Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration
Quarterly 


http://cqx.sagepub.com 

Wine Promotions in Restaurants: Do Beverage Sales Contribute or Cannibalize? 

Brian Wansink, Glenn Cordua, Ed Blair, Collin Payne and Stephanie Geiger 
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 2006; 47; 327 
DOI: 10.1177/0010880406294656 


The online version of this article can be found at:


http://cqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/47/4/327


Published by: 
http://www.sagepublications.com 

On behalf of: 

The Center for Hospitality Research of Cornell University 

Additional services and information for Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cqx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cqx.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


© 2006 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
DOI: 10.1177/0010880406294656 
Volume 47, Issue 4 327-336 

Wine Promotions
in Restaurants


Do Beverage Sales Contribute
or Cannibalize?


by BRIAN WANSINK, GLENN CORDUA, ED BLAIR, COLLIN PAYNE, and STEPHANIE GEIGER 

A controlled field study of wine promotions in a mid-
priced chain restaurant generated three key findings: 

(1) selected wine recommendations increased sales 
by 12 percent, (2) food-wine pairing recommendations 
increased sales by 7.6 percent, and (3) wine tastings 
increased sales by 48 percent. In general, 69 to 87 percent of the increase in sales of promoted wines come 
from diners who would likely have ordered a nonpromoted wine. This means that 13 to 31 percent of the 
increase come from diners who would have otherwise 
ordered liquor, beer, and nonalcoholic drinks. Specific 
implications for responsible restaurateurs are outlined, 
including the caveat to not cannibalize sales by promoting a lower-margin, lower-profit wine. 
Keywords: wine sales; beverage sales; restaurants; recommendations; wine promotions; menu pairing; sampling 

Despite the health benefits associated with 
drinking one glass of wine a day,1 restaurant 
wine sales still lag those of other alcoholic 
beverages.2 Given the 200 to 300 percent margins on 
restaurant wine sales,3 we believe that restaurateurs 
would like to know how on-site promotions might 
increase wine sales. Doing so could increase profits 
while reducing the likelihood of overconsumption of 
alcohol that is frequently associated with beer and 
liquor. It could also help a novice wine drinker to 
make a more confident, satisfying wine selection. 

Our twelve-week field study with a midpriced 
chain restaurant explores the following three types of 
promotion strategies based on table-tent advertising: 

(1) wine recommendations (one, three, or five wines), 
(2) recommended wine-food pairings (one, three, or 
five pairs), and (3) low-price tasting portions (one 
NOVEMBER 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 327

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


RESTAURANTS 

WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

tasting or a flight of five possible tastings). 
All three of these promotional strategies 
were chosen to address risk aversion, 
which Spawton, Mitchel and Greatorex, 
and others see as a chief barrier to ordering wine in restaurants.4 

Reducing the Risk 
of Ordering Wine 

Ordering wine can be both financially 

and socially risky.5 Even if a diner is rea

sonably knowledgeable about wines, there 

are wide variations between varieties, vine

yards, countries, and years. This can make 

choosing the wrong wine socially embar

rassing or financially disappointing.6 In con

trast, the production, control, and brand 

familiarity associated with beer and spirits 

generally guarantees that repeated experi

ences will be consistent with expectations. 

To help diners reduce their risk of order

ing wine, responsible restaurateurs might 

consider three ways to reduce the perceived 

risk of ordering wine. They could suggest a 

wine, suggest a food-wine pairing, or offer 

a relatively low-price tasting portion or 

flight.7 

One reason why these risk-reduction pro

motional strategies have not been empirically 

tested is that it is hard to set up a control 

group for such a test. We did this, however, 

by conducting a controlled, balanced, twelve-

week field study to examine how these vari

ous promotions influenced wine sales. To 

eliminate one source of variation, the promo

tions involved minimal server involvement, 

which allowed implementation to be accom

plished consistently in two chain restaurants. 

Method: The Twelve-Week Field 

Experiment 

We introduced the three wine promotions 

during a twelve-week field experiment at 

two Rockfish Seafood Grill restaurants 

(twenty-two miles apart) located in Houston, 

Texas. The Rockfish Seafood Grill is a 
casual neighborhood restaurant serving lunch 
and dinner. With the help of management, 
five relatively new or unfamiliar wines 
were selected for promotion. We offered 
the promotions at different times in the 
two restaurants to help reduce unwanted 
variation that might have otherwise been 
attributable to weather. We provided one 
wine promotion in week 1 and a different 
wine promotion in week 2 at one location 
and did the same in reverse order at the 
second location (see Exhibit 1). We also 
omitted certain weeks because of holidays. 

The promotions were presented on 
table tents. The first set of tests compared 
the effect on sales of a table tent recommending one, three, or five wines. Likewise, 
the second set of tests compared the 
effects of a table tent recommending one, 
three, or five pairings of wine and food. 
Finally, the third set of tests compared the 
effect on wine sales of a table tent offering 
one $2 wine tasting portion or a flight of 
five $2 wine tastings. Four of the promoted wines were whites and the fifth was 
a red.8 

Other than the table tents, the restaurants’ operations continued with minimal 
disturbance. Once a week (Sunday after 
closing), the table tents were changed to 
reflect the new test condition, and those 
were used through the week until the next 
Sunday after closing when the next change 
was made. At the end of each day, the sales 
records for each drink and food item were 
collected and compiled. The key variables 
of interest were the sales of the target (promoted) wine, sales of all other wines, sales 
of beer and liquor, and sales of nonalcoholic drinks. 

To gauge sales of beverages without 
wine promotions, we first collected sales 
records from both Rockfish restaurants for 
the four weeks before the study began. 

328 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly NOVEMBER 2006 

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


Exhibit 1:

Wine-Promotion Schedule 

Wine Recommendation Study plus Wine TastingsFour Week Baseline Control Wine/Food Promotion Study Study 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 

Restaurant 1 Control Control Control Control 1 wine 3 wines 5 wines 1 wine, 3 wines, 5 wines, 1 wine 5 wines 
1 food 3 foods 5 foods 
Restaurant 2 Control Control Control Control 5 wines, 3 wines, 1 wine, 5 wines 3 wines 1 wine 5 wines 1 wine 
5 foods 3 foods 1 food 

WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

RESTAURANTS 

NOVEMBER 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 329

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


RESTAURANTS 

WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

Exhibit 2: 

Average Sales per Wine and Food Promotion 

Average Weekly Sales ($) 

2000 
1800 
1600 
1400 
1200 
1000 
800 
600 
400 
200 
0 


promoted wine sales 


all other wine sales 


all beer sales 

all liquor sales 

all non-alcohol sales 

More Wine Recommendations Equals 
More Wine Sales 

Promoting wine with a table tent does 
improve wine sales, but as Exhibit 2 shows, 
the effectiveness of a promotion partly has 
to do with how many different wines are 
promoted.9 In this case, more is better. 
At the levels examined here (one, three, 
or five wines), the table-tent promotion 
of five wines increased sales of the promoted wines more than promotions recommending either three wines or one 
wine. Specifically, the five-wine promotion 
increased the sales of promoted wines by 
39 percent ($473.04 to $657.06), but that 

These figures were our control (or baseline) to compare the effectiveness of the 
wine promotions. For each of the four 
weeks, we combined sales for both restaurants for each beverage category and then 
computed an average for that beverage 
category. The baseline for the two restaurants’ total beverage sales without wine 
promotions are 28 percent wine, 46 percent beer and liquor, and 26 percent nonalcoholic drinks. In total, the wine sales 
baseline amounts to approximately 4.6 
percent of total restaurant sales, while beer 
and liquor are 7.5 percent, nonalcoholic 
beverages are 4.3 percent, and food constitutes 83.6 percent of sales. 

330 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly NOVEMBER 2006 

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

RESTAURANTS 

promotion also increased total wine purchases by 12 percent ($1,748.33 to 
$1,956.07) and total restaurant sales by 4 
percent ($38,279.69 to $39,739.23). All of 
these increases are statistically significant.10 

Importantly, promoting the five wines 
did not significantly cannibalize sales of 
other wines. Our data shed no light on this 
observation, but we suspect that the table 
tents encouraged those not sure about 
wine to take the chance of choosing and 
buying the promoted wines. Meantime, 
patrons who were going to buy wine continued to do so at frequencies not significantly different from when no promotions 
were offered (see Exhibit 2). 

That said, we caution that the data also 
do not let us conclude that, given that recommending five wines is good, recommending ten wines would be even better. 
If the list of promoted wines is too long, it 
might compromise the “special” nature of 
the promoted wines. 

Food Pairings Are Effective . . . 
in Small Doses 

If some people are hesitant to order 
wine because of the financial or social risk 
(including embarrassment if they appear 
ignorant), offering wine-food pairing recommendations should reduce this hesitancy. 
This restaurant’s use of food-wine promotions supports this notion (see Exhibit 2). The 
promotions generated an increase in sales for 
the target wines by 44.5 percent ($473.04 to 
$683.71) and increase in total wine purchases 
by 7.6 percent ($1,748.33 to $1,880.81). 
Furthermore, total restaurant sales increased 
by 21 percent ($38,279.69 to $46,364.47). 
All of these increases are statistically significant from what was expected from baseline 
sales figures (p < .05 in all cases). 

However, excessive pairing suggestions 
do not increase wine sales. As Exhibit 2 

illustrates, the promotion that paired five 
wines with five foods significantly decreased 
target wine sales by 11 percent and all 
other wine sales by 14 percent.11 In contrast to straight wine promotions, too many 
suggested wine-food combinations may 
confuse people or lead them to question 
how special the featured wine and food 
pairings actually are. 

Tasting Portions Increase 
Sales—The More the Merrier 

One week’s test was to offer one small 
taste of the wine for $2. In the next week, 
a $10 flight of five different wines was 
available to taste.12 We compared how the 
sales of the targeted wines differed in the 
weeks they were not offered in tasting portions with sales on the weeks when they 
were offered. 

When there was just one target tasting 
of wine, the subsequent sales of full 
glasses of wine increased 18.2 percent, 
from $148 per week to $175 per week. 
However, when five tastes were offered, 
the total increase in sales for all five wines 
grew 47.3 percent, from a combined total 
of $465 per week up to $685 per week 
(which was an average per-wine increase 
of $93 to $137 per week). All of these 
increases are statistically significant from 
what was expected from baseline wine-
sale figures (p < .05 in all cases) (see 
Exhibit 3). 

Our results suggest that offering tasting 
portions may be effective in increasing wine 
sales for promoted wines. Much like wine 
promotions without food pairings, it was 
important to note that sales increased with 
the number of wines offered.13 Not only do 
these tastings make the promoted wine 
more noticeable, but they also increase the 
likelihood that a person would purchase an 
additional tasting of wine. 

NOVEMBER 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 331

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


RESTAURANTS 

WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

Exhibit 3: 

Tasting Portions Increase Weekly Sales of Targeted Wine 

Sales of Targeted Wine 

685$700 
$600 
$500 
$400 
$300 
$200 
$100 

$0 
1 Small Taste of 1 5 Small Tastes of 5 
Wine Wines 

465 
145 
175 
Total Weekly Sales When Tasting 
Portions are Offered 
Average Weekly Sales 
Promoting New Wine Often 
Cannibalizes the Sale of Other Wines 

Many investigations of trade-offs between 
the sales of different beverages are longitudinal and do not benefit from cross-
sectional controls. With twelve weeks of 
data, we can offer key initial observations 
about what may have led to increases in 
wine sales and total beverage sales. In 
aggregate, wine promotions resulted in a 

2.7 percent average increase in total beverage sales. Three wine promotions (promoting one wine, promoting five wines, and 
suggesting three wine and food pairings) 
increased total beverage sales as compared 
to baseline sales (p < .05). Two wine promotions (promoting three wines and suggesting just one wine and food pairing) 
made no increase or decrease in beverage 
sales, and suggesting five wine and food 
combinations led to a decrease in total 
beverage sales (p < .05). 

To determine how new promotions cannibalize beverage sales, we analyzed only 
those situations where wine promotions 
did not result in a statistically significant 
increase or decrease in total beverage sales 
(that is, promoting three wines and offering a single wine and food pairing). 
Although there were some variations 
between these two different promotions, 
the results were consistent enough to estimate the extent to which promotion of new 
or unfamiliar wines cannibalizes existing 
wine sales. Our study put that figure at an 
average of 78 percent (range of 69 to 87 
percent). Specifically, of the remaining 
22 percent average increase in new wine 
sales (the range is from a 13 to 31 percent 

332 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly NOVEMBER 2006 

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

RESTAURANTS 

Exhibit 4: 

Source of Promoted Wine Sales 

0-8% 
0%-18% 4-13% 

Non-
Alcohol 
Liquor 
Beer 
Other Wines 
69%-87% 

from other wines from beer 
from liquor from non-alcoholic drinks 
increase), 9 percent (0 to 18 percent) could 
be attributed to forgone beer sales, 8 percent (4 to 13 percent) to reduced nonalcoholic drink sales, and 4 percent (0 to 8 
percent) to lost liquor sales (see Exhibit 4). 

In this particular casual-dining chain, 
78 percent of the sales of the promoted 
wine came from sales of wines people 
would have likely bought absent a promotion. It is critical to note that although this 
wine was promoted through the use of 
menu pairing and taste samples, it was not 
price promoted. If the wine had been sold 
at a reduced price, we believe a larger percentage of sales would have come from 
those who would have otherwise ordered 
beer, liquor, or nonalcoholic drinks. 

Yet it is also critical to note that wine can 
have higher margins than other beverages.14 

While a price promotion may increase 
sales from lower-margin beer, liquor, or 
nonalcoholic drink sales, it could also 
steal share from higher-margin wine sales. 

The lesson of this analysis is that 78 
percent of the sales of new wine came 
from people who would have ordinarily 
purchased nonpromoted wines. It is important to realize that these trade-off percentages may be specific for this chain only. 
Nevertheless, this also suggests that care 
be taken to not promote low-margin wines 
that could cannibalize the sales of higher-
margin wines. 

Implications for Restaurateurs 

Because of the purported health benefits associated with consuming one glass 
of wine a day, restaurant operators may 

NOVEMBER 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 333

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


RESTAURANTS 

WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

Exhibit 5: 

Suggested Approaches to Wine-Promotion 

Advantages Disadvantages Recommendations 
Table tents Can increase wine sales Too few recommendations Promote at least three 
promoting by 12 percent may not influence but not more than five 
wines Easy to implement wine sales wines with high margins 
Does not cannibalize May be difficult to choose Do not change the price 
other wine sales specific wines to of the promoted wines 
May reduce risk-aversion promote Use table tents for 
by providing socially Can cannibalize other medium-level 
acceptable wine choice wine sales restaurants 
(“by the chef”) 
Can increase total 
restaurant sales 
Table tents Can increase wine sales Can cannibalize the sales Consider doing with two 
promoting by 7.6 percent of other wines or three featured dishes 
food-wine Easy to implement Too many pairings Do not discount the price 
pairings May reduce risk-aversion overwhelm customers For midscale restaurants, 
by providing and they default to table tents are fine 
ready-made wine-food their normal beverage 
decisions 
Can increase total 
restaurant sales 
Offer wine Can provides an 18 to Perhaps a logistical hassle Test with one or two wines 
tasting 47 percent boost for establishments and work up to five 
portions to sales Proper waiter education is when logistics and 
or flights Tastings work for one necessary to prevent waitstaff experience 
to five wines, but overpouring and to allow 
appear to work best control costs Use special tasting glasses 
with four or five to control pouring and 
wines to underscore a person 
May help introduce has not had a full glass 
nervous customers of wine 
to wine 
Can be priced at a 
generous margin 

wish to encourage patrons to experience 
wine responsibly. Unfortunately, many 
consumers have neither the experience 
with wine nor the confidence to order a 
glass or bottle of wine. 

This study shows that recommendations of wine, recommendations of wine 
paired with food, and tasting portions can all 
effectively boost wine sales (see Exhibit 5). 

Recommending five wines can increase 
total wine sales by 12 percent, and making 
three pairing recommendations of wine and 
food can increase wine sales by 7.6 percent. 
Such promotions can be easy to implement, 
as indicated by our use of nothing more 
than table tents. Interestingly, proposing 
too many wine-food pairings can be overwhelming, seems to discourage wine sales, 

334 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly NOVEMBER 2006 

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

RESTAURANTS 

and may actually hurt total restaurant sales. 
Offering wine-food pairing recommendations appears to be most effective when 
used with limited number of wines (say, 
no more than three or four). 

Offering small-portion tasting menus 
can provide an 18 to 47 percent boost in 
wine sales. The tastes can be priced at a 
generous margin, but even so they are 
often accepted because they help introduce novice customers to wine. The drawback is that serving flights of wine can 
be logistically difficult, and to minimize 
overpouring, they require either special-
sized pouring glasses or careful waiter 
education. 

The chief limitation to this study is the 
possibility of unexpected variation. Although 
carefully planned, executed, and controlled, 
the chief limitation of this study is the 
possibility of unexpected variation. For 
instance, a large, unreported anniversary 
party at one location might skew one day’s 
data. Because the balanced design helps 
minimize these effects, we are confident 
that our study fairly indicates how these 
promotions can be cost-effective, as long 
as profit margins for wine are higher than 
those of other beverages. Again, the goal 
of these promotions is to help risk-averse 
diners purchase wine, making a confident 
and satisfying wine selection. It is 
unlikely, but the results may have been different if the featured wines had been 
mostly reds, instead of mostly whites, as 
was the case in this test. 

In addition to the table-tent promotions 
investigated here, restaurateurs should consider using waiter recommendations or 
putting wine bottles or glasses on the table. 
Further investigations of noninvasive promotions can be examined in a wider range 
of restaurants and with a wider range of 
waitstaff involvement. Because point of 
sale is critical when it comes to beverage 
decisions, a best-practices study can add 

additional insights that would be valuable 
and cost-effective in promoting the enjoyment of one glass of wine with dinner. 

Promotions for new wines are profitable in terms of selling the wines, but in 
the end they must be profitable for a 
restaurant. The restaurant’s profit from 
selling more wine depends on the extent to 
which sales of other beverages are being 
cannibalized. We calculate that this restaurant chain did improve its profit, because a 
relatively modest 21 percent of the sales of 
the promoted wines on average came from 
beverages other than wine. Those wine 
purchases came from people who would 
have otherwise have ordered a beer, a 
mixed drink, or a soft drink. For the other 
79 percent of cases, on balance, patrons 
purchased the promoted wine instead of a 
wine they would otherwise have bought. If 
the forgone wine purchase had a lower 
margin than did the promoted wine, the 
promotion would have been profitable for 
the restaurant. In general, these findings 
suggest the following three points when 
creating wine promotions: 

1. promote high-margin wines, 
2. promote wines that are midpriced or above, 
and 
3. avoid margin-cutting price promotions. 
Endnotes 

1. M. H. Criqui and B. L. Ringel, “Does Diet or 
Alcohol Explain the French Paradox?” Lancet 
344 (1994): 1719-23; and D. McGregor, R. P. 
Murray, and G. E. Barnes, “Personality Differences between Users of Wine, Beer, and Spirits 
in a Community Sample: The Winnipeg Health 
and Drinking Survey,” Journal of Studies on 
Alcohol 64 (2003): 634-40. 
2. “Consumer Insights,” Restaurant Business,July 
2004, pp. 28-30; and “Libation Liberation,” 
Restaurants & Institutions, August 2005, pp. 43-50. 
3. “Restaurateurs Enjoy Higher Sales with Lower 
Markups on Bottled Wine,” Nation’s Restaurant 
News, November 2005, pp. 4, 82. 
NOVEMBER 2006 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 335

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


RESTAURANTS 

WINE PROMOTIONS IN RESTAURANTS 

4. See V. W. Mitchel and M. Greatorex, “Risk 
Reducing Strategies Used in the Purchase of 
Wine in the UK,” European Journal of Marketing 23 (1988): 31-46; and T. Spawton, “Of 
Wine and Live Asses: An Introduction to the 
Wine Economy and State of Wine Marketing,” 
European Journal of Wine Marketing 25 (1991): 
1-48. 
5. R. F. Pohl, S. Schwarz, S. Sczesney, and 
D. Stanhbert, “Hindsight Bias in Gustatory 
Judgments,” Experimental Psychology 50 (2003): 
107-15. 
6. “CIA at Greystone Helps Operators Uncork 
Higher Wine Sales,” Nation’s Restaurant News, 
April 2005, pp. 30-31. 
7. P. Chandon, B. Wansink, and G. Laurent, “A 
Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales 
Promotion Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing 
64 (2000): 65-81. 
8. The wines paired with food were also the wines 
featured alone. The wines and pairings were as 
follows: (1) RM Coastal Chardonnay SC with 
Maryland Crab Cakes, (2) Hogue Riesling with 
Santa Fe Fish Tacos, (3) Rancho Zabaco “Dancing 
Bull” Zinfandel with Shrimp Parmigiana, (4) Ecco 
Domini Pinot Grigio with Rockfish Combo, and 
(5) Sterling “Vintner’s Collection” Cabernet 
Sauvignon with Steak. 
9. To be able to statistically test these wine and 
food promotional results, a two-way contingency table analysis was conducted on the individual sale figures shown in Exhibit 3 (6 Wine 
Promotions × 7 Wine-and-Food Categories). 
The overall chi-square for this contingency table 
was significant, p < .001. This result suggests 
that the wine promotions had a significant effect 
on sales. 

10. See D. Whitlark and S. M. Smith, “Using 
Correspondence Analysis to Map Relationships,” 
Marketing Research 13:22-28. To further examine 
the statistical significance of individual sale figures 
within the aforementioned contingency table, 
we computed adjusted standardized chi-square 
residual scores, which are akin to “z-scores.” 
The “z-scores” pertaining to the five-wine promotion results for the promoted wines, total 
wine purchases, and total restaurant sales were 
all significantly different from what was expected 
from the corresponding baseline sale figures 
(p < .05 in all cases). 
11. Both p-values related to adjusted chi-square 
residual “z-scores” for the decrease in sales 
of target wines and all other wines were less 
than .05. 
12. The single target wine was RM Coastal 
Chardonnay SC. 
13. This comparison was also conducted with three 
promoted wines, but an inventory stock-out 
made this condition noncomparable. This situation also did not allow us to make global evaluations of the effect of “tasting” promotions on 
total wine purchasing nor total sales of the 
restaurant. 
14. “Pouring on Profits: Global Glut, By-the-Glass 
Boom Boosts Wine Sales,” Nation’s Restaurant 
News, November 2004, pp. 46-48, 50. 
Brian Wansink, Ph.D., is the John S. Dyson Professor of Marketing in the Applied Economics and 
Management Department at Cornell University (bcw28@cornell.edu). Glenn Cordua, Ph.D., is the founder 
and director of the Wine and Spirits Institute at the University of Houston (gcordua@uh.edu). Ed Blair, 
Ph.D., is professor and chair of marketing at the University of Houston. Collin Payne, Ph.D., is a research 
psychologist at Cornell University. Stephanie Geiger is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Houston. 
The authors would like to thank the Rockfish Chain of restaurants for their cooperation. 

336 Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly NOVEMBER 2006 

Downloaded from http://cqx.sagepub.com at CALIFORNIA DIGITAL LIBRARY on November 6, 2007 

© 2006 Cornell University. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. 


