Accepted Manuscript

Uncovering patterns of consumers' interest for beer: A case study

with craft beers

Gianluca Donadini, Sebastiano Porretta

PII: S0963-9969(16)30594-4
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2016.11.043
Reference: FRIN 6529
To appear in: Food Research International
Received date: 6 September 2016
Revised date: 6 November 2016
Accepted date: 29 November 2016

Please cite this article as: Gianluca Donadini, Sebastiano Porretta , Uncovering patterns
of consumers' interest for beer: A case study with craft beers. The address for the
corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if
appropriate. Frin(2016), doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2016.11.043

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

UNCOVERING PATTERNS OF CONSUMERS’ INTEREST FOR BEER: A CASE STUDY

WITH CRAFT BEERS.

DONADINI Gianluca* & PORRETTA Sebastiano 1

1
Experimental Station for the Food Preserving Industry, Department of Consumer Science,
Viale Tanara 31/a, I-43121 Parma, Italy.

* Corresponding author. +390331980309; e-mail: gianluca.donadini0@aliceposta.it

PT
ABSTRACT

RI
To uncover patterns of consumer interest in craft beers, the authors explored the quality perception
of craft beers in a panel of industrial mass-marketed beer drinkers (n = 150) and examined the

SC
differences in interest for this beer segment between men and women. The authors adopted a
conjoint rating experiment in which the respondents were given forty-nine beer profiles to evaluate
and were asked to score the degree of interest in each profile on a 9-point scale. Each profile was
described on eight attributes (type of brewery, brewing technology, characterizing raw materials,
NU
brewhouse equipment, location of the brewery, type of container, retail price, where to buy) varied
at different levels. Results showed that Italian consumers placed greatest importance on type of
container (30.49 %) and on brewing technology (17.64%). Characterizing raw materials (13.44%)
MA

and type of brewery (12.64) rank 3 and 4 and were placed in the same band some way below
brewing technology. Retail price (9.87%) and where to buy (8.73%) were of far less importance.
The least importance of all was attached to brewhouse equipment (4.44%) and to location of the
brewery (2.75%). As far as utility values are concerned, the factor level glass bottle + crown cap
D

and the factor level microfiltration are the utilities that most increased the interest of consumers.
They were followed by the factor level local grains, stainless steel keg and monastery. In contrast,
E

the factor level PET Keg, aluminum can and large scale corporate brewery showed the greatest
negative impact on interest. Men and women shared similar patterns of interest. However, men
PT

placed more importance than women on retail price, location of the brewery and where to buy.
Women attached more importance than men on type of container, brewing technology and type of
brewer. These findings are relevant to understanding consumers’ behaviour in the beer market and
CE

to translating consumer needs, wants and expectations into manufacturing designed to produce the
best possible, cost-competitive, widely accepted product in a relatively short period.
AC

Keywords
conjoint analysis, craft beer, consumers, preference, industrial beer

1.INTRODUCTION

In the last decades, the beer industry has been affected by a phenomenon called the craft
beer renaissance, whose origin dates back in the 1970s in the United States (Fastigi, Esposti, Orazi,
& Viganò, 2015). From the mid of the 1990s craft beers started to spread in the Italian market,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

mostly in the Northern regions, and from the mid of 2000s the number of microbreweries and the
popularity of craft beers boomed across the country, moving from around forty brewers in 2005 to
more than seven hundred and fifty today (Assobirra, 2014; Fastigi et al., 2015).

The exponential growth experienced by craft beer benefited from the structure of the actual
beer industry whose increasing concentration of generalistic brewers producing a few styles readily
available to consumers enhanced the chances of specialist organizations such as craft breweries to
survive and be a high viable and sustainable business strategy able to capitalize on a market niche

PT
that macrobrewers were not seeking to address. In particular, the surge in popularity of this beer
segment benefited from innovation, creativity, typicality, and authenticity that typify craft beer as

RI
an experience delivering drink that offers pleasure, enjoyment, sense of identity and belonging, self-

SC
fulfillment, social recognition, and sustainability (Gómez-Corona, Escalona-Buendía, García,
Chollet, & Valentin, 2016; Kraftchick, Byrd, Canziani, & Gladwell, 2014; McLaughlin, Reid, &
Moore, 2014, Aquilani, Laureti, Poponi, & Secondi, 2015; Berkhout, Bertling, Bleeker, de Wit,
NU
Kruis, Stokkel, & Theuws, 2014). These are product values that create differentiation in the actual
beer market in which consumers drink less beer but are demanding a more boutique, unique, and
MA

premium product and indulge themselves more with special and pricier beers since they are getting
more affluent, more adventurous and thus more willing to experience new flavors and textures than
ever (Berkhout et al., 2014; Carroll & Swaminthan, 2000; Donadini, Fumi, Kordialik-Bogacka,
D

Maggi, Lambri, & Sckokai, 2016).

E
PT

This steady gain in market share of craft beer has been fueled primarily by industrial mass
marketed lager drinkers but has been confined primarily to a minority of highly involved consumers
CE

for whom the relatively limited distributions of these beers and the effects of reference price are not
a big concern (Datamonitor, 2010; Datamonitor, 2011; Giacalone, 2013). Actually, the craft
AC

brewing sector in Italy is still a relatively small economic niche dominated by small breweries with
an average production of approximately 600 hectoliters (Ravelli & Pedrini, 2015) for a total of
approximately 320,000 hectolitres in 2013, equal to 2.4% of the total national supply (Assobirra,
2014). Global drinks analysts and economic commenters believe that CB growth could be favored
and further growth accelerated only if brewers are able to attract the majority of industrial beer
consumers who may be interested in craft beers but has yet to explore the craft beer world. A
balance between innovation and adherence to expectations could be the key to increasing
acceptance since consumers are generally suspicious about foods or beverages that are too novel or
discontinuous compared to what they are expecting and may or may not be willing to embrace the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

use of new products for these reasons (Costa, & Jongen, 2006; Giacalone, 2013; Van Trijp, & Van
Kleef, 2008).

As a result of the diffusion of craft beers, the product diversity in the Italian beer market has
remarkably increased in terms of flavors and textures1 in the last years due brewers‟ mastery to vary
the quantity and variety of different hops, to brew local and heirloom grains, to exploit the potential
of unconventional starch-rich ingredients, to confer a touch of uniqueness by adding local fruit,
herbs, spices and vegetables that are at the heart of the local gastronomic tradition, and, last but not

PT
least, to elevate brewing technology through the reinterpretation of ancient styles (Savastano, 2011,
Manzi, 2012). For mainstream consumers who usually drink mass-produced industrial beers

RI
unconventional flavors of CB could be too big a deviation from their sensory expectations to fully

SC
appreciate craft products. In addition, CB is brewed from a range of unconventional ingredients by
using alternative methods to process ingredients and offer unusual packaging solutions and design
(Fastigi et al., 2015; Hede & Watne, 2013; Kleban & Nickerson, 2011; Kleban & Nickerson, 2012;
NU
Reid, McLaughlin & Moore, 2014; Schnell & Reese, 2003; Schnell & Reese, 2014) and may be
penalized by mainstream consumers for being too innovative. This is of concern to brewers because
MA

food preference and choice is influenced by top down processes such as expectations generated
from mental representation of the product and although consumers value novelty or newness in food
and beverages, and particularly in a category like craft beers, past research suggests that consumers
D

tend to prefer products that deliver only moderate level of novelty (Köster & Mojet, 2007a; Köster
E

& Mojet, 2007b; Van Trijp & Van Kleef, 2008) since food choices tend to be stable over time.
PT

Especially for new products which have been bought for the first time and where the formation of
expectations at the point of sale cannot be based on previous own experience, whether or not
CE

expectations are confirmed is a crucial point for whether the product will be appreciate or not.
(Grunert, 2005).
AC

Since at the time of writing, a very few exploratory studies have been carried out in Europe
on CB (Aquilani et al., 2015), it is informative to study patterns of consumers‟ interest in this

1
The most part of the beer available on the Italian market comprises relatively homogeneous products that are hardly
differentiated by consumers in taste tests (Scherer, 1996). Previous research on sensory qualities of mass-produced
industrial beers of the Italian market revealed that descriptors commonly associated with the most sold beers of the
market (e.g. pale lagers brewed from light-kilned malts and from a huge fraction of tasteless adjuncts such as maize) are
usually light bodied, light carbonated and vaguely sweet. Overall, flavor intensity is generally low and these beers are
also described as being low in fruitiness, low in maltiness and slightly bitter (Donadini & Fumi, 2010). Other authors
confirmed that pale lagers carry a mild overall flavor (ASAP, 2003; Daems & Delvaux, 1997; Gains & Thomson, 1990;
Mejlholm & Martens, 2006). As a rule of thumb, CB are reported to be darker, stronger and more flavorful than the
beers of mass producers (Tremblay & Tremblay, 2005).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

market segment. The identification of specific product quality attributes for which the consumers or
one or more segments in a target population reveal a particular sensitivity and interest is paramount
to translate consumer needs, wants and expectations into manufacturing designed to produce the
best possible, cost-competitive and widely-accepted product in a relatively short period. The results
of this analysis may pave the way to craft breweries to introduce their product to more beer drinkers
and to increase sales and market share extending opportunities to appeal to a wider market.
Consumers are central to this process and including the voice of consumers in brewing new beers,
as a reference before final design decisions are taken, is extremely valuable since this approach aids

PT
ensuring design directions are on target (Grunert, Jensen, Sonne, Brunsø, Byrne, Clausen, Friis,
Holm, Hyldig, Kristensen, Lettl, & Scholderer, 2008; Jaeger & MacFie, 2010; Sparke & Menrad,

RI
2011).

SC
Many methods and techniques are available to facilitate the understanding of patterns of
consumers‟ preference for new products (Moskowitz, Porretta & Silcher, 2005). Within those
NU
highly actionable for this purpose, Conjoint Analysis (CA) is a valuable practical statistical-based
market technique to answer cognitive problems in product research for its ability to enable
MA

researchers to understand how consumers‟ demands translate into the physical domain of product
characteristics (Green & Srinivasan, 1978). Through the analysis of individual consumer data, CA
measures the importance individual consumers attribute to various product characteristics and
D

estimates the utility of the various levels these attributes can assume. This empowers the researchers
E

to uncover consumer patterns of response to product features and to estimate the impact of each
PT

level of the constituent attributes in generating interest in a given product. In this way, the
researchers learn what is important in consumers‟ view, whether there are organizing principles
CE

regarding consumers‟ perceptions and how to create better concept through optimal combinations of
attributes.
AC

The main aim of this study was to extend the knowledge of patterns of consumers‟
preference in the beer market by focusing on CB. Data for this study has been collected in Italy
from December 2015 to March 2016 and were sourced from a sample of mainstream beer
consumers representing different age classes, genders, and regions of origin. The consumers
enrolled in this study were asked to score a set of CB profiles specified on different product
attributes and their associated levels on a 9-point scale of interest and Conjoint Analysis was the
technique used to predict patterns of consumers‟ preference. This technique offers two information
sets that help to quantify the attitude of the consumers about CB say the relative importance of
product characteristics under study and the utility values placed by the consumers on the levels
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

taken by these attributes. Results are presented for the whole panel. In addition, demographic
segmentation according to gender was conducted to help the brewing industry target its consumers
more accurately and categorize specific men and women needs. The brewing industry has
traditionally targeted men and beer can be considered a rather obvious example of a product that has
had a gender segmented marketing strategy. However in the actual beer market a new field of
opportunities has been creating by changes in society that made gender roles less heterogeneous
(Inglehart & Norris, 2003; Wolin, 2003) and products that used to be mainly for one of the gender
relevant to both genders. Women‟s share of beer consumption is growing especially now when the

PT
stereotypical difference in gender behavior is decreasing and the change in beer‟s image make
beer and women not such an unusual combination anymore (Aronsson, & Oderich-Linke, 2013;

RI
Assobirra, 2014). In Italy for example, six women out of 10 drink beer, are familiar with it

SC
and appreciate it compared to 25% in the 1980s (Assobirra, 2014) because beer is a natural
beverage, it is less alcoholic than wine and it is convenient (Assobirra, 2012). In addition, some of
NU
the styles that have gained the most ground over the past years have proven to be more attractive to
females than in the past. However there is still not much focus on women which underlines the huge
opportunity that remains unlocked for brewers since the brewing industry have not yet managed
MA

to find a way to take a complete advantage of this new group of potential customers .

Since at the time of conducting this study no legal definition of craft beer had been released
D

in Italy, yet a huge debate on this topic was ongoing in the two Houses of the Parliament, the
E

authors wanted to understand how mainstream beer consumers conceptualize and define craft beers
PT

in order to identify the main dimensions that characterize these beers. This second goal was reached
by using a qualitative research (focus group) to collect data on beer consumers‟ perception of craft
CE

and industrial beers and by contrasting the dimensions that pertain to craft beers against those that
mainstream consumers believe to pertain to industrial beers.
AC

The paper is organized as follows. Sections 2 contains relevant descriptions (1) on how CB
attributes and their associated levels have been selected and organized in product profiles to
evaluate and (2) on the methodology adopted by the authors to conduct qualitative research. Section
3 explains the statistical analysis of our data while section 4 summarizes the main findings. Main
findings are discussed in section 5. The paper concludes with various observations, managerial
implications, limitation of the study and possibility for future research.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.1 Structure of the study

To estimate the importance of different craft beer attributes on consumer interest, a conjoint
rating experiment was adopted (Green & Wind 1975), in which the respondents are given a number
of craft beer profiles, each described on the attributes under test, and are asked to state their interest
for each profile on a rating scale. This study consists of six stages: (1) selection of attributes; (2)
assignment of attributes levels; (3) construction of hypothetical product profiles; (4) presentation of
stimuli to a sample of respondents and selection of the form of the questions and the nature of

PT
respondents‟ judgments; (5) data collection; (6) estimation of parth-worth functions for the product
attributes.

RI
SC
2.1. 1. Qualitative and quantitative approach

2.1.1.1. Qualitative survey: selection of attributes and assignment of attributes levels

NU
The main criteria adopted by the authors to choose the CB attributes and their assigned
levels are reported elsewhere (Donadini et al., 2016). Attribute selection followed a standard
MA

approach (see Bennet, Rolfe, & Louviere, 2000) on the basis of (1) the results of two focus groups
conducted on a purposive sample of consumers (sixteen participants, ten males and six females,
randomly divided into two subgroups of eight consumers per focus group session, each session
D

consisting of an equal number of males and females familiar with beer and willing to volunteer
E

about for hours of their time) and structured around a small set of predetermined questions, (2) a
PT

review of published literature on CB, (3) a survey of beer experts and (4) market observations.
The Focus Groups with beer consumers were conducted according to guidelines of Hennink
CE

(2007) by a team consisting of a moderator (first author, facilitates the discussion) and an assistant
moderator (takes notes and runs the recording devices). In each of the two sessions held, the
AC

consumers were welcomed and before being asked the first question were reminded of the purpose
of the Focus Group and explained the ground rules. Next, they were asked to indicate what
attributes of beer they would be interested in if they were to evaluate whether they should buy a
craft beer. Since the Focus Group created an accepting environment that put participants at ease
allowing them to answer questions thoughtfully in their own words, a rich discussion stimulated
participant comments and influenced the thinking and sharing of others so that a large number of
different ideas and opinions from as many different participants was generated.
Focus Group tapes were transcribed verbatim and transcripts were cleaned up by stripping
off nonessential words. Meaningful comments were organized into a consumer x attribute table in
which the number and type of attributes mentioned by the consumers were examined by counting
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the number of citations per attribute. Frequency of citation is an indicator of the importance of that
attribute for the consumer panel, the higher the frequency of an attribute the more important this
attribute is for the panel (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 1994). In this process, synonymous were
grouped to avoid redundancy and terms that led to a low frequency of occurrence (cut off < 2% of
citations) were removed. When all meaningful attributes had been listed, the two authors looked for
common categories by working separately on this preliminary list of attributes and by building up
each one his categories as in Mäkiniemi, Pirttilä-Backman, & Pieri, 2011. Next, the authors
undertook a discussion to reach a consensus regarding the generated categories and their labels.

PT
This was done in Italian by Italian native speakers. For readers convenience an English translation
of the categories labels are used here. Seven major areas of consumer interest were identified: (1)

RI
brewer; (2) raw materials; (3) brewing plant; (4) processing technology; (5) retail price; (6) type of

SC
container; and (7) type of retailer.
To integrate the attributes elicited spontaneously by the consumers, the authors asked eight
NU
beer experts2 (1) to focus on these seven main areas of consumer interest, (2) to list as many
characteristics as they could recall among the most relevant intrinsic and extrinsic CB
characteristics pertaining to these areas and (3) to choose the ten most relevant characteristics in the
MA

decision-making process of purchasing a CB among those they recalled. The number and type of
attributes considered by the experts was determined (1) by examining the number and types of
D

attributes they mentioned according to procedure described for the analysis of Focus Group
conducted with consumers and (2) by counting the number of attributes selected by at least 25% of
E

the experts as the relevant attributes. Next, Scopus database was searched for peer reviewed
PT

literature concerning craft beers (keywords: craft beers, published 1989 to 2015; field type: article,
title, abstract and keywords; all subject area options selected). Since a very few research works
CE

were found to deal with craft beer exclusively, a new search was conducted (keywords: specialty
beers, published 1989 to 2015; field type: article, title, abstract and keywords; all subject area
AC

options selected). 178 papers were returned and examined by first author for constituent attributes
of a specialty beer. The constituent attributes led to a paper x attributes table in which synonymous
were grouped to avoid redundancy and terms that could lead to a low frequency of occurrence were
removed (cut off < 2% of citations). The CB characteristics cited in literature were then organised
into homogeneous categories by the two authors working individually on this list of characteristics
and successively building consensus on their individual classification as previously reported for
Focus Group sessions with consumers. Frequency of occurrence for a given attribute in the final

2
Beer experts included brewers, sellers and trained panelists in sensory analysis of beer.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

agreed list of CB characteristics was calculated from counting the number of papers that cited this
attribute.
In a second meeting, the consumers were (1) shown the list of attributes they generated in
the two Focus Group sessions and (2) asked to choose from this list the ten most relevant attributes
to their decision making process of buying a craft beer. This was done to reduce the number of
attribute under study by ranking them in order of consumer importance.
The consumers were (1) shown the list of attributes based on findings from the reviewed
literature and the survey conducted with beer experts and (2) asked to indicate which of these

PT
attributes they considered relevant, if any, in their decision-making process of buying a craft beer.
In this way, the authors extended the list of attributes spontaneously generated by the consumers

RI
with those prompted by beer experts if these attributes reached the consensus of half consumers at

SC
least. In doing so, the authors ensured that the final list of attributes covered all the CB dimensions
having real importance or value for consumers and contained a sufficient amount of information to
NU
generate the CB profiles under study.
In detail, the authors identified eight craft beer attributes made up of different levels. They
included type of brewery (five levels), brewing technology (five levels), location of the brewery
MA

(three levels), type of container (five levels), characterizing raw materials (three levels), brewhouse
equipment (two levels), where to buy (five levels) and retail price (three levels). The levels of the
D

eight factors varied in this study are presented in Tab.1. Retail price was specified to represent the
range of prices for low, medium and top end of the price attribution.
E
PT

2.1.1.2 Choice of hypothetical craft beer profiles

After craft beer attributes have been selected and attribute levels assigned to each attribute,
CE

combinations of attribute levels were created and presented as craft beer profiles to the consumers.
Since even a small number of factors and factor levels for each factor will lead to a very
AC

large number of potential profiles the authors generated a representative subset known as
orthogonal array. In our study, it is possible to generate 33750 (5X5X3X5X3X2X5X3) alternative
CB profiles that are combinations of the levels of the eight attributes. It is evident that such a large
number of alternative products obtained via a full factorial design is too large in number to be
evaluated by consumers. Therefore, a fractional factorial design was used by the authors to estimate
the conjoint model with fewer than the maximum numbers of product descriptions. This optimizes
respondents fatigue and provides efficiency in model estimation. The design used in this study was
generated using the Generate Orthogonal Design procedure embodied in SPSS Statistics 23.0
software. The Display Design took the design generated by Generate Orthogonal Design and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

produced concept profiles in a ready-to-use format. Using such procedure, 49 product profiles are
sufficient to estimate reliably the effects of the selected attributes of our study.
Each profile was presented to consumers under the form of visual and text card (Dahan &
Hauser, 2002). Cards contained short descriptions of the possible new craft beers and the scoring
scale.

2.2 Data collection and analysis

2.2.1 Participants

PT
The survey population was selected among mainstream beer consumers. They refer to those

RI
individuals who drink mostly bulk-produced industrially-brewed commercial lagers. No craft beer
enthusiasts were pooled, but respondents included in the panel could have drunk craft beers on

SC
some occasions. Detailed criteria for eligibility were those illustrated in 2014‟ Assobirra Annual
Report. The choice of this population of interest is paramount for brewers in the actual competitive
NU
climate where craft beer success was primarily confined to a minority of highly involved consumers
and further growth of this sector of the beer market seems to be possible only if brewers will be able
MA

to attract the majority of industrial beer consumers who may be interested in craft beers but has yet
to explore the craft beer world.
One-hundred and fifty consumers were recruited in Northwestern of Italy, (Milan and its
D

immediate vicinity), in North-Eastern of Italy (Trento), in Central Italy (Pescara) and in Southern
E

Italy (Reggio Calabria, Sardinia and Sicily) with the following proportion per geographical areas of
PT

the country: 50% in the North, 30% in the Centre and 20% in the South and big islands).
Respondents included all age groups drinking beer and an approximately equal number of
CE

males and females. Data collection was conducted from December 2015 to March 2016.
Participants were informed that their participations was voluntary and that their individual
AC

responses would remain confidential. After a brief introductory remarks on the nature of the task,
the respondents were introduced to a description and explanation of the beer attributes and their
relative levels under study. This was done to help respondents during the data collection because
abbreviated identifiers for some attributes and their relative levels were used by the authors. For
example the attribute level „modern brewhouse‟ was replaced by „modern‟ in the scoring cards.
Next, respondents were informed that (1) they would be shown a set of forty-nine CB profiles
obtained by the combination of the beer features under test, in the form of scoring cards arranged as
previously described and (2) that they would be asked to assign an interest score to each profile by
means of a 9-point scale where the higher the score, the greater the interest (two anchors, one for
each extreme, (1) 1 – not at all interested, to (2) 9 – extremely interested).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2.2 Questionnaire

The survey was administered through a paper and pencil questionnaire consisting of four
main sections: general instructions, open ended questions, the body, and personal information. The
purpose of the general instructions is to help the person completing the questionnaire, have a
general understanding of the purpose of the research study, provide a general orientation of the
topic of the questionnaire, and describe informed consent. It included the following: introduction of
researcher, purpose of the questionnaire, confidentiality statement, voluntary participation and how

PT
to submit the questionnaire. Definitions of attribute levels under test are reported in Tab.2.
The body of the questionnaire included the set of forty-nine scoring cards which were

RI
presented in a randomized order to prevent source of bias due to order of concept presentation.

SC
Some questions on demographics and patterns of beer consumption were included at the end of the
questionnaire.
NU
A first draft was used by the authors in a pre-test conducted in Italy (n = 20) in autumn
2015. The pre-test was conducted to obtain information about time length, adequacy to guide the
respondents through the interview, comprehensibility of the process of the conjoint analysis. After
MA

getting results from the pilot study, corrections to the questionnaire were made before the release of
the final version of it.
D

It took respondents nearly 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire but the time needed for
one interview was very dependent on the interviewee performance in assessing the different craft
E

beer profiles. After respondents had entered their ratings, interviewers checked the rating cards for
PT

completion, mistakes, or possible misinterpretations.

CE

2.2.3 What consumers think of a craft beer

Two open questions3 were also included on the questionnaire to capture consumers‟ own
AC

view on craft beer and to illuminate the differences in consumers‟ perception between craft beers
and industrial beers. They were included at the beginning of the questionnaire since the answers
could be influenced by the presentation of the CB concepts. Since there is no interviewer who gives
a reaction to the answer, open ended questions were formulated as to be as specific as possible to
provide meaningful interpretable data. Data analysis was conducted as described by Ares, Giménez,
Barreiro, & Gambaro, (2016) and consisted of a number of distinct though interconnected stages,
i.e. familiarising with consumers responses by reading carefully each response at least twice,

3
The open-questions used in this study are: “Please list what are the main characteristics of a craft beer (of an
industrial beer)”.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

examining written responses to develop coding categories, categorising written responses by sorting
them according to textual content into distinct coding categories, assigning coding categories to
each response and set the outcome in a tabular form, and finally managing the data in order to
interpret the final output and address the goal of the study. Specifically, using a qualitative method
of content analysis text segments referencing distinct ideas were tagged by code names. Each code
marks a discrete idea not previously raised. Codes similar in nature were grouped together to define
themes deriving useful information from the data in text format. This classification was performed
manually by three researchers considering word or content synonymy. Data were evaluated

PT
individually by the researchers and the agreement between their classifications was checked in a
final meeting at the presence of the three researchers. Frequencies in each category were determined

RI
by counting the number of consumers using those words to indicate important characteristics of a

SC
craft or of an industrial beer. The clustered frequencies represented as grouped themes describe the
range and the weight of each concept in consumers‟ collective report. Categories mentioned by
NU
more than 5% of the consumers were considered. Chi-square was calculated for evaluating
differences in consumers‟ perception of the beers.
MA

2.3 Quantitative survey: the conjoint model

The standard conjoint analysis can be thought of as a multiple regression problem, in which
the respondents‟ ratings for the product concepts are observations on the dependent variable, the
D

product attribute levels are observations on the independent variables and the estimated regression
E

parameters are the part-worth utilities or preference scores for the attributes.
PT

The respondent‟s task is to score each profile on a scale of interest. From these scores, conjoint
analysis derives utility scores for each factor level. These utility scores, analogous to regression
CE

coefficients, are called part-worths and can be used to find the relative importance of each factor.
Such information can be very useful when deciding which combination of factor levels is best for a
AC

new product or service.

The regression model used in this study can be extrapolated by the model used by and
extensively illustrated in Porretta & Donadini, 2008. The estimated models offer the opportunity to
establish (1) ideal products, (2) relative importance of products, (3) evaluation of products. The
results present the estimated part-worths, and the relative importance of each attribute. In addition,
R-square statistic measured the goodness of fit of the model.
Positive utilities increase the preference score of a given craft beer while negative ones
decrease it. Utilities superior to the mean of all the utilities were taken into account as having an
effect on consumers‟ interest. The relative importance score (RI) was calculated by dividing the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

absolute value of an attribute part worth by the sum of the absolute values of the part-worths for all
attributes. Importance is defined in terms of the potential impact of change within the attribute to
affect the preference score. The relative importance measures allow the identification of the
group‟s priorities with respect to craft beer attributes.
The most preferred craft beer profile is identified from the magnitudes of the set of part-
worths for each attribute. The ideal product concept is defined in terms of the set of attribute levels
with the largest, positive part-worths.

PT
3. RESULTS

In the estimation of the individuals conjoint models for CB no case were discarded since no

RI
respondents had given equal score to the 49 CB descriptions. The goodness of fit measure

SC
represented by Pearson‟s R statistic indicated a very good fit between the models and the data
(overall samples = 0.98; males = 0.96; females = 0.97; all models p < 0.001).
NU
3.1 Relative importance (RI) of craft beer attributes: aggregate sample.
MA

The RI percentages of Fig.1 revealed the priorities of Italian consumers with respect to the
eight classes of attributes explored in this study (light blue bars). Italian consumers placed greatest
importance on type of container (30.49 %). Brewing technology was the next most important
D

attribute (17.64%). Characterizing raw materials (13.44%) and type of brewery (12.64) rank 3 and 4
E

and were placed in the same band some way below brewing technology. Retail price (9.87) and
PT

where to buy (8.73) were of far less importance. The least importance of all was attached to
brewhouse equipment (4.44%) and to location of the brewery (2.75%).
CE

3.1.1 Utility values of craft beer attributes

AC

Estimated coefficients for each level of the eight craft beer factors are reported in Fig.2.
With respect to the attribute where to buy, all the levels but supermarket have small utility values,
yet of different algebraic sign. Pub and by the brewer have positive utilities whereas beershop (close
to zero), restaurant (close to zero) and supermarket have negative utilities. With respect to the
attribute location of the brewery, all the three levels under investigation have small utility values yet
of different algebraic sing. The utility placed on in the mountains is positive whereas it is negative
for in the hills and in a flatland. With respect to the type of brewery where craft beer is produced,
monastery and microbrewery have positive utilities, yet microbrewery parth-wort is only slightly
above zero. Agri-brewery and brewpub utilities are close to zero and are neutral in their effect on
consumer responses. The level large-scale corporate brewery, in turn, has a negative impact on
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

consumer judgment. With respect to characterizing raw materials, local grains affect positively
consumer interest. Local fruits slightly decrease average consumers‟ interest score. Herbs,
vegetables and spices have a negative impact on consumer responses. With respect to type of
container, glass bottle + crown cap, stainless steel keg and glass bottle + Champagne cork have a
positive effect on increasing consumers‟ interest in a craft beer. Glass bottle + crown cap has the
most positive effect and is more than twice as impacting as stainless steel keg and four times as
impacting as glass bottle + Champagne cork. In turn, PET keg and can have a negative impact of
approximately equal magnitude on consumer judgment. With respect to the attribute brewhouse

PT
equipment, both levels are close to zero and are neutral in their effect on consumer responses.
Modern brewhouse has a small negative utility value and historical brewhouse has a small positive

RI
utility value. With respect to Retail price, a price attribution from 5.01 to 7.50 Euros have a

SC
negative impact on consumer judgment whereas a price attribution under 3.50 Euros and from 3.51
to 5.00 Euros slightly positively affects consumer interest for a craft beer. With respect to brewing
NU
technology, microfiltration has a positive utility score. Spontaneous fermentation and bottle
conditioning estimated coefficients are close to zero and are neutral in their effect on consumer
responses. Unfiltered and unpasteurized have a negative impact on consumer interest.
MA

The ideal craft beer configuration is one that combines attribute levels with highest utility
D

values for each attribute. Consumer‟s interest is oriented towards a microfiltered beer in a glass
bottle provided with a crown cap and sold directly by the producer at a price in the 3.51-5.00 range.
E

This beer is brewed from local grains in a monastery located in the mountains and equipped with an
PT

historical brewhouse.
CE

It is interesting to note that the utility values placed on historical brewhouse (0.050), on in
AC

the mountains (0.035) and on by the brewer (0.085) are extremely small in absolute value and the
contribute of these attribute levels to the model is very modest and has little practical interest4. In
addition, brewers must note that some levels taken by the attributes under investigation reduce the
interest of consumers and should be excluded from the ideal configuration of a CB. For example, a
CB should not be brewed by a large scale corporate brewery (-0.166) from herbs spices and
vegetables (-0.144). It should be filtered (unfiltered utility equals to -0.159) and pasteurized
(unpasteurized utility equals to -0.133) and should not be distributed in PET keg (-0.322) or in
aluminium can (-0.297) nor be sold in supermarkets (-0.113) at a price above 5.01 euros (-0.130).
4
Those utilities superior to the mean of all the utility absolute values (0.107) have a practical effect on consumers‟
interest.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.2 Relative importance (RI) of craft beer attributes by gender: males

The RI percentages of Fig.1 reveal the priorities of Italian males (grey bars) with respect to
the eight classes of attributes explored in this study. Italian males placed greatest importance on
type of container (29.82%). Characterizing raw materials (13.97%), brewing technology (13.85%)
and retail price (13.26%) were the next most important attributes and are twice as less important as
type of container. Where to buy (11.85%) is placed in the same band some way below these

PT
attributes. Type of brewery (8.93%), location of the brewery (4.85%) and brewhouse equipment
(3.48%) are of far less importance.

RI
SC
3.2.1 Utility values of craft beer attribute by gender: males

Estimated coefficients for each level of the eight craft beer factors are reported in Fig.3
NU
(grey bars). With respect to the attribute where to buy, pub and by the brewer have positive utilities.
Beershop and restaurant have negative utilities, yet of small magnitude, and are neutral concepts for
MA

male consumers. Supermarket has a negative utility score and reduces the interest of male
consumers in a craft beer. With respect to the attribute location of the brewery, all the three levels
under investigation have small utility values yet of different algebraic sign, positive for in the
D

mountains and negative for in the hills and in a flatland. With respect to the type of brewery where a
E

craft beer is produced, monastery and microbrewery have positive utilities but the magnitude of
PT

their estimated coefficients is not that large. Agri-Brewery and brewpub utilities are slightly below
zero and are neutral in their effect on male consumer responses. The level large-scale corporate
CE

brewery, in turn, has a negative impact on consumer judgment. With respect to characterizing raw
materials local grains affect positively consumer interest. Local fruits slightly decrease average
AC

interest score of male consumers whereas herbs, vegetables and spices have a negative impact their
responses. With respect to type of container, glass bottle + crown cap, stainless steel keg and glass
bottle + champagne cork have a positive effect on increasing male consumers‟ interest in a craft
beer. However, glass bottle + crown cap is more than twice as impacting as stainless steel keg and
five times as impacting as glass bottle + Champagne cork. PET keg and can have a negative impact
on male consumer judgment. With respect to the attribute brewhouse equipment, modern
brewhouse has a small negative utility value and historical brewhouse has a small positive utility
value. Both levels are close to zero and are neutral in their effect on male consumer responses. With
respect to Retail price, a price attribution from 5.01 to 7.50 Euros have a negative impact on
consumer judgment whereas a price attribution under 3.50 Euros and from 3.51 to 5.00 Euros
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

positively affects male consumer interest for a craft beer. With respect to brewing technology,
microfiltration has a positive utility. Bottle conditioning (positive estimated coefficient),
spontaneous fermentation (negative estimated coefficient) and unfiltered (negative estimated
coefficient) are close to zero and are neutral concepts for male consumers. Unpasteurized have a
negative impact on consumers‟ judgment.

The ideal craft beer configuration is very similar to the configuration obtained for the
aggregate sample. Male consumers‟ interest is oriented towards a microfiltered beer in a glass bottle

PT
provided with a crown cap and sold directly by the producer at a price in the 3.51-5.00 range. This
beer is brewed from local grains in a monastery located in the mountains and equipped with an

RI
historical brewhouse. It is interesting to note that the utility values placed on historical brewhouse

SC
(0.041) and in the mountains (0.074) are extremely small in absolute value and the contribute of
these attribute levels to the model is very modest and has little practical interest5. In addition,
NU
brewers must note that some levels taken by the attributes under investigation reduce the interest of
consumers and should be excluded from the ideal configuration of a CB. Therefore a CB should not
be brewed by a large scale corporate brewery (-0.119) from herbs spices and vegetables (-0.129). It
MA

should be pasteurized (unpasteurized utility equals to -0.116) and not be distributed in PET keg (-
0.226) or in aluminium can (-0.347) nor be sold in supermarkets (-0.169) at a price above 5.01
D

euros (-0.204).
E
PT

3.3 Relative importance (RI) of craft beer attributes by gender: females

The RI percentages of Fig.1 reveal the priorities of Italian females (black bars) with respect
CE

to the eight classes of attributes explored in this study. Italian females placed greatest importance on
type of container (34.2%). Brewing technology (22.1%) is the second most important attribute.
AC

Type of brewery (15.66%) and characterizing raw materials (11.72%) are the next most important
attributes and are twice and three times as less important as type of container. Retail price (5.30%),
brewhouse equipment (5.12%), where to buy (4.57%), and location of the brewery (1.26%) are of
far less importance.

3.3.1 Utility values of craft beer attribute by gender: females

5
Those utilities superior to the mean of all the utility absolute values (0.112) have a practical effect on consumers‟
interest.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Estimated coefficients for each level of the eight craft beer factors are reported in Fig.3
(black bars). With respect to the attribute where to buy, all the level have utility values close to zero
and are neutral concepts for females. Utility values related to the level beershop, by the brewer and
pub have a positive algebraic sign whereas those related to supermarket and to restaurant have a
negative algebraic sign. With respect to the attribute lcation of the brewery, all the three levels
under investigation have small utility values yet of different algebraic sign, and are neutral concept
for females. With respect to the type of brewery where a craft beer is produced, monastery, agri-
brewery, microbrewery and brewpub have positive utilities but the estimated coefficient magnitude

PT
of monastery only affects largely females‟ judgment. The level large-scale corporate brewery, in
turn, has a negative impact on consumer judgment. With respect to characterizing raw materials

RI
local grains affect positively consumer interest whereas local fruits and herbs, vegetables and spices

SC
have a negative impact on female consumer responses. With respect to type of container, glass
bottle + crown cap, stainless steel keg and glass bottle + champagne cork have a positive effect on
NU
increasing consumers‟ interest in a craft beer. However, glass bottle + crown cap is more than twice
as impacting as stainless steel keg and three times as influencing as glass bottle + Champagne cork.
In turn, PET keg and have a negative impact of on female consumers‟ judgment. With respect to the
MA

attribute brewhouse equipment, modern brewhouse has a small negative utility value and historical
brewhouse has a small positive utility value. Both levels are close to zero and are neutral in their
D

effect on the judgments expressed by females. With respect to retail price, a price attribution from
5.01 to 7.50 and below 3.50 euros have a small negative impact on interest. A price attribution
E

from 3.50 to 5.00 Euros slightly positively affect females‟ judgment. With respect to brewing
PT

technology, microfiltration and spontaneous filtration has positive utilities. Bottle conditioning has
a negative utility value but close to zero and is a neutral concept for Italian females. Unpasteurized
CE

and unfiltered have a negative impact on females‟ judgment.

AC

The ideal craft beer configuration is one that combines attributes levels with highest utility
values. Female interest is oriented towards a microfiltered beer in a glass format provided with a
crown cap sold directly by the producer at a price in the 3.51-5.00 range. This beer is brewed from
local grains in a monastery equipped with an historical brewhouse that is located in the hills. It is
interesting to note that the attribute levels by the brewer (0.054), historical brewhouse (0.060) and
in the hills (0.018) are small in absolute value and the contribute of these attribute levels to the
model is very modest and has little practical interest 6. In addition, brewers must note that some
levels taken by the attributes under investigation reduce the interest of consumers and should be
6
Those utilities superior to the mean of all the utility absolute values (0.115) have a practical effect on consumers‟
interest.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

excluded from the ideal configuration of a CB. Therefore, a CB should not be brewed by a large
scale corporate brewery (-0.217). It should be filtered (unfiltered utility equals to -0.248) and not be
distributed in PET keg (-0.426) or in aluminium can (-0.242).

4. Analysis of open-ended questions

Table 3 shows the terms used by consumers to describe a craft beer and an industrial beer
respectively. Fifteen dimensions of consumers‟ craft beer definition were identified whereas ten

PT
dimensions of consumers‟ industrial beer definition were captured.
Approximately 4/10 of consumers considered flavour a characterizing element of craft beer.

RI
They divided equally into consumers who qualified their responses by describing the flavour of the

SC
beer as being rich, intense and composite and into consumers who thought that the CB flavour
differs from that of industrial beers as the use of unconventional ingredients brings in unusual
sensory notes. In addition, a rich bouquet of odours one can sniff from the glass was considered as
NU
being typical of craft products. A little less than 1/3 of consumers cited the origin (local) of the raw
materials used by brewers and the fact that a CB was produced small scale as important
MA

characteristics of craft beers.

The consumers typically indicated that a CB must be brewed from local ingredients
produced in the territory where the brewer is located or grown by the brewer himself. Small-scale
D

production received a similar number of citations and included: small scale plants, small-sized
E

players, limited amount of beer produced. One consumer in five typified craft beers as a drink that
PT

was not pasteurized whereas a little more than one consumer in six as a product that was unfiltered.
Other dimensions that typified craft beers ranged from the premium quality of the ingredients to the
CE

absence of preservatives and extended to the nature of the outlet where these beers are sold (sold in
beer shops only, not sold in large supermarket chains), to the low availability and accessibility to
AC

consumers, to the high retail price and finally to the presence of heirloom grains in the bill of
ingredients. Occasionally cited dimensions were: brewed from unconventional ingredients,
spontaneously fermented, for passionate beer drinkers, in glass container only, unsafe to drink,
forming much head, forming thick head, and high alcohol content.
Approximately 4/10 of consumers qualified their responses by describing industrial beers as
being a cheap and affordable drink. A little more than one consumer out of three believed that
industrial beers are standardized products with generally uniform characteristics. For approximately
one consumers in five industrial beer is largely available (large volumes brewed) and easily
accessible to consumers (through national retailers). In addition, a little more than 23% of
consumers consider industrial beers as a product brewed in large modern and fully automated
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

plants. Approximately one consumer out of six described an industrial beer as being filtered and
pasteurized whereas one consumer out of twelve considered an industrial beer as being a safe drink.
A similar proportion of consumers believed that big brewers implement quality checks and
procedures to correct any failures and mistakes that is able to reduce the quality of beer.
Occasionally cited dimensions were: low quality, longer shelf life than craft beers, canned,
tasteless, mostly blonde in colour, promotion through a variety of media.

PT
4. DISCUSSION

To support brewers in understanding patterns of consumer preferences for beer, the authors

RI
explored the nature of consumers‟ interest for craft beers in Italy. Only few studies have attempted
to investigate the quality and sensory perception of beer among Italian consumers (Aquilani et

SC
al.,2015; Donadini et al., 2016; Donadini, Fumi & De Faveri, 2011; Fastigi et al., 2015; Porretta &
Donadini, 2008) despite researchers have a long-standing interest in conducting such studies in the
NU
food area.

At a time when craft brews are gaining traction in a stagnant beer market (Assobirra, 2012;
MA

Assobirra 2013; The Brewers of Europe, 2014; Berkhout et al., 2014), it is important to expand the
knowledge of consumers‟ preferences for beer overall and specifically for those types of beer that
D

encounter the favour of the market by studying what is of appeal for consumers. It is also extremely
E

valuable to look into market segments that have been neglected or disregarded in the past to find out
new opportunities for the brewing industry. Women for example are a sensitive target for the
PT

brewing industry in light of the decrease in stereotypical difference in gender behaviour and
changes in beer‟s image that made beer and women not such an unusual combination anymore.
CE

Formulating and marketing beers to suit female demands is therefore a clear opportunity for a beer
industry with stagnant sales since this approach aids brewers to better orient themselves in an
AC

extremely competitive market and to respond successfully to the demands of consumers or of one or
more segments in a target population.

The focus of the study has been on the conjoint analysis exercise that was applied to
establish the nature of mainstream consumers‟ interest for specific attributes associated with craft
beers with respect to intrinsic or extrinsic beer attributes and factors related to the purchase process.
For this reason, the attributes under test were chosen through a consumer centric approach to
include beer characteristics that describe as closely as possible the real-life situations facing
consumers rather than being exclusively the brewers‟ view on what they thought the market valued
most. However, the list of attributes originated by the authors was not devoid of brewers‟ relevance
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

since it was empowered by brewer-provided inputs during the concept ideation process so as to
include a wide enough range of attributes and attributes levels to allow current and future market
concepts to be simulated. Advantages of this approach have been widely discussed in literature (see
for example Moskowitz et al., 2005).

The attributes selected in this study for their consumer relevance spanned a wide range of
beer characteristics. Some of them constitute well-known factors affecting food and beverage
choice from a consumer preference perspective (see Aquilani et al. 2015 for a review on beer or

PT
Costell, Tárrega, & Bayarri, 2010, for a more general overview on food). Other attributes were less
commonly found and scarcely investigated in previous studies and could signal a specific relevance

RI
for the brewing industry.

SC
Retail price for example is a factor of particular consumer relevance since this attribute was
suggested by beer consumers in the ideation process of beer concepts adopted in previous studies on
NU
beer in Italy for their ability to confer utility values to consumers (Porretta & Donadini, 2008;
Donadini et al., 2016). Similarly, elements of the packaging benefit from a top of mind status and
MA

are within the first beer attributes that come to mind when a consumer is asked an unprompted
question about essential constituent elements of beer. Not surprisingly, the materials used in
brewing and processing information on malting and brewing evoke consumer interest and,
D

sometimes concern, and are usually cited as factors able to drive consumer judgment of beer by
E

altering expected or actual liking because of positive or negative attitudes towards novel or
PT

traditional technology (for a review Ahmed, Hosahalli, Ramaswany, Kasapis, & Boye, 2009) or
unconventional ingredients.
CE

It is of particular interest to note that in a food market that has increasing attention to the
quality of productions and their geographical origin (Brown, Dury, & Holdsworth, 2009; Darby,
AC

Batte, Ernst, & Roe, 2008; Stefani, Rocchi, Gioia, & Cavicchi, 2006; Tregear & Ness, 2005) even
mainstream consumers, who are usually not that sensitive to geographical indications because of a
generalized convenience attitude towards food, recognize that a craft beer is expression of the
culinary and agricultural identity of the territory and intercept the geographical connotation of craft
beers in the elicitation process of Focus Groups.

Craft beers group heterogeneous products varying extremely in flavors for being brewed
from a range of unusual ingredients, brewing technologies, fermentation patterns and packaging
solutions for which consumers‟ liking is maximized when the beer contains an optimum amount of
novelty that does not deviate too much from consumers‟ expectations (Giacalone, 2013). In
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

addition, craft beers range widely in the volume and variety of beer produced, in the type of the
brewing company, in the location of the brewing plant and the geographical specificity of the
territory where a brewer operates (Cannitielli et al., 2016). In the launch of such beers, narrowing
beer factors and their levels down to a restricted set of alternatives positively valued by consumers
offers product developers a concrete chance to orient themselves in choosing time-saving and cost-
effective consumer-oriented solutions, say in using brewers‟ resources more efficiently to design
their business strategies to fit specific consumer demands.

PT
4.1 Preference structure

RI
The conjoint models fitted well to the individual preference data (whole panel, males and
females only) and satisfied the main aims of the authors by providing for the identification of the

SC
importance consumers attach to craft beer attributes. In addition, they aided identifying how to
define consumers‟ ideal craft beers in terms of the levels of these attributes.
NU
The aggregate models showed huge differences in the relative importance attached by the
consumers to the set of attributes under study. Type of container is the most relevant attribute and
MA

the most powerful influencer of craft beer quality judgment as opposed to location of the brewery
and brewhouse equipment that are of little consumer importance. For example, type of container
D

explains around 31% of the variance in interest for a craft beer whereas location of the brewery and
E

brewhouse equipment explain each less than 5.0% of the variance in interest. This means that the
elements of the packaging and constituent materials of the container under test in this study are
PT

approximately seven times as important as brewhouse equipment (modern or historical) and more
than eleven times as important as location of the brewery (in the hills, in a flatland, in the
CE

mountains).
AC

The greater interest for glass over aluminum cans and plastic containers confirms the results
of a 2008 survey conducted by Porretta & Donadini and those of a 2005 survey conducted by
Spigno, Donadini, Fumi & Pastori. These studies investigated preference patterns of mainstream
Italian consumers for alcohol-free beers and standard pale lagers (birre normali according to Italian
legislation) and showed that glass was the favored packaging material for Italian beer shoppers
when a bottle is provided with a twist-off cap or when it is provided with a crown cap, as glass was
considered more hygienic, less polluting and more taste-preserving (Spigno et al., 2005). Despite
canned beers being introduced by craft brewers in other markets and experiencing positive sales,
producers in Italy continue to fight the perception that beer in cans loses its premium status without
the bottle and confirms that the suitability of packaging materials is strictly dependent on the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

country (i.e. the beer culture) where beer is brewed. In a country like Italy where the beer industry
has relied heavily on two package formats, bottle and stainless steel draught, plastic containers are
unfamiliar to beer shoppers and could have generated neophobic reactions that resulted in a penalty
paid by plastic kegs even if the benefits of this emerging packaging technology in the production of
beer kegs were extensively presented to consumers in terms of sensory and environmental quality.
This is alarming to some extent for public policy that is often based on the assumption that more
information is better since education may encourage consumers to form their own judgment and
take more conscious decisions (Peters, Klein, Kaufman, Meilleur, & Dixon, 2013). However, it

PT
seems to be unrealistic to give too much credit to consumers‟ willingness and ability to process
information especially when a purchase entails minimal effort and consideration on the part of the

RI
consumer prior to purchase and is made under heavy time pressure because many food buying

SC
decisions may not involve a lot of conscious thought at all but may be guided by a strong
component of automatic unconscious information processing (Ajzen and Fishbein, 2000). This
NU
seems to be so for Italian consumers whose choices are based on their own knowledge and are made
in less than a minute since they already know which beer they will buy (Assobirra, 2012). In
addition, the limited impact of information concerning sustainably packaging solutions on CB
MA

consumer interest aligns our study to reviews of product-related environmental information

showing that this type of information have limited impact on consumers outside the green segment
D

and within the mainstream market (see Grunert, 2011 for a review on barriers to sustainable
consumer food choice; Solér, 2012). Even though information is provided in the marketplace to
E

help consumers choose more sustainable products, many consumers still have little interest in
PT

ethical behavior or rather feel overwhelmed by the abundant and largely accessible ethical product
information and don‟t use it because they may not have the time, motivation or attention to acquire
CE

this knowledge (Bray, Johns & Kilburn, 2011; Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Grunert, 2011).
AC

Results of this study showed also that it is of critical importance to investigate how
consumers‟ attitude towards novel or traditional technologies influences the acceptance of a craft
beer since brewing technology is a competitive parameter in the marketplace and opens up new
possibilities for product differentiation and value creation. Actually food processed by novel and
emerging technologies can pose challenging problems for consumers (da Costa et al., 2000; Deliza,
Rosenthal, Hedderley, & Jaeger, 2010; Deliza, Rosenthal, & Silva, 2003; Siegrist, Cousin,
Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007) since the perception of food quality do not depend solely on the
intrinsic sensory characteristics of the product, but, rather, on a host of factors that are extrinsic to
beer (for a review see Mouta, de Sà, Menezes, & Melo, 2016; Grunert, Bredhal, & Scholderer,
2003). As far as beer is concerned, Caporale & Monteleone (2004) demonstrated that concerns
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

about the nature of the beer and/or the nature of the processing technologies that have been used to
treat and/or produce the beer become paramount considerations for the consumer faced with the
formulation of hedonic liking judgments.
Therefore, if consumers believe a particular technology may deliver negative connotations,
the mere information that a craft beer has been produced according to this technology can
artificially deflate consumer evaluation and lead to negative consumer responses in terms of
acceptance and purchase intention (Cardello & Sawyer, 1992; Carniero et al., 2005; da Costa et al.,
2000; Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015). It becomes therefore increasingly risky to invest in and

PT
develop a new technology for years before confronting the marketplace, since the marketplace may
reject the technology in spite of the merits it may have in terms of increased efficiency or new

RI
product opportunities.

SC
The resulting effect depends on the nature of the technology applied by the brewer and most
notably on the intended use of it. Microfiltration for example gives a differential advantage to a
NU
craft beer because mainstream consumers tend to be more interested into a clean craft beer than into
a turbid one and logically penalize an unfiltered craft beer with respect to a micro filtered one. Both
MA

genders were negatively affected by unfiltered craft beers but females were more turned off than
males. This is not a completely surprising result since previous investigations conducted in the
Italian beer market reported largely on the aversion of mainstream Italian consumers to turbid beers
D

(Porretta & Donadini, 2008; Donadini et al., 2016) probably because they are used to drinking
E

filtered industrially made lagers and are unfamiliar to turbid beers. Unpasteurized craft beers are
PT

also penalized (pasteurized beers are safer than unpasteurized beers is an equation that emerges
from open-ended questions) with a substantial agreement between males and females on the extent
CE

to which raw beers turn off whereas bottle conditioning is a neutral concept in the mind of
consumers.
AC

A nice exception is the fact that females favor a spontaneously fermented beer whereas
males are indifferent to this concept. This is quite a naïve response given by females participating in
our survey as they are unfamiliar to spontaneously fermented beers and do not know much about
the sensory properties of this beer class7. However, females are fascinated by the fact that the
brewer brews a beer in a natural way, say in a way that does not require too much treatment. As a
rule of thumb consumers have a negative attitude toward processed food (International Food

7
Approximately 60% of female participants were recontacted by the first author and questioned about their level of
familiarity to and consumption of spontaneously fermented beers. None of them reported to drink spontaneously
fermented beers on a regular basis or on a special occasion neither they were able to recall a commercial brand name of
this beer type.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Information Council Foundation, 2011) yet consumers in this study acknowledge to a certain extent
the positive aspects of industrially made beers like convenience, value, consistency, staying fresher
and food safety.
Other CB attributes influenced consumer interest in specialty beers as evidenced by the
relative importance attached to a range of ingredients, retail prices, point of sales and brewers.
Unusual ingredients used by the brewers to confer a unique soul to a craft beer are particularly
valuable in distinguishing one product from another and in signalling the quality of the drink when
the craft beer is brewed from local grains whereas the beer loses some appeal if it is made from

PT
local herbs, spices or vegetables. This trend applies to both genders even if there is evidence that
women are more likely to prefer herb/spice beers to men in specific markets8. Our findings are in

RI
broad agreement with Donadini et al., 2016, whose results showed off that that mainstream Italian

SC
consumers do not attach the same utility value to different ingredients (i.e. a number of malted
grains, adjuncts, alternative source of sugars, spices and fruits) since they reject a range of spices
NU
the brewer commonly use in beer making, favour unconventional traditional grains such as emmer
and are neutral towards the use of fruit in beer production.
In addition, our panel of consumers valued a craft beer brewed by monks and penalized a
MA

craft beers that is brewed by a brewery that is owned or controlled by an alcoholic beverage
industry that is not itself a craft brewer. Similarly, they penalize a craft beer that is distributed and
D

sold in supermarkets since craft beer is not a commodity or a drink consumed off-trade (in
agreement with Assobirra, 2012 and with Brink, Gosepa, Geerten, Oranje, Uyterlinde, Berkhout, &
E

de Wit, 2011) and when a CB is sold by the GDO risks to lose its premium status, even though the
PT

consumers are not as adventurous as to purchase craft beers directly from the brewer. There are
reasons why this may be so. Consumers perceive shopping directly from brewers as inconvenient
CE

since craft breweries are not seen as businesses that spring up in close proximity to shoppers in
convenient-to-reach venues nor CB are perceived as to be easily accessible or largely available to
AC

consumers. Other factors could have had a significant impact on consumers‟ unwillingness to
purchase directly from the brewer since when consumers choose to shop directly they internalize
not only location-specific attributes but also an array of product-specific qualities including
production practice and food safety practice in addition to value/package/convenience and
traditional product specific attributes (Keeling Bond, Thilmany & Bond, 2009). Open-ended
question results identified that in our consumers‟ view CB lacks basic dimensions such as
sustainability, typicality and loyalty that literature reports to favor the choice of shopping directly
(see Giampietri, Finco, & Del Giudice, 2016) since CB neither hold traditional product specific
8
This is probably so because culture significantly affects consumers‟ response to beer ingredients in terms of interest as
Donadini and collegues showed extensively in their 2016‟ study.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

attributes nor are seen as products for which traceability and organic labels care, or region of origin
has a strong bond with the brewer, or sustainability is a strategic approach to brewer‟s business.
A closer look at price draws that mainstream consumers perceive price as a cost they want to
minimize especially if a craft beer exceeds a price of 5.00 Euros. A similar inverse relationship
between interest and price attribution was observed in a study conducted on SB in Italy by Donadini
et al., (2016). This kind of response is expected in mainstream commercial beer consumers who are
used to drinking mass produced industrial lagers usually priced in the bottom end of the quality
pyramid and mostly under 2.00 Euros and are not expert that much of the quality offered by craft

PT
beers. Product quality can be understood only after one is exposed to a succession of objects that
display its characteristics since an individual ability to detect quality depend on their familiarity

RI
with the specific product category (Garvin, 1984). Therefore, the price consumers consider

SC
reasonable to pay for a particular good or service is affected largely by prior experience with the
product and with current purchase environment that breeds the perceived appropriateness in
NU
consumer conceptualization of specific price attribution. Therefore, consumers who are not familiar
with craft beers are unlikely to perceive the quality of a craft beer to be superior to that of
commercial beers and to justify a price attribution that operates at the top end of the quality
MA

pyramid. Pricing CB over consumer expectations (5.01 euros per 0.5 liter in this study) may pose a
potential barrier to the continued growth of the segment, despite many craft beers are justifiably
D

more expensive than mainstream brands reflecting economies of scale but also the ingredients used.
E

4.2 Gender effect on CB interest

PT

Previous literature showed significant gender differences in food choice and consumption
(Westenhoefer, 2005). As for beer, men are more likely to drink it than women and differ in the
CE

perception of beer drinking occasions and in perceived optimal beer match with food (Institute of
Alcohol Studies, 2016; Assobirra, 2014; Donadini et al., 2008; Harrington, Miszczakii, &
AC

Ottenbacher, 2008). There is also a strong evidence that some beer styles are more attractive to men
whereas others are more attractive to women (The HarrisPoll cited by A.C. Nielsen, 2016). In
addition women seem to prefer less bitter and well balanced flavoured drinks and respond
differently from men to various sensory properties of beer presented to them as stimuli at a concept
level or as actual products to drink (Donadini et al., 2016; Guinard, Uotani, Mazzucchelli, Taguchi,
Masuoka, & Fujino, 2000; Mejlholm & Martens, 2006; Porretta & Donadini, 2008). Differences
between genders extend to quality perceptions of a range of ingredients, to packaging materials and
to sealing solutions (Donadini et al., 2016; Porretta & Donadini, 2008). Our study provides
additional information on gender differences in perceived beer quality by pointing out similarities
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and differences between genders in formulating quality judgments of CB. In details, the results of
this study showed that men and women share similar patterns of interest for CB as both the conjoint
models obtained by partitioning our dataset by gender revealed a broad agreement on the level of
importance (low vs. high) attributed to the same CB attribute by males and females 9. As for the
attribute levels under investigation men and women agreed on the positive or negative utilities
attributed to a vast majority of variables under study by placing on each of them a utility value
approximately equal in magnitude. However, brewers must take into account that males and
females can attach different utilities to the same attribute level but must note that this occurred in a

PT
few cases only, most notably for the level spontaneous fermentation (utilities of different magnitude
and algebraic sign between genders), PET keg, unfiltered, and retail price > 5.01 Euros (in these

RI
cases utilities of same algebraic sign but of different magnitude between genders). This confirms

SC
previous results of the authors illustrating various points of convergence and divergence between
genders in the evaluation of relevant beer attributes with a prevailing numbers of shared preferences
NU
between genders when a survey is conducted within the same cultural framework. While the
findings provided a limited number of differences across genders, these attribute levels give brewers
differential advantage in meeting in a sound way specific demands of men and women in the beer
MA

market, can assist in differentiating brewers‟ operation from competitors and allow targeting a
certain product to a target market to exploit a market segment that has been neglected or
D

disregarded in the past to find out new opportunities for the brewing industry. Knowing for example
that females are interested in a spontaneously fermented beer more than men are, or, vice-versa ,
E

that males are not turned off by a turbid CB whereas females penalize unfiltered CB, assists brewers
PT

in identifying desirables products that have greater potential for market acceptance. Brewers and
restauranteurs can exploit this finding by tentatively testing whether or not this preference is
CE

confirmed in real testing conditions with actual spontaneously fermented beers before this beer is
marketed. This helps companies make better decisions, minimize risk and maximize revenue when
AC

introducing a CB intended for mainstream consumer consumption to the market. However, other
factors can limit opportunities to expand CB market since unfiltered and unpasteurized beers are
penalized by mainstrean consumers and basically all craft beers are unpasteurized and a lot of them
are unfiltered. Therefore, craft brewers have a long way to go to appeal to a wider market because
they know what mainstream consumers think about unfiltered and unpasteurized beers and need to
adopt strategies to overcome consumers‟ aversion for basic characteristics of craft beer. In this
study the interest for craft beer seems to be related to the novelty of the product, that is, many
mainstream consumers have not tried it or have a bias based on previous experience. Efforts to
9
for example packaging and brewing technique explained a large proportion of the variability of our dataset whereas
location of the brewery and brewhouse equipment a very limited amount of it in both genders.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

transition to craft beer should focus on establishing positive initial product experience to increase
willingness to try since positive first-time experience may have significant influence on affecting
new product learning, evaluation (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987) and long term acceptance by
progressively increasing familiarity of unpasteurized and unfiltered beers.

4.3 Craft beer dimensions

The attempt to codify craft beer is essential to promote and protect the interest of consumers

PT
as well as of brewers since the lack of an overall-agreed definition has led to the term being
misinterpreted and increasingly misused. Evidence exists that consumers find it hard to tell which

RI
brands are craft and say they do not understand what is meant by the term craft. (Gómez-Corona et

SC
al., 2016; Mintel, 2015). It is therefore important to define the term clearly as the uncertainty around
the term dilutes its ability to differentiate brands or justify a higher price. However, defining what is
NU
and isn‟t craft beer is difficult to achieve probably because CB is antithetical to rules or because the
concept of artisanship is inherently relative and subjective in nature. Different countries have
various legal or tax-related definitions of craft beer and commenters have different semantic
MA

interpretations of it. According to US standards for example a craft brewer is small, independent
and traditional (Brewers Association, 2016) and must satisfy three basic requirements to enjoy this
D

status: 1) annual production of 6 million barrels of beer or less; 2) less than 25 percent of the craft
brewery is owned or controlled (or equivalent economic interest) by an alcoholic beverage industry
E

member that is not itself a craft brewer; 3) be a brewer that has a majority of its total beverage
PT

alcohol volume in beers whose flavor derives from traditional or innovative brewing ingredients
and their fermentation. In Italy, the word craft is widespread and commonly used with beer but it
CE

has been forbidden to write “birra artigianale” on beer labels since the release of an official craft
beer definition in July 2016. The Italian Senate gave a final and affirmative vote to the “Collegato
AC

Agricoltura” bill, which - among other things - gives a clear definition of what qualifies as craft
beer. Craft beer is defined as the product of a small scale10 and independent11 brewery not subjected
during production to microfiltration and pasteurization. Contrary to what the Brewers Association
defines as craft beer for the US market, this definition neither mentions that craft beer must be
brewed from local ingredients nor restricts the use of adjuncts or additives but agrees on the
independency of craft brewers from large-scale corporate brewers and on the small size of the

10
Small brewery shall mean a brewery that produces less than 200,000 hl of beer annually.
11
Independent brewery shall mean a brewery which is legally and economically independent of any other brewery that
uses premises situated physically apart from those of any other brewery and does not operate under license.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

brewer. Whatever the differences in the final craft beer definition across brewing cultures, this study
offers a clear picture of what is and isn‟t craft beer and intercepted effectively and meaningfully the
main dimensions that constitute a craft beer according to mainstream Italian beer consumers.
In ordinary beer consumers‟ opinion, craft beer is a well differentiated product that
distinguish itself from industrially brewed beers largely available on the Italian market primarily
because of their unique, rich and composite sensory profile, secondarily because of the list of
ingredients (local origin) that may extend its range to include unconventional ingredients and
thirdly because of small-scale production not subjected to pasteurization and filtration. As a result,

PT
consumers and lawmakers demonstrated to have similar ideas as to what constitutes craft beer but
also to have different priorities regarding the conceptual dimensions of this product. Consumers‟

RI
perception of what defines a craft beer tends to congeal around flavour, production and ingredients

SC
whereas the legislator is more focused on production and brewer and omits to specify whether craft
beer must be brewed from locally grown raw materials.
NU
Similarly to our results, Gómez-Corona et al. (2016) found out that industrial beer
consumers identify craft beers with the words flavour and tasty whereas a Mintel 2016‟ survey
reported that a unique flavour was the most widely used citation by British consumers to define an
MA

alcoholic drink brand as „craft‟. Other citations made by Britons included a brand using high quality
ingredients, one that takes more time or care in production, and one that produces drinks in small
volumes – for instance a microbrewer. High quality ingredients and small remain top of mind
D

dimensions also for Italians, even though only a small proportion of our respondents believe that a
E

craft brewer takes more care and none of them more time in production. Important to note is that
PT

over 28 % agreed that brands cannot be „craft‟ if they get too large in size because CB is a niche
product intended for a beer connoisseur but, regrettably, the maximum acceptable amount of beer
CE

produced by a craft brewer was not defined by the consumers. Rather, it was left up to the
interpretation of whoever is using the term since the right amount may be a subjective
AC

determination based on each individual perception.

It is also important to note that in consumer opinion CB incorporates dimensions of
geographic proximity but contrary to local or traditional foods CB does not incorporate dimensions
of social and economy proximity as well as of personal proximity between producer and consumer.
Social proximity is sporadically cited and not in its broadest meaning including trustful relations
between a brewer and consumers on the basis of solidarity, civic engagement in local feed system
or in sustaining local commitments but refers only, and indirectly, to the recognition with local agri-
food system. Further, no examples of economic and personal proximity were mentioned by
consumers and craft brewing is not perceived as a mean to make money circulate within a
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

community, to support local market exchanges and to communicate with or direct selling to
consumers for its ability to engender some forms of connection between consumers and brewers. .
Local ingredients are of upmost importance in defining craft beer geographic proximity12
since they constitute the sole, yet relevant, resource for consumers to make connections and
associations with the society and territory involved in agreement with Marsden et al., 2000, and to
experience the memorable qualities of the place where craft breweries are established. However,
little is known on the definition of local ingredients referred to distance from brewer to farmer
because the consumers do not give a precise classification of local in terms of geographical distance

PT
(i.e. a radius of specified distance, a region, or a smaller area within a region). Local ingredients
represent a clear alternative to the global food model embodied by large corporate scale brewers, a

RI
model which often sees raw materials travelling long distances (the consumers believe that raw

SC
materials used by big brewing companies are often imported from abroad) before it reaches the
producer. Shortness of the supply chain is an element of distinction of craft beer and is seen as a
NU
measure of the geographical distance between the brewer and raw material suppliers but not as a
result of the reduced number of intermediaries which may put brewers and consumers into a more
direct contact and closer sort of relationship. It does not guarantee cost saving solutions for
MA

consumers or makes it easier for consumers to know where the ingredients come from, say, makes
beer more traceable or reduces food transport creating environmental and social benefits.
D

Unfortunately, this connection with the farmer does not assign value to the seasonability of crops
and CB brewers‟ production and neither it is a strategy to connect the brewers with tourism and
E

feed supply sector despite short supply chains are particularly suited to the high fragmented nature
PT

of agricultural production in Italy and to the promotion of the wide range of food specialties which
are closely linked to the diversity of the Italian territory. Even though CB incorporates to a certain
CE

extent the concept of locality and territory closeness, the idea of cultural identity and food heritage
are scarcely embedded and our panel do not consider craft beer and food pairing a common
AC

consumption ritual. Much like pairing wine with cheese or a meal, different styles of beer
complement different types of food (Donadini, Spigno, Fumi, & Pastori, 2008; Donadini, Fumi, &
Lambri, 2013; Donadini, Fumi, & Newby-Clark, 2014), and craft breweries and restaurants offer

12
The consumers do not consider craft beer as an example of local food probably because craft beer is a recently
established business within a mature highly concentrated beer industry and does not combine the local dimension
derived from its ingredients to a product that is historically rooted in the Italian food culture and is brewed according to
processes that originated from the most traditional Italian craftsmanship. Therefore consumers‟ conceptualization of CB
of this study does not match with one of the most popular definition of local/traditional food found in literature
(Guerrero et al. 2010) according to which European consumers perceive traditional food product as a “product
frequently consumed or associated with specific celebrations and/or seasons, normally transmitted from one generation
to another, made accurately in a specific way according to the gastronomic heritage, with little or no
processing/manipulation, distinguished and known because of its sensory properties and associated with a certain local
area, region or country”.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

suggestions in pairing beer with food. However, mainstream beer consumers seem not to care about
pairing food with beer since they mainly drink beer for its functional properties and not for its
symbolic and experience-delivering attributes.
Opposite to craft beer, industrially brewed beers are viewed as utilitarian convenient
products being cheap and affordable drinks largely available to and easily accessible for consumers.
As a result of an industrial process, beers brewed by large-scale corporate breweries are
manufactured in such a way that everything is quantified, measured and automated as much as
possible. Therefore, industrial beers are standardized, consistent pasteurized and filtered drinks.

PT
They are durable, devoid of taste defects and food safety concerns due to the application of a
rigorous QC systems, but are transformed into a hardly identifiable objects deprived of any identity.

RI
Being de-territorialized, de-seasonalised and de-traditionalised industrial beer has to re-establish

SC
and tell the story of origin, preparation and identity through certification processes and labels. Put
simply, in consumers‟ view industrial brewing eliminates from the beer system any locality and
NU
seasonal constraints separating the consumers from its familiarity to places of production and
production techniques.
MA

5. CONCLUSIONS
D

The results of this study provided data that can estimate the perceived value of any
E

combination of the selected attributes that influenced consumer‟s interest towards craft beer.
PT

Most important attributes have been identified and utilities attached to each level of these attributes
have been predicted. A realistic picture of consumers‟ response to changes in attribute levels has
CE

been given.
The results of this study showed that Italian consumers placed greatest importance on type
AC

of container and on brewing technology whereas the least importance of all is attached to
brewhouse equipment and to location of the brewery. As far as utilities are concerned, glass bottle
+ crown cap and microfiltration were the utilities that most increased the interest of consumers.
They were followed by local grains, stainless steel keg and monastery. In contrast, PET Keg,
unfiltered, aluminum can and large-scale corporate brewery showed the greatest negative impact on
interest.
Hierarchy of attribute importance revealed a broad agreement on the level of importance
(low vs. high) attributed to the same CB attribute by males and females. However, brewers must
take into account that males and females can attach different utilities to the same attribute level
under study. This is so for example for the level spontaneous fermentation (utilities of different
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

magnitude and algebraic sign between genders), PET keg and retail price > 5.01 Euros (utilities of
same algebraic sign but of different magnitude between genders).
These findings assist brewers in understanding consumers‟ attitude towards CB and in
translating consumer needs, wants and expectations into manufacturing designed to produce the
best possible, cost-competitive, widely accepted product in a relatively short period. From a
managerial perspective, the results obtained in this study help beer brewers to identify the most
important factors influencing consumers‟ decision-making process of choosing a CB. They
highlight the distribution channels preferred by mainstream consumers and their ideal price for a

PT
CB. Also, they shed light into consumers‟ attitude towards brewing technology, ingredient
formulation, packaging material selection and sealing solutions that can affect consumers‟

RI
expectations about the product and the utilitarian value of it. These findings assist brewers to

SC
promote their products by partially changing product characteristics, distribution channels and
marketing and communication strategies in order to meet consumers‟ demands. The applicability of
NU
our findings is not limited to CB only. It is no wonder that the rise of CB has shifted perception
about beer, what it tastes like, looks like, and how it is made and is forcing industrial breweries to
re-examine their strategies to better meet consumers‟ demands. Our findings can assist industrial
MA

brewers in this process by aiding them in the design of pseudo-like craft beers that meet consumers‟
demands.
D

In the current beer market in which large scale corporate breweries are on a buying spree
with acquisition of craft breweries, one big unresolved question arises on whether a craft beer
E

maintain its desirability when a craft-beer company is no longer independent. This is an issue that
PT

requires additional research for an exhaustive answer. However, the fact that our panel penalize a
CB or a pseudo-like craft beer brewed by large scale corporate breweries and distributed through
CE

national retail channels sounds a clear warning bell for the brewing industry since brewer‟s
independence is an important asset to CB.
AC

Literature reports that socio-demographic characteristics (i.e. age and professional status)
and consumption habits influence the probability of beer drinkers to taste craft beer. Therefore
further studies should be carried out to test if and to what extent socio-demographic characteristics
other than gender can bias the perception of CB in order to understand differences in CB quality
perception between demographic cohorts. A focus on age can pave the way to uncover significant
differences between Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Generation Y and Z in the
formulation of CB quality evaluation and aid to address specific demands of various consumers‟
cohorts.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express special thanks to Anna Carabelli, Giuseppe Donadini,
Teresa Franceschini and Lea Leto for their contribution to data collection.

7. REFERENCES

A.C. Nielsen. (2016). Craft beer style preferences start and end with the consumer

PT
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2016/craft-beer-style-preferences-start-and-end-with-
the-consumer.html (accessed November, 2016).

RI
Ahmed, J., Hosahalli, S., Ramaswany, H.S., Kasapis, S., & Boye, J.I. (2009) Novel Food
Processing: Effects on Rheological and Functional Properties, CRC Press, 510 pp.

SC
Ajzen, I., & Fishbain, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: reasoned and
automatic processes. European Review of social Psychology, 11, 1-33.
NU
Alba, J.W., & Hutchinson, J.W. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise, Journal of Consumer
Research, 13(4), 411-454.
MA

Aronsson, J., & Oderich-Linke, M. (2013) Beer is yellow, neither blue nor pink – a study of
segmentation strategy. Available @
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=3909866&fileOId=3909871

ASAP GmbH, Association for Sensory Analysis and Product Development (2003), Mapping the
D

taste of beer. Retrieved from http://www.esn-network.com/635.html.

E

AssoBirra (2012). Annual report 2011, pp. 99.

PT

Retrieved from: http://www.assobirra.it/press/wp-content/ar2012_assobirra1.pdf

AssoBirra (2013). Annual report 2012, Retrieved from:

CE

http://www.assobirra.it/press/wp-content/ar-assobirra-2012-ok.pdf

AssoBirra (2014). Annual report 2013, pp.92.

Retrieved from http://www.assobirra.it/press/wp-content/ar2013-assobirra_03-09.pdf
AC

Aquilani, B., Laureti, T., Poponi, S., & Secondi, L. 2015. Beer choice and consumption
determinants when craft beers are tasted: an exploratory study of consumer preferences, Food
Quality and Preference, 41, 214-224.

Bennet, J., Rolfe, J., & Louviere, J. (2000). Choice modelling and its potential application to
tropical rainforest preservation. Ecological Economics, 35, 289-302.

Berkhout, B., Bertling, L., Bleeker, Y., de Wit, W., Kruis, G., Stokkel, R., & Theuws, R.J., 2013.
The Contribution made by Beer to the European Economy. Full report: December 2013. A report
commissioned by The Brewers of Europe and conducted by Regioplan Policy Research and EY,
pp. 212.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical
Consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 597-608.

Brewers Association (2016). Craft Brewer Defined.

http://www.brewersassociation.org/pages/businesstools/craft-brewing-statistics/craft-brewer-
defined (accessed August, 27, 2016)

Brink, M., Gosepa, S., Geerten, K., Oranje, E., Uyterlinde, M., Berkhout, B. & de Wit, W. (2011).
In “The Brewers of Europe” and “Ernst & Young Tax Advisors” (Eds.), The Contribution made by
Beer to the European Economy (pp. 1–290). Amsterdam.

PT
Brown, E., Dury, S., & Holdsworth, M. (2009). Motivations of consumers that use local, organic
fruit and vegetable box schemes in central England and southern France. Appetite, 53, 183–188

RI
Caporale,G., & Monteleone, E. (2004). Influence of information about manufacturing process on
beer acceptability, Food Quality and Preference, 15 (3), 271–278.

SC
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A., (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer - do ethics matter in purchase
behaviour?. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560 – 578.
NU
Carroll G. R., & Swaminathan A. (2000). Why the microbrewery movement? Organizational
Dynamics of Resource Partitioning in the U.S. Brewing Industry. The American Journal of
Sociology, 106 (3), 715-762.
MA

Costa, A. I. A., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2006). New insights into consumer-led food products
development, Trends in Food Science & Technology, 17, 457-465.

Costell, E., Tárrega, A., & Bayarri, S. (2010). Food Acceptance: The Role of Consumer Perception
D

and Attitudes, Chemosensory Perception, 3(1), 42-50.

E

Daems, V., & Delvaux, F. (1997). Multivariate analysis of descriptive sensory data on 40
PT

commercial beers, Food Quality and Preference, 8, 373–380.

Darby, K., Batte, M. T., Ernst, S., & Roe, B. (2008). Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis of
CE

locally produced foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90, 476–486.

Datamonitor (2010). Beer in Europe (pp. 1–38). Retrieved from: <http://www.datamonitor.com>

AC

Datamonitor (2011). Craft Beers in the US & UK Case Study: How Mainstream Brewers can
Benefit from the Trend Towards Craft Beers (pp. 1–28). Retrieved from:
<http://www.datamonitor.com>

Deliza, R., & MacFie, H.J.H. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its
effect on sensory perception and hedonic rating: a review, Journal of Sensory Studies, 11, 103-128.

Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., & Silva, A.L.S. (2003). Consumer attitude towards information on non
conventional technology. Trends in Food Science & Technology, London, v. 14, n. 1/2, 14, p. 43-
49.

Deliza, R., Rosenthal, A., Hedderley, D., & Jaeger, S.R. (2010). Consumer perception of irradiated
fruit: a case study using choice-based conjoint analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25(2), 184-200.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

nd Beer Pairings with Regular Consumers

Donadini, G., Spigno, G., Fumi, M.D., & Pastori, R. (2008). Evaluation of Ideal Everyday Italian
Food and Beer Pairings with Regular Consumers and Food and Beverage Experts. J. Inst. Brew.
114(4), 329–342.

Donadini, G., & Fumi, M. D. (2010). Sensory mapping of beers on sale in the Italian market,
Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 19-49.

Donadini, G., Fumi, M.D., & Lambri, M. (2013). A preliminary study investigating consumer
preference for cheese and beer pairings, Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 217-228.

PT
Donadini, G., Fumi, M.D., & Newby-Clark, I.R. (2014). An investigation of matches of bottom
fermented red beers with cheeses, Food Research International, 67, 376-389.

RI
Donadini, G., Fumi,M.D., Kordialik-Bogacka, E., Maggi, L., Lambri, M., & Sckokai, P. (2016).
Consumer interest in Specialty Beers in three European markets, Food Research International, 85,
301-314.

SC
Fastigi, M., Esposti, R., Orazi, F., Viganò, E. (2015). The irresistible rise of the craft brewing sector
in Italy: can we explain it? Proceedings 4th AIEAA Conference “Innovation, productivity and
NU
growth: towards sustainable agri-food production, Ancona, Italy. Retrieved from:
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/207271/2/The%20irresistible%20rise%20of%20craft%20bre
weries%20in%20Italy%20magic%20out%20of%20nowhere%20or%20just%20another%20exampl
e%20of%20agro-food%20diversification.pdf
MA

Garvin, D-.A. (1984). What does product quality really mean? Sloan Management Review, 25-43.

Giampietri, E., Finco, A., & Del Giudice, T. (2016). Exploring consumers‟ behaviour towards short
D

food supply chains. British Food Journal, 118(3), 618-631.

E

Gómez-Corona, C., Escalona-Buendía, H.B., García, M., Chollet, S.,and Valentin, D. (2016). Craft
PT

vs. industrial: Habits, attitudes and motivations towards beer consumption in Mexico, Appetite, 96,
358-367.
CE

Gains, N., & Thomson, D. M. H. (1990). Sensory profiling of canned lager beers using consumers
in their own homes, Food Quality and Preference, 2, 39-47.

Green, P.E., & Wind, Y. (1975). New way to measure consumers‟ judgments, Harvard Business
AC

Review, 53(4), 107-117.

Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook,
Journal of Consumer Research, 5, l03-l23.

Grunert, K.G., Bredhal, L., & Scholderer, J. (2003). our questions on European consumers‟
attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production, Innovative ood Science &
Emerging Technologies, 4 (4), 435-445.

Grunert, K.G. (2005). Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand, European Review
of Agricultural Economics, 32 (3), 369–391.

Grunert, K. G., Jensen, B. B., Sonne, A., Brunsø, K., Byrne, D. V., Clausen, C., Friis, A., Holm, L.,
Hyldig, G., Kristensen, N. H., Lettl, C., & Scholderer, J. (2008). User-oriented innovation in the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

food sector: Relevant streams of research and an agenda for future work, Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 19, 590-602.

Grunert, K.G. (2011). Sustainability in the Food Sector: A Consumer Behaviour Perspective.
International Journal of Food System Dynamics, 2(3), 2011, 207-218

Guinard, J-X., Uotani, B., Mazzucchelli, R., Taguchi, A., Masuoka, S., & Fujino, S. (2000)
Consumer Testing of Commercial Lager Beers in Blind Versus Informed Conditions: Relation With
Descriptive Analysis and Expert Quality Ratings, Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 106 (1), 11–
20.

PT
Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS). (2016). Average weekly alcohol consumption by age and sex.
Available at: http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Consumption/Factsheets/Drinking-
patterns-and-trends.aspx. Accessed October, 2016.

RI
International Food Information Council Foundation. 2011 Food & health survey. Consumer
attitudes toward food safety, nutrition & health. Available from:

SC
http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=2011_Food_Health_Survey_Consumer_A
ttitudes_Toward_Food_Safety_Nutrition NU
Harrington, R.J., Miszczakii, D.C., & Ottenbacher, M.C. (2008). The impact of beer type, pizza
spiciness and gender on match perceptions, PASOS, 6(2), 173-188.

Hede, A.M., & Watne, T. (2013). Leveraging the human side of the brand using a sense of place:
MA

Case studies of craft breweries. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(1-2), 209-224.

Hennink, M.M. (2007). International Focus Group Research: A Handbook for the Health and Social
Sciences, Cambridge University Press, pp.257.
E D

Keeling Bond, J., Thilmany, D., & Bond, C. (2009). What Influences Consumer Choice of Fresh
Produce Purchase Location?. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1), 61-74
PT

Kleban, J., & Nickerson, I. (2011). To Brew, or Not to Brew-That Is the Question: An Analysis of
Competitive Forces in the Craft Brew Industry. Journal of the International Academy for Case
CE

Studies, 18 (3).

Kleban, J., & Nickerson, I. (2012). The US Craft Brew Industry, International Academy for Case
AC

Studies, 18(1), pp. 33.

Köster, E. P., & Mojet, J. (2007a). Boredom and the reasons why some new food products fail. In
H. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-led food product development (pp 262-280), Cambridge, UK,
Woodhead Publishing Ltd.

Köster, E. P., & Mojet, J. (2007b). Theories of food choice development. In L. Frewer, & H. van
Trijp (Eds.), Understanding consumers of food products (pp. 93–214). Cambridge, Woodhead
Publishing Ltd.

Kraftchick, J.F., Byrd, E.T., Canziani, B., & Gladwell, N.J. (2014). Understanding beer tourist
motivations, Tourist Management Perspectives, 12, 41-47.

Mäkiniemi, J.P., Pirttilä-Backman, A.M., & Pieri, M. (2011). Ethical and unethical food. Social
representations among Finnish, Danish and Italian students. Appetite, 56(2), 495-502.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Manzi, T. (2012). Pionieri si nasce, non si diventa!. Fermento Birra, 1, 4-6.

McLaughlin, R.B., Reid, N., & Moore, M.S. (2014). The ubiquity of good taste: A spatial analysis
of the craft brewing industry in the United States. In: In: M.Patterson and N. Hoast-Pullen (eds.)
The Geography of Beer, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 131-154.

Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook.
SAGE Publications, pp.408.

Moskowitz, H.R., Porretta, S., & Silcher, M.A. (2005). Concept Research in Food Product Design
and Development. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 612 pp.

PT
Mejlholm, O., & Martens, M. (2006). Beer identity in Denmark, Food Quality and Preference, 17,
108-115.

RI
Peters, E., Klein, W., Kaufman, A., Meilleur, L., & Dixon, A. (2013). More Is Not Always Better:

SC
Intuitions About Effective Public Policy Can Lead to Unintended Consequences. Social Issues
Policy Review, 7 (1), pp.29.

Porretta, S., & Donadini, G. (2008). A Preference Study for No Alcohol Beer in Italy Using
NU
Quantitative Concept Analysis, Journal of the Institute of Brewing, 114(4), 315–321.

Ravelli, G., & Pedrini, M. (2015). Osservatorio ALTIS – UNIONBIRRAI sul segmento della birra
MA

artigianale in Italia: Rapporto 2015, pp 17.

Reid, N., McLaughlin, R. B., & Moore, M. S. (2014). From yellow fizz to big biz: Amercian craft
beer comes of age. Focus on Geography, 57, 114-125
D

Savastano, S. (2011). Microbrewing – A Renaissance in Italian Beer Production? Oral presentation,

E

Symposium Beeronomics: The Economics of Beer and Brewing, Davis, California, USA. available
at http://aic.ucdavis.edu/cwe/Savastano.pdf
PT

Schnell, S.M., & Reese, J.F. (2003). Microbreweries as tools of local identity, Journal of Cultural
Geography, 21(1), 45-69.
CE

Schnell, S.M., & Reese, J.F. (2014).Microbreweries place an identity in the United States. In:
M.Patterson and N. Hoast-Pullen (eds.) The Geography of Beer, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 167-187.
AC

Solér, C. (2012). Conceptualizing Sustainably Produced Food for Promotional Purposes: A

Sustainable Marketing Approach. Sustainability, 4(3), 290-340.

Sparke K., Menrad, K. (2011). Food consumption style determines food product innovations'
acceptance, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(2), 125 – 138.

Spigno, G., Donadini, G., Fumi, M. D., & Pastori, P. (2005). Indagine di mercato sui criteri di
acquisto di birre lager in Italia. In: Ricerche e innovazioni nell‟industria alimentare, Volume VII, S.
Porretta, eds., pp 142-146, Chiriotti Editore: Torino.

Stefani, G., Rocchi, B., Gioia, M., & Cavicchi, A. (2006). La disponibilità a pagare dei consumatori
per le caratteristiche di tipicità. In B. Rocchi & D. Romano (Eds.), Tipicamente buono. Concezioni
di qualità lungo la filiera dei prodotti agroalimentari in Toscana (pp. 51–73). Franco Angeli.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The Brewers of Europe. (2014). Beer Statistics – 2014 edition. pp.32.

Tregear, A., & Ness, M. (2005). Discriminant analysis of consumer interest in buying locally
produced foods. Journal of Food Marketing, 21, 19–35.

Tremblay, V. J. & Tremblay, C. H. (2005). The U.S. Brewing Industry: Data and Economic
Analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Van Trijp, H. C. M., & Van Kleef, E. (2008). Newness, value and new product performance, Trends
in Food Science & Technology, 19, 562-573.

PT
Westenhoefer, J. (2005). Age and gender dependent profile of food choice. Forum of Nutrition, 57,
44-51.

RI
SC
Figure 1: Relative attribute importance (light blue bars = overall sample; black bars = females; grey
bars = males). Goodness of fit of the models: overall samples = 0.98; males = 0.96; females = 0.97;
NU
all models p < 0.001)
MA

Figure 2: Utility values for the aggregate panel.

Figure 3: Utility values for males and females.

E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
Figure 1
MA
DE
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Figure 2
DE
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA

Figure 3
DE
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Type of Brewery: Characterizing raw materials:

Microbrewery; brewpub; monastery; agri Local ecotypes of fruits or heritage fruits or

(agricultural) brewery; large-scale a mix of the two; local grains or heritage
corporate brewery. grains or a mix of the two; Locally grown
spices, herbs and vegetables.
Brewing technology:
Brewhouse equipment:
Unfiltered; unpasteurized; spontaneous
Modern; Historical.
fermentation; microfiltration; bottle
conditioning.

PT
Where to buy:
Location of the brewery:
In the mountains; in the hills; in a flatland. Exclusively by the producer; beershop; pub;

RI
restaurant; supermarket.

SC
Type of container: Retail price (0.5 liter):

Glass bottle + crown cap; glass bottle + < 3.50 Euros; 3.51 to 5.00 Euros;5.01 to
NU
Champagne cork; plastic (PET) keg; 7.50 Euros.
stainless steel keg; can.
MA

Tab.1. Attributes and their levels. Please note that the following texting abbreviations are used in
this paper: by the brewer (exclusively by the brewer), local fruits (local ecotypes of fruits or
heritage fruits or a mix of the two); local grains (local grains or heritage grains or a mix of the two);
D

spices, herbs and vegetables (locally grown spices, herbs and vegetables); l.s.c. brewery (large-scale
corporate brewery).
E
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Brewpub A restaurant or a pub that sells Microbrewery A small brewery that brews beer
beverages brewed on the on the premises and distributes
premises. most of its production off-site. It
consists of small production
plants and employs relatively few
workers. Production is limited in
volume (a few hundred
hectoliters to a few thousand
hectoliters per year).
Monastery A place where monks live, work Unfiltered Most beers are filtered after

PT
together and brew beers on the fermentation with the objective to
premises. Beer is brewed by the obtain a clear beer without
monks themselves or under their turbidity. On the contrary,
supervision. unfiltered beer refers to any ales

RI
or lagers in which the sediment
left over from the brewing
process has not been removed.

SC
These beers are intentionally
served turbid.
Large-scale An industrial brewery that brews Unpasteurized Unpasteurized beer refers to any
NU
corporate brewery beer on the premises. It consists beer that does not undergo
of a large production plant pasteurization, say an exposure to
(hundreds of thousands of an elevated temperature (usually
hectoliters) and employs equals to 65°C) for a sufficient
MA

hundreds of people period of time.

Agricultural An agricultural brewery Plastic (PET) keg A 20L plastic (PET) keg
Brewery (Ministerial Decree n. 212/2010) (approximate weight < 500g).
is a brewery that primarily brews The beer keg (barrel) is filled
its beer on a farm. Crops and with ready-to-drink beer in a
D

other ingredients grown on the process that allows no oxygen to

farm, such as barley, wheat, rye, enter the keg. No carbon dioxide
E

hops, herbs, spices, and fruits are is required to pour beer. Without
used in the beers brewed (at least oxygen the process of decay has
PT

51% of the total or 70% of the no nourishment and the beer

total for a beer to be registrable stays fresh. When the waiter
under birragricola classification). pours the beer the keg is
It is similar in concept to a compressed from the outside
CE

vineyard growing grapes to make leaving no room for surplus

wine at the vineyard. oxygen which in a totally natural
way keeps the beer in fresh
“brewery quality”. PET keg
AC

increases beer freshness and

removes the need to use CO2,
with an environmental impact
that is almost half that of the
traditional product (i.e. stainless
steel keg).
Bottle-conditioned Spontaneous Refers to any beer that is
Some beers undergo a
fermentation naturally fermented via wild,
fermentation in the final
airborne yeast . No yeast is added
container, be it a bottle or a keg.
by the brewers.
Bottle-conditioned beers are
added with a viable yeast
population. If there is no residual
fermentable sugar left, sugar may
be added.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Stainless steel Keg A 25L stainless steel vessel. Microfiltration Most beers are filtered after
approx. weight 8 kilos fermentation with the objective to
obtain a clear beer without
turbidity. Microfiltration refers to
a clarification process by means
of membrane filtration. The
membrane used in this process is
a porous fiber with a pore size
smaller than the yeast cells and
haze particle.
Local ecotypes of Refers to a craft beers brewed Local grains or Refers to a craft beer brewed
fruits or heirlooms from local ecotypes of fruits or heritage grains or a from local grains or from heritage

PT
fruits or a mix of from heirlooms fruits or from a mix of the two grains or from a mix of the two.
the two mix of the two.
Locally grown Refers to a craft beers brewed Exclusively by the Consumers can buy the beer

RI
spices, herbs and from locally grown spices, herbs producer exclusively by the producer, be it
vegetables and vegetables. a brewing industry, a brewpub, a
microbrewery or a monastery.

SC
Beershop Consumers can buy the beer Pub + Supermarket Consumers can buy the beer
exclusively at a beershop, say, a + Restaurant exclusively at a supermarket, at a
retail store where beer and other pub or at a restaurant.
NU
goods related to beer are sold.

Tab.2 Attribute level definitions presented to consumers

MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CRAFT BEER (CB) % INDUSTRIAL BEER (IB) %

Flavor: The flavour of CB is rich, intense, 37.50 Cheap and affordable: Industrial beer is a 40.18
composite, and characterized by unusual notes. cheap and affordable drink. IB is less expensive
than CB.

Small scale: Craft breweries are small scale 28.57 Standardized & consistent. The use of 33.93
enterprises and do not have high volume of sale. standardized recipes and processes ensures that
Craft beers are produced in small batches. IB will be consistent in quality each time they
are brewed and consumed.

PT
Local ingredients: Craft beer is brewed from 28.57 Available & accessible: IB is brewed in large 29.46
local raw materials that can be produced directly batches. IB is readily available and distributed
by the brewer. by large retail chains that make IB easily
accessible to everyone.

RI
Unpasteurized: Craft beer is not pasteurized. 22.32 Modern & automated plants: IB is brewed in 23.21

SC
fully automated modern plants. Modern
technologies are employed by brewers. R&D
plays a relevant role in product development.
NU
Premium ingredients: Craft beer is brewed 15.18 Pasteurized: IB are usually pasteurized. 17.86
from high quality ingredients.

Unfiltered: Craft beer is not filtered. 15.18 Filtered: IB are usually filtered to remove haze. 17.86
MA

Additive-free: Craft beer does not contain any 14.29 Quality control: The quality of finished IB and 14.29
chemical additives. all factors involved in production are
extensively reviewed. This ensures consistency
and high standards quality.
D

Sold in specific outlets only: Craft beer is sold 11.61 Large scale retail channels: IB are distributed 14.29
E

in dedicated outlets. Craft beer is neither and sold via large scale retail channels such as
distributed nor sold by mass retail chain. supermarkets and hypermarket.
PT

Natural and genuine: A beer actually having the 11.61 Hygiene: Industrial brewers maintain high beer 14.29
reputed or apparent qualities and being not safety and hygiene standards
extensively manufactured.
CE

Heirloom grains: Craft beer shall be brewed 10.71 Tasteless: IB is a bland tasteless lager light in 08.04
from old grain cultivars that are maintained by color and body, mild in flavor.
farmers, particularly in isolated or ethnic
AC

minority communities. These may have been

commonly grown during earlier periods in
human history, but are not used in modern large-
scale agriculture

High price: Craft beer comes at a higher price 10.71

than industrially made beer

Low Availability & accessibility: CB are not 08.04

made largely available and easily accessible to
consumers.

For a niche market: Craft beer has a special 08.93

appeal and pertains to or is intended for a market
niche.

Spontaneously and naturally fermented: No 07.14

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

definition of spontaneous or natural fermentation

have been given by our respondents in open-
ended questions.

Unconventional ingredients: Craft beer is 07.14

brewed from unconventional raw materials that
are not used by large-scale corporate breweries.

Other citations: for passionate beer drinkers, brewed Other citations: low quality, longer shelf life than CB,
from organic raw materials, in glass container only, canned, yellow in color, watery, low alcohol, carrying
unsafe to drink, forming much head, forming thick head, familiar flavors, in glass + crown cap, extensively
crafted and not extensively manufactured, higher quality manufactured, stable, brewed from imported raw
than that of IB, high alcohol content, brewed with care, materials.

PT
mashing liquors are produced in historical brewhouses,
not safe to drink, off-flavors may occur.

RI
Tab.3: Craft beer dimensions vs. industrial beer dimensions. % of citations by consumers. Citations
per type of beer are significantly different at p < 0.0001 according to chi-square test.

SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Graphical abstract

PT
RI
SC
NU
MA
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

This study explored consumers‟ interest for CB in Italy.

Glass bottle + crown cap, microfiltration and local grains have the most positive effect on interest.

PET Keg, can and large-scale corporate brewery have the most negative effect on interest.

Men and women are similar in their interest for craft beer.

PT
Men differ from the preferences of women for a few attribute levels only.

RI
SC
NU
MA
E D
PT
CE
AC