Relative Importance of Extrinsic Product Attributes of Wine. J. Wine Res. 2018, 29, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Mathews, A.J.; Brasher, J.P. The Use of Place and Geography to Market Wine in Oklahoma. J. Wine Res. 2016, 27, 300–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Bruwer, J.; Johnson, R. Place-based Marketing and Regional Branding Strategy Perspectives in the California Wine Industry. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Champney, A.G. Wine Translation in the Chinese Market. In Communicating in a Connected World; Sibylle Ferner and Elizabeth Broom: Auckland, New Zealand, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  170. Lupu, E.M. A Pragmatic Perspective upon the Paraverbal in the Advertising Discourse from the Wine Labels. In The Challenges of Communiation. Contexts and Strategies in the World of Globalism; Boldea, I., Sigmirean, C., Buda, D.-M., Eds.; Arhipelag XXI Press: Tîrgu-Mureș, Romania, 2018; pp. 205–211. ISBN 978-606-8624-00-6. [Google Scholar]
  171. Visalli, M.; Dubois, M.; Schlich, P.; Ric, F.; Cardebat, J.-M.; Georgantzis, N. Relevance of Free-Comment to Describe Wine Temporal Sensory Perception: An Application with Panels Varying in Culture and Expertise. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 105, 104785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Schäufele, I.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ Perceptions, Preferences and Willingness-to-Pay for Wine with Sustainability Characteristics: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Santos, V.; Dias, A.; Ramos, P.; Madeira, A.; Sousa, B. Influence of Wine Storytelling on the Global Wine Tourism Experience. Wine Econ. Policy 2022, 11, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Lorenzo, J.R.F.; Rubio, M.T.M.; Garcés, S.A. The Competitive Advantage in Business, Capabilities and Strategy. What General Performance Factors Are Found in the Spanish Wine Industry? Wine Econ. Policy 2018, 7, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Obis, E. Wine Labels and Consumer Culture in the United States. InMedia Fr. J. Media Stud. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Johnson, M.D.; Huysman, A.E.; St George, D.A.; Kammerichs-Berke, D.; Carlino, J.E.; Estes, B.R. Wine and Wildlife: An Exploratory Study of the Depiction of Animals on Wine Labels Available in the United States. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2022, 53, 40–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Carneiro, C.N.; Gomez, F.J.V.; Spisso, A.; Silva, M.F.; Santos, J.L.O.; Dias, F.S. Exploratory Analysis of South American Wines Using Artificial Intelligence. Biol. Trace. Elem. Res. 2023, 201, 4590–4599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beverages 11 00012 g001
Figure 1. The reviewed articles based on the wine label communication run in VOSviewer.
Figure 1. The reviewed articles based on the wine label communication run in VOSviewer.
Beverages 11 00012 g001
Beverages 11 00012 g002
Figure 2. Overview of the search screening process with the resulting number of articles (diagram by authors).
Figure 2. Overview of the search screening process with the resulting number of articles (diagram by authors).
Beverages 11 00012 g002
Beverages 11 00012 g003
Figure 3. The conceptual framework of the reviewed research (created by authors on canva.com (accessed on 27 December 2024)).
Figure 3. The conceptual framework of the reviewed research (created by authors on canva.com (accessed on 27 December 2024)).
Beverages 11 00012 g003
Beverages 11 00012 g004
Figure 4. Graphic illustration of Table 14 about dominant parameters in wine information.
Figure 4. Graphic illustration of Table 14 about dominant parameters in wine information.
Beverages 11 00012 g004
Beverages 11 00012 g005
Figure 5. Proposed wine communication strategy concept based on our conclusions (created by authors on canva.com (accessed on 27 December 2024)).
Figure 5. Proposed wine communication strategy concept based on our conclusions (created by authors on canva.com (accessed on 27 December 2024)).
Beverages 11 00012 g005
Table 1. Databases and search options.
Table 1. Databases and search options.
DatabasesSearch Options
AcademiaSearch in: Author, keywords
Language: English
Date Range: 2010 to 2024
Publication Type: Full Articles
Emerald InsightSearch in: Author, keywords
Year: 2010 to 2024
Content Type: Article
Access Type: Open Access
Google ScholarSearch in: Author, keywords
Year: 2010 to 2024
Type: Articles
Research GateSearch in: Publications Researchers
SageSearch in: Keywords
Published Date: 2010 to 2024
Access Type: Open Access
Published In: “Wine” topic Journals
Science DirectTerms: keywords
Year: 2010 to 2024
Source: Journals
Type: Articles
Semantic Scholar Fields: Wine Communication
Date Range: 2010 to 2024
Source: Journals and Conferences
SpringerContent: “Wine label communication”
Language: English
Date Range: 2010 to 2024
Subject: Articles
Taylor & FrancisSearch Term: “Wine label communication”
Date Range: 2010 to 2024
Table 2. Searched terms.
Table 2. Searched terms.
DatabasesTerms Searched No. Articles
First Term andSecond Term
Academia wine labelandwine label communication 64
Emerald Insightwine labelandwine label communication 271
Google Scholarwine labelandwine label communication 223
Research Gatewine labelandwine label communication 287
Sagewine labelandwine label communication 254
Science Directwine labelandwine label communication 278
Semantic Scholarwine labelandwine label communication 306
Springerwine labelandwine label communication 278
Taylor & Franciswine labelandwine label communication 366
Total2327
Table 3. Keywords used in the literature search and number of results in each database.
Table 3. Keywords used in the literature search and number of results in each database.
KeywordsAcademiaEmerald InsightGoogle ScholarResearch GateSageScience DirectSemantic ScholarSpringerTaylor & FrancisTotal
“Wine Label”11081361661961791401851641275
“Wine Label Communication”64163871215899166932021053
Total (net duplicates)6355495714285639238644
Table 4. Number of articles in each journal.
Table 4. Number of articles in each journal.
Journal Publication Name No. Articles
Food Quality6
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality6
International Journal of Wine Research3
Journal of Marketing6
Nutrients4
Wine and viticulture5
Agricultural and Food Economics6
Beverages5
Names7
British Food Journal4
Business and Society3
Communicatio6
Food Quality and Preference2
Journal of Consumer Marketing3
Journal of Food Service Business5
Journal of Wine Economics4
Journal of Wine Research15
Sustainability6
Wine Business Journal9
Wine Economics Policy6
Others (one article per journal)66
Total 177
Table 5. Overview of studies according to the year and each parameter.
Table 5. Overview of studies according to the year and each parameter.
Year/CategoryBack LabelDesign NutritionalPriceSmart
Labels		QualitySustainabilityVerbal Total
20101300050110
20110203161013
20120602060115
20131121041111
2014011115009
20151320060113
20160430122012
20170331250316
2018022002039
20190120032513
20200711010212
20210520021111
20220210302210
2023011121219
20240311203414
Total347211012412320177
Table 6. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to back label.
Table 6. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to back label.
Summarized Points About the Back Label AuthorsYear
The back label as a dominant communicative dimension has the potential to enhance added value to the wine and interacts with the potential buyers in combination with the price Mueller et al. [24]2010
Gmuer et al. [3] 2015
Danner et al. [25]2017
Table 7. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to design and visual information.
Table 7. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to design and visual information.
Summarized Points About the Design AuthorsYear
The design of the label is historically, but not only, related to highlighting the authenticity of the wine and functions as a communication mechanism for the winery’s reputationPreoteasa et al. [17]2016
Cortassa [26]2021
Shi et al. [18]2024
König and Lick [14]2014
Celhay and Passebois [5]2011
Celhay et al. [13]2020
Lei and Jolibert [27]2016
Crichton-Fock et al. [22]2023
An important element for the aesthetics of the label are colors, design style, tasteful design, patterns, and other elements that are consumer-friendly and at the same time give a sense of prestige and traditionElliot and Barth [29]2012
Kellershohn et al. [30]2023
Henley et al. [31]2011
Sherman and Tuten [32]2011
Tang et al. [33]2015
Borghini [34]2012
Orlowski et al. [35]2022
Peršuric et al. [36]2018
Joshi et al. [37]2024
Lick et al. [38]2017
Celhay et al. [39]2013
Label design is directly linked to consumer personality, purchasing behavior, and other demographic factorsMonteiro et al. [40]2019
Flanagan et al. [41] 2015
Celhay and Remaud [42]2018
Pelet et al. [43]2020
Grijalba et al. [44]2020
Jaud and Melnyk [45]2020
Saïdi and Giraud [46]2020
Sillani et al. [47]2017
Xie [48]2013
The communication of wineries to the public through ecological and non-traditional labels is an area that needs to be explored, as sustainability is a key communication driver that creates green added value in wine and the wineryChamorro et al. [49]2021
Serafini et al. [51]2023
Lunardo and Rickard [52]2020
Laeng and Suegami [53]2016
Merdian et al. [54] 2021
Barbierato et al. [9]2023
Barber and Taylor [55]2013
Van Tonder and Mulder [21]2015
Jarvis et al. [56]2010
Lutskova et al. [57]2020
Galati et al. [58] 2018
McCann [59] 2020
Spence [60]2020
Chrea et al. [61] 2011
Barrena et al. [62]2021
Chalmers [63] 2020
Chiesa and Dekker [22]2024
Chisholm [64]2010
Chrysakis et al. [65]2022
The psychological dimension of the visual design of the label is related to the historical and traditional background of the wineDobele et al. [66]2018
Habegger [67]2021
Mueller et al. [69]2010
Yariktas [68]2019
Table 8. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to smart label information.
Table 8. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to smart label information.
Summarized Points About the QR Codes AuthorsYear
Smart labels contribute to interactive communication, which does not stay only in the informational part but creates a pleasant field of interaction. In particular, the use of specific symbols through technology contributes to forming a more positive attitude towards consumers, while at the same time upgrading the product, its reputation, and the wineryAnnunziata et al. [11]2016
Higgins and Lanos [19]2014
Mokrý et al. [79]2016
Hristov and Kuhar [80]2015
Jürkenbeck and Spiller [81]2021
Pabst et al. [6] 2019
Pabst et al. [82]2021
Rupprecht et al. [10]2020
Kubota et al. [83]2017
Choosing and buying wine becomes fun as technology enhances the overall shopping experience, while it is a main attraction for organic winesVecchio et al. [84] 2018
Yoo et al. [85] 2013
Annunziata et al. [86] 2019
Costanigro et al. [87]2014
Popovich and Velikova [88]2023
Vecchio et al. [8]2017
Meloni and Swinnen [89]2013
The GDPR framework is important to be enhancedParga-Dans and Alonso González [7]2018
Annunziata, Pomarici, Vecchio, and Mariani [84]2016
Table 9. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to nutritional information.
Table 9. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to nutritional information.
Summarized Points About Nutrition/Taste AuthorsYear
The communication of nutritional and nutritional health warning information can be an important axis of marketing strategies, especially for consumers who are aware of healthy eating issues. Gen Y and Gen Z appear especially to be a special audience in which this communication strategy can have a significant impact.Annunziata et al. [11]2016
Higgins and Lanos [19]2015
Annunziata et al. [84] 2016
Lategan et al. [90] 2017
Mokrý et al. [79]2016
Hristov and Kuhar [80]2015
Jürkenbeck and Spiller [81]2021
Pabst et al. [82] 2019
The clarity of the nutritional information about the absence of additives in wines is important because there is an increased consumer awareness among consumers and this affects their motivations for the purchase intention.Rupprecht et al. [10] 2020
Kubota et al. [83]2017
Vecchio et al. [91]2018
Yoo et al. [85]2013
Costanigro et al. [87]2014
Popovich and Velikova [88]2023
Vecchio et al. [8]2017
There is no clear regulatory framework and this gap needs to be improved. Meloni and Swinnen [89]2013
Parga-Dans and Alonso González [7]2018
Table 10. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to price information.
Table 10. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to price information.
Summarized Points About Price Information AuthorsYear
Making price the dominant information on the label affects how consumers perceive the quality of the wine, which contributes to their overall consumption experienceGalati et al. [58]2018
Roma et al. [92]2013
Boatto et al. [93]2011
Zhao and Zhou [94]2011
Werner et al. [95]2021
Bruwer et al. [96]2011
Spence [60]2024
There is a correlation between proper pricing and label presentationCembalo et al. [97]2014
Atkin and Thach [98]2012
Table 11. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to quality information.
Table 11. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to quality information.
Summarized Points About Quality Information AuthorsYear
Quality in wine has dimensions such as origin, purity, and sensory characteristics, which are the core elements of the communication strategy. This is how consumers shape their preferences and why consumers focus constantly on “natural” labels with health benefits, creating different niche markets. Sáenz-Navajas et al. [99]2014
Bortolotti e al. [100]2024
Galati et al. [101]2019
Kustos et al. [102]2019
Mann et a.l [103]2012
Tardy [104]2020
Bauer et al. [16]2013
Čačić et al. [105]2011
Honoré-Chedozeau et al. [106]2016
Deselnicu et al. [107]2013
Coppin et al. [108]2021
Labels have an informational influence on wine’s origin, authenticity, and wine zones characterized by their naturality, especially when it comes to the consumers’ knowledge about the terroir and the regional wine identity. This cue is linked to consumers’ values and purchase intentions. Hristov and Kuhar [80]2015
Ellis and Caruana [111]2018
Atkin and Johnson [112] 2010
Martinho [114]2021
Huang and Zhang [115]2011
Apaolaza et al. [116] 2017
Grogan [117]2015
Hilger et al. [118]2011
Martin et al. [15]2012
Zanzig [119]2013
Firstenfeld [120]2015
Banks and Overton [121]2010
Corduas et al. [123]2013
Famularo et al. [123]2010
The wine communication strategy planning is increasingly based on the relationship between an educated consumer about high-quality wine and an industry that focuses on effective labeling and storytelling around origin and quality.Simard [124]2010
Bazzani et al. [125]2024
Dong and Gao [126]2024
Warman and Lewis [128]2019
Hanchukova et al. [127]2024
Warman and Lewis [128]2019
Russell and Boakes [129] 2011
Basic social and economic factors correlate with the consumers’ high level of knowledge about wine quality because younger consumers tend to connect quality with their willingness to widening their experience.Ponce [130] 2023
Alpeza et al. [131]2023
Sykalia et al. [132]2023
Malik et al. [133]2023
Table 12. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to sustainability information.
Table 12. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to sustainability information.
Summarized Points About Sustainability Information AuthorsYear
Information that demonstrates the element of sustainability in the wine label therefore strengthens the perception of sustainability as a central element of the winemakers’ communication strategy. Eco-labels received positive feedback on the elements that turn into a key communication tool because consumers seem to pay more for labels with sustainability features. In many cases, consumers link the use of sustainable practices with the high quality of the wine [108]. Stockl et al. [152]2024
Berghoef and Dodds [136]2011
Delmas and Gergaud [137]2021
Sogari et al. [138] 2016
Delmas and Grant [139]2014
Delmas and Lessem [134]2015
Tait et al. [140]2019
Ugaglia et al. [141]2021
Mazzocchi et al. [142]2021
Rahman et al. [143]2014
Flores [144]2018
Sellers-Rubio and Nicolau-Gonzalbez [145] 2016
Castellini et al. [153] 2017
Newsome et al. [147]2014
There are several challenges that the wine industry has to face in relation to the communicative use of the element of sustainability on the label such as the reduction in the carbon footprint, transparency, and sufficient performance in the sustainability information, as consumers often do not sufficiently perceive some data due to complexity of the information.Sgroi et al. [148]2023
Rugani et al. [149]2013
Parga-Dans and González [7]2018
Fernández-Serrano et al. [150]2022
Borrello et al. [146]2024
Mantere [151]2024
Table 13. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to verbal information.
Table 13. Correlation of the reviewed studies related to verbal information.
Summarized Points About Verbal Information AuthorsYear
The emphasis on the vocabulary of the labels is influenced by the cultural origins of the consumers and causes an emotional response that affects not only the intention to buy but also the expectation for the taste of the wine.López et al. [154] 2020
Fairbairn et al. [155]2024
Coppin et al. [108]2021
Esau [135]2019
Jaud and Melnyk [45]2020
The verbal function of the label is effective in promoting memory recall and invoking consumers’ emotions, especially when it concerns the metaphorical use of words.Sáenz-Navajas et al. [99]2013
Oczkowski [157]2018
Sillani et al. [47]2017
Wang et al. [158]2024
Labels that contain specific verbal information are particularly attractive to consumers, especially those that contain information about the historical or cultural context of the wine and specific people. Also, the simplicity and accessibility of the label’s vocabulary, combined with the perception of terroir and pronunciation, positively enhances the consumer’s overall experience while facilitating its evaluation and wider visibility.Ferreira et al. [159]2019
Croidieu et al. [160]2017
Melnyk et al. [156]2012
Neethling [161]2017
Bruwer and Thach [162]2013
Marbach et al. [163]2024
Teodorescu [164]2023
Visalli et al. [171]2023
Wright et al. [165]2023
Robertson et al. [166]2018
Mathews and Brasher [167]2016
Special attention should be paid to the translation and adaptation of verbal elements and paralexical cues (style) for effective communication.Gmuer et al. [3]2015
Bruwer and Johnson [168]2010
Champney [169]2014
Lupu [170]2018
Table 14. The dominant parameter of the reviewed research.
Table 14. The dominant parameter of the reviewed research.
Parameter of Label Quantity Percentage
Back Label 32%
Design/Visual information 5831%
Nutritional/Taste Information 2111%
Price105%
Quality3519%
QR/Smart Label 126%
Sustainability 2312%
Verbal 2413%
Total 100%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Anagnostou, E.; Tsiakis, T.; Zervas, I. Highlighting Wine Labels: A Systematic Literature Review of Dominant Informational Parameters as Communicative Elements. Beverages 2025, 11, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11010012

AMA Style

Anagnostou E, Tsiakis T, Zervas I. Highlighting Wine Labels: A Systematic Literature Review of Dominant Informational Parameters as Communicative Elements. Beverages. 2025; 11(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11010012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Anagnostou, Eleni, Theodosios Tsiakis, and Ioannis Zervas. 2025. "Highlighting Wine Labels: A Systematic Literature Review of Dominant Informational Parameters as Communicative Elements" Beverages 11, no. 1: 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11010012

APA Style

Anagnostou, E., Tsiakis, T., & Zervas, I. (2025). Highlighting Wine Labels: A Systematic Literature Review of Dominant Informational Parameters as Communicative Elements. Beverages, 11(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages11010012

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop