PurposeExploratory research was conducted in a well‐known Australian wine region to determine the differences in the behaviour dynamics and sensory preferences of consumer groups. The overall aim is to gain some insights into the product style preferences of consumers and what this means in practical terms to wine product marketing.Design/methodology/approachInformation was obtained from a random sample of 150 visitors to ten wineries in the Yarra Valley wine region in Australia. Data were collected by means of self‐administration surveys using a highly structured questionnaire at each of the winery tasting room venues.FindingsSpecific differences exist in the wine consumption behaviour and sensory preferences of males and females and between generational cohorts, specifically Millennial and older consumers. Females drink less wine than males, spend less thereon but tend to “compensate” for this by buying higher priced wine per bottle, which could represent a risk‐reduction strategy. Females are noticeably higher than their male counterparts in white wine consumption, showing a preference for a sweeter wine style at a young age, and reported a strong preference for medium body style wines over light and full‐bodied wines. From a sensory preference viewpoint, fruit tastes and aromas are by far the most important, especially among females, as are vegetative characters, wood/oak, and mouth‐feel characters. More males, on the other hand, preferred the aged characters of wine.Research limitations/implicationsIt is possible to target wine consumers in accordance with their gender and lifecycle stage as far as the sensory and certain behavioural aspects of the product are concerned. However, this should not be oversimplified and drive product marketing strategies in the wrong direction.Originality/valueThis study is of value to academic researchers, wine industry practitioners and other wine distribution channel members alike, as it provides insights into consumer behaviour differences and one of the core tangible aspects of a wine product, namely the sensory preferences of consumers.

In an ideal world, appropriate pharmacoeconomic evidence would be collected to meet the needs of the local reimbursement environment. Unfortunately, due to clinical research limitations and time constraints, we are often faced with a lack of the necessary data. OBJECTIVE: Using an anti‐infective as our case study, we present an approach that we developed to overcome the challenge of creating an economic argument for Canadian hospital setting in the absence of country‐specific data. METHODS: Our methodology involved a multi‐step approach: (i) hospital formulary committee members were consulted to identify the submission requirements; (ii) a panel of experts were surveyed to understand local treatment patterns; (iii) the survey results were used in a case modeling exercise to determine the applicability of the randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocol to the Canadian environment; and (iv) a chart review was undertaken to validate results of the case modeling exercise. RESULTS: Hospital formulary committees preferred Canadian‐specific evidence of a new product's economic value. Committee members were generally unfamiliar with pharmacoeconomic concepts and preferred that a complicated economic model not be used. Results of the expert survey indicated that there are important differences between the RCT protocol and Canadian treatment patterns. These differences include restrictive inclusion/exclusion criteria, an excess of protocol‐driven tests and procedures, and treatment strategies that are not necessarily reflective of real‐life. The case modeling exercise allowed for a structured method to hypothesize on the real‐world impact of the product. An ongoing chart review will be used to confirm these hypotheses. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that issues surrounding the absence of country‐specific data will continue to plague researchers for the foreseeable future. Use of this multi‐step approach provides a rigorous method for making conclusions in the absence of locally acquired evidence.