The interrelationship of family identities, personalities, and expressions on family winery websites

Abstract

Purpose

Family businesses feature prominently in economies, including the South African wine industry, using websites to convey their family identity. This research paper aims to explore the family identity elements that family wineries use on their websites, their alignment and how these are communicated online.

Design/methodology/approach

Based on Gioia’s methodology, a two-pronged approach was used to analyze 113 wineries’ websites’ text using Atlas. ti from an interpretivist perspective.

Findings

South African wineries use corporate identity, corporate personality and corporate expression to illustrate their familiness on their websites. It is portrayed through their family name and heritage, supported by their direction, purpose and aspirations, which emerge from the family identity and personality. These are dynamic and expressed through verbal and visual elements. Wineries described their behaviour, relevant competencies and passion as personality traits. Sustainability was considered an integral part of their brand promise, closely related to their family identity and personality, reflecting their family-oriented philosophy. These findings highlight the integration that exists among these components.

Practical implications

Theoretically, this study proposes a family business brand identity framework emphasising the centrality of familiness to its identity, personality and expression. Using websites to illustrate this familiness is emphasised with the recommendation that family businesses leverage this unique attribute in their identity to communicate their authenticity.

Originality/value

This study contributes to understanding what family wineries communicate on their websites, specifically by examining the elements necessary to create a family business brand based on the interrelationship between family identity, personality and expression with familiness at its core, resulting in a proposed family business brand identity framework.

Citation

Berndt, A. and Meintjes, C. (2023), "The interrelationship of family identities, personalities, and expressions on family winery websites", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 752-773. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2021-3751

1. Introduction

Family businesses are the backbone of private industry and have gained political and consumer attention (Andersson et al., 2018) because of their positive economic contribution (Obermayer et al., 2022). Communicating the identity of a family business produces positive consumer responses (Schellong et al., 2019; Shen and Tikoo, 2021), including positive perceptions, increased loyalty and improved business performance (Simões et al., 2005). The family business’s identity is an asset because it supports the family firm’s positioning (Alonso‐Dos‐Santos et al., 2019), capturing the consumer’s attention as a necessary first step in the purchasing decision process (Van Loo et al., 2015).

Family businesses, where one or more family members are involved in management (Litz, 1995), are typical in the wine industry, and many have a long tradition of producing wine (Gallucci et al., 2015; Vrontis et al., 2016). Family wineries exhibit a strong connection between the family and the wine produced, reflecting family values and traditions (Bresciani et al., 2016). The family winery identity offers family organisations the opportunity to commercialise their products using their corporate identity (CI), corporate personality (CP) and corporate expression (CE) for competitive advantage (Gallucci et al., 2015) thereby using family business identity communication (Bettinelli et al., 2022). The family element of the business essence (e.g. identity and personality) is pivotal to the formal and informal communication (expression) of the “familiness” and family involvement in the business (Lude and Prügl, 2018, p. 121). Familiness encompasses the idiosyncratic bundle of resources held by a family business. The notion of familiness draws on the resource-based view that the brand must be valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable (i.e. authentic) (Mingione et al., 2019; Vallaster and Lechner, 2022) and non-substitutable to be a source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). As wine sales are increasingly competitive (Strickland et al., 2013; Vrontis et al., 2011), familiness and family involvement can provide a source of competitive advantage for family businesses (Soler et al., 2017).

Serving as the empirical context, in 2020, the South African wine industry produced 898 million litres of wine and was ranked eighth on the international list of wine producers (Top Wine SA, 2021a). The sector employs 265,000 people and generates export revenue for South Africa (Schutz, 2021). Although the recent pandemic shut down these industries, exports recovered to levels similar to those in 2019 by the end of 2020. Furthermore, family businesses are the leading ownership form in the South African economy. They are internationally described as ubiquitous (De Massis and Rondi, 2020), impacting entrepreneurial and economic growth (Botero et al., 2018; Maguire et al., 2013). Consequently, South African wineries present a unique and relevant research context (Faraoni et al., 2020).

Traditional (e.g. print) and new media (e.g. websites and social media) are used in family businesses’ marketing communication strategies to build and differentiate their brands. One form of new media used by family wineries is websites. Websites are significant because they can be used for online sales and to convey family heritage and the nature of the family business (Blombäck and Ramírez-Pasillas, 2012; Canziani et al., 2020; Strickland et al., 2013). Studies conducted by Strickland et al. (2013) and Canziani et al. (2020) highlight the importance of the perceptual component, namely, what external stakeholders think about an organisation as depicted on their websites as suggested by Botero et al. (2013).

The family story is presented on these web pages, including the nature of the business and family history, thereby promoting their identity and values (Canziani et al., 2020; Strickland et al., 2013). Previous research has examined how family wineries use their family heritage to actively promote and market their business (Köhr et al., 2019; Paunovic et al., 2022) as it impacts the sales of the wine (Strickland et al., 2013).

Research into family business branding is described as being in “its infancy” (Shen and Tikoo, 2021, p. 945), with research into family businesses in the wine sector being “practically non-existent” (Soler et al., 2017, p. 67). Branding is important in the wine industry (Vrontis et al., 2011), and wineries tend to follow different strategies to communicate their brand (Micelotta and Raynard, 2011). Because organisations like family businesses use websites to build and communicate their brand, they determine the identity aspects presented online and the elements included on the website as the senders of the message. The unique research context (Faraoni et al., 2020) and the extent of family ownership in this industry (Vrontis et al., 2016) provide research opportunities into the brand identity elements (Faraoni et al., 2020), their alignment and how these are communicated online.

Some authors (Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Hatch et al., 2008; Iglesias and Ind, 2020; Mingione et al., 2019; Pranjal and Sarkar, 2020) have explored the alignment between brand identity elements such as vision, culture, values, purpose, identity, image and practices, with a limited focus on family wineries. Thus, this research explores the family identity elements and the relationship among these elements used by family wineries on their websites. This study identifies these family identity elements and how they are communicated online on websites. Moreover, the study contributes to understanding identity from a sender’s perspective (i.e. family wineries) by identifying what is communicated (Florin Samuelsson and Nordqvist, 2007).

The paper presents the theory associated with identity and the use of websites. After that, the qualitative methodology using a content analysis of the current websites of 113 family wineries in South Africa is discussed. This is followed by the findings and a discussion of the implications (theoretical and practical) accruing from the study.

2. Literature review

2.1 Introducing corporate identity, corporate personality and corporate expression

Numerous authors have researched CI and its elements (Balmer, 2001a; Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Melewar, 2003; Melewar et al., 2018; Suvatjis et al., 2012; Urde, 2013) with varied viewpoints, perspectives and terminologies (Balmer, 2001a; Devereux et al., 2020). These diverse views result in a lack of agreement on a universally accepted definition of CI (Devereux et al., 2020; Kitchen et al., 2013; Melewar, 2003). A summary of these viewpoints is presented in Table 1. Broad categories associated with CI, CP and CE and the most important concepts or characteristics related to each are presented.

Based on this previous research presented in Table 1, the following interrelated aspects served as the focus of the study: CI, CP and CE. CI can be viewed as everything the organisation says, makes or does (Balmer, 2017), comprising elements that give it “its distinctiveness” (Balmer, 2001a, p. 254) and a source of competitive advantage (Balmer and Podnar, 2021; Roper and Fill, 2012). For the purpose of this study, Balmer’s (2013, p. 725) perspective is adopted, which holds that CI is the “innate characteristics that define and differentiate an organisation”. CI is viewed as what the organisation is, reflecting its character (Balmer, 1995; Hatch and Schultz, 1997) and enabling it to deliver its brand promise (Balmer and Podnar, 2021). The human characteristics that form this character are considered the CP (Greyser and Urde, 2019). CI is used to build the corporate brand (Balmer, 2001a) linked to the CP (Melewar et al., 2018; Olutayo Otubanjo and Melewar, 2007). CE includes all forms of communication, including visual identity, used by an organisation to transmit its uniqueness and create positive associations among the stakeholders (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Roper and Fill, 2012; Tourky et al., 2020). CI, CP and CE are inextricably intertwined (Balmer et al., 2009; de Chernatony and Harris, 2000; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Urde, 2013), with corporate brands developing out of corporate identities (Balmer, 2001a; Balmer, 2012).

2.1.1 Corporate identity

CI is visible in the organisation’s products and services (Bick et al., 2003), creating the corporate brand (Balmer, 2001b), thus being inseparable (Balmer and Podnar, 2021). The corporate brand reflects organisational values to its stakeholders (Uggla, 2006), influencing its image and reputation (Balmer, 1998; Blombäck and Ramírez-Pasillas, 2012). CI includes a strategic mission and vision, strategy as a reflection of its philosophy, and core values. The mission, vision and values indicate the organisation’s direction, purpose and inspiration (Melewar et al., 2018), reflecting the “aspirations for the company” (Hatch and Schultz, 2001, p. 4). It echoes the founder’s personality (Balmer, 2015), which reflects its family heritage. The family’s name is integral to the corporate brand, requiring the management of all associated aspects (Blombäck and Brunninge, 2009). Therefore, similar to Blombäck and Brunninge (2016), Blombäck and Ramírez-Pasillas (2012) and Micelotta and Raynard (2011), we viewed the family as a corporate brand.

2.1.2 Corporate personality

CP addresses the “attitudes and beliefs of those within the organisation” (Balmer, 2001a, p. 256; Balmer, 2015), reflecting human characteristics (Keller and Richey, 2017), character (Urde, 2013) and personality traits (Banerjee, 2016) that give it individuality (Devereux et al., 2020). It includes organisational culture (Abratt, 1989) and employees’ shared values, beliefs and behaviour (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Hatch and Schultz, 1997). It impacts how employees behave within the organisation and interact with external stakeholders, such as customers (Gray and Balmer, 1998). Behaviour reflects what is important to the organisation, thus revealing its identity (Van Riel and Fombrun, 2007). The leader’s philosophy is reflected in the culture (Gray and Balmer, 1998). Consequently, the family business, which is tied to the founding family, impacts the culture and employees’ behaviour. Specific personality traits can be identified in the organisation, including their passion for their products and compassion towards their external stakeholders (Keller and Richey, 2017).

2.1.3 Corporate expression

The term CE encapsulates all the ways its identity can be communicated to stakeholders (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012). This enables the organisation to determine what to say, how much should be said and who should say it (Abratt, 1989; Abratt and Kleyn, 2012), thereby communicating their nature and distinctiveness (Bettinelli et al., 2022; Zanon et al., 2019). The outcome of these questions is reflected in all forms of organisational communication (Balmer, 1998; Melewar et al., 2018), including verbal and visual communication. Visual identity includes visual design aspects, such as the logo, name and colours, and is applied to corporate marketing literature (He and Balmer, 2007; Melewar et al., 2018; Tourky et al., 2020) on corporate websites. Relationships can be viewed as a form of expression, as relationships involve sharing information and creating connections. Without communication, diverse relationships cannot be developed (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998). CE often develops around the founder, which in this case is the family (Balmer, 2001a), while also presenting the promise, a key building block of communication to the stakeholders (Holtzhausen, 2021; Van Riel and Fombrun, 2007). CE influences an organisation’s personality, including culture and behaviour (Olutayo Otubanjo and Melewar, 2007; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997), and as it is based on the CI of the organisation, it requires alignment between these concepts (Balmer and Podnar, 2021).

2.1.4 The interaction between corporate identity, corporate personality and corporate expression

The preceding discussion indicates an interrelationship between CI, CP and CE, with all three influencing the development of the corporate brand. Similarly, family brands can be seen to develop from the interaction of these elements. These identity elements are determined and implemented by the family and thus reflect the unique nature and purpose of the family wineries. They influence how the family and the business are perceived by various stakeholders (Greyser and Urde, 2019), which can contribute to competitive advantage (Gallucci et al., 2015).

2.2 Family businesses in the wine industry/family wine businesses

Family businesses are common in the wine sector (Georgiou and Vrontis, 2013). The family tradition creates a unique association with the specific wine produced in line with the family winery’s values, symbols and traditions (Vrontis et al., 2016). The family brand – namely, the “set of associations identified with a particular family” (Parmentier, 2011, p. 218) – can positively affect customers’ perceptions (Blombäck and Brunninge (2016). This is especially true because family history and heritage create a competitive advantage (Gallucci et al., 2015) and market influence for the family wine business (Faraoni et al., 2020). Family wine businesses build on resources, such as the family name, family-owned real estate, and family heritage to develop their identity (Pucci et al., 2017; Rovelli et al., 2022; Vrontis et al., 2016). Consequently, family wineries can add symbolic attributes to the products offered, affecting sales growth due to the family association’s symbolic value, particularly relevant in the wine industry (Gallucci et al., 2015). As the winemaker is often a family member, the name serves as a critical branding dimension used at a corporate and product brand level (Gallucci et al., 2015).

2.3 Family identity portrayed through websites

The internet has impacted small businesses, providing customers with information concerning these businesses and their products (wines) (Begalli et al., 2009). As a direct communication channel (Martínez et al., 2019), websites serve several vital functions for wineries, such as providing cost savings, accessibility, niche marketing and partnerships for the wineries by developing involvement, engagement and connection to the winery among a wide range of stakeholders, including consumers, trade and the media (Taylor et al., 2010; Yuan et al., 2004). For customers, a website also serves as the first contact point with the winery (Nowak and Newton, 2008). It must reflect its identity, including its history, wines (and associated awards), tasting information and contact details (Taylor et al., 2010). Features common to wineries are managers’ (and employees’) profiles, maps, stories about the winery and estate and information about nearby tourist attractions (Yuan et al., 2004). For smaller wineries, websites are viewed as affordable (Yuan et al., 2004) and allow them to sell their products online (Vlachvei et al., 2014), making this an attractive communication tool. For family wineries, websites are essential for communicating the family identity (Blombäck and Brunninge, 2009; Blombäck and Brunninge, 2016). Furthermore, websites allow wineries to focus on specific target markets and nurture relationships with stakeholders to promote the complete wine experience.

Website design and content are important considerations (Martínez et al., 2019). Website design contributes to the image and reputation of the winery (Canziani and Welsh, 2016) while creating opportunities to expand its reach and interactivity (Vlachvei et al., 2014). Website content can differ depending on the age and size of the wineries. Wineries linked to the “Old World” (i.e. where traditional winemaking processes are used and more than five generations are involved in the business) highlight their history, usually with a section explicitly mentioning their heritage. In contrast, “New World” wineries, such as South African wineries, tend to be more innovative, as seen in their exploration and experimentation, using extensive and interactive sites to highlight their heritage and stimulate wine sales (Spielmann et al., 2021).

3. Methodology

This research was approached from an interpretivist paradigm to identify the identity elements used by family wineries in South Africa. The focus was on interpreting the text (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) associated with these family wineries using the concepts identified from the wineries’ websites and the literature, as presented in Table 1. A two-pronged approach was adopted. The first consisted of a descriptive analysis in which information about the wineries were captured on an Excel spreadsheet. The second consisted of downloading the text from the websites of the selected wineries.

Because of the study’s exploratory nature, text-based data were collected from the websites of family-owned wineries in the Western Cape. Most of the wine industry in South Africa is located in this region. Data were collected using industry sites identifying 1,048 wine producers (Wine-Searcher, 2021). Using non-probability, purposeful sampling to select the sample, 125 wine cellars – and those with family ownership – were identified from Top Wine SA (2021b).

For the descriptive phase of the research, details on each wine cellar were recorded in Excel, including ownership, size, website address and social media platforms. As the focus of this study was on the wineries’ websites, the “About us”, “Our Story” and “Who we are” sections of each were downloaded and included in the analysis. Only websites with these sections were included in the data set, resulting in 113 websites being analysed (see Appendix for a list of the wine farm websites included in the research).

Gioia’s methodology (Gioia et al., 2013) was adapted for this research. Although it is typically applied in working with interview data specifically following a grounded theory tradition, it was applied in this research as a systematic framework for the website data obtained. Consequently, this research does not attempt grounded theory. Instead, it follows a systematic approach of extracting first-order terms (from website data), followed by second-order theory-centric themes, which were then filtered into overarching theoretical dimensions. Its application resulted in the development of a data structure (Table 2). There were instances where a code group was created because of some codes being closely associated. The names of these are presented in italics in Table 2, together with the frequencies in brackets. Frequencies used in qualitative data presentation are considered quasi-statistics, which are simply counts for better precision. A study that uses such frequencies does not constitute a mixed methods study (Maxwell, 2010). Two independent coders read and reread the 113 usable websites. The Atlas. ti software was used to analyse the selected website texts.

During the first-order analysis (Step 1), the text from the websites was reduced and categorised into manageable numbers and labelled (codes and code groups). Initial concepts were identified and grouped using the content (text) from the wineries’ websites. During this process, linkages were created between the codes and code groups to illustrate whether a code contradicts, influences are the same as is a property of, is associated with, is a cause of or is a part of another code. The symbols associated with each of these relationships are provided in Table 3.

Two indicators highlight how relevant a code is to the data set (groundedness indicated by the letter G) and how many codes are linked to a particular code (density indicated by the letter D). These provide insight into a code’s relevance and relationship with another code.

The second-order analysis is the next step in the research, focusing on the theoretical development of the concepts (Table 1) (Gioia et al., 2013). During this phase, the researcher assumed the role of a knowledgeable agent, relating first-order terms to second-order abstraction, as demonstrated in the discussion at the end of the results section. The aggregate dimensions of these themes were further refined (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991), which then formed the basis of the family business brand identity framework.

All information included in the research is in the public domain, with no ethical implications. The four-dimension criteria created by Lincoln and Guba (1985) were applied to this research. To maintain credibility, credible and reliable data sources were selected, which included the publicly available websites of the selected South African wineries listed on Top Wine SA (2021b). To ensure dependability, a detailed description of the methods used was provided, and an audit trail was established using the Atlas. ti software package to record the data analysis process. For confirmability, two coders coded the same sample of the data. To ensure transferability, purposeful sampling ensured that the study could be replicated using a different sample with the same inclusion criteria. Data saturation was obtained during the analysis.

4. Results

In total, 42 wineries (33.6%) indicate their family nature by including “family” in the winery name, though this was not always carried over in the website address. Some highlight their family connectedness through their name (Beverland, 2006), the brand story (Strickland et al., 2013), and the “people” pages on the site. The “people” page includes a discussion of the contribution of a range of individuals, including employees who tend to be viewed as family members (Canziani et al., 2020). Sixty-seven wineries (53.6%) indicate an establishment date after 1990, limiting how they could appeal to their past. Similar to Beverland (2006) and Maguire et al. (2013), web pages also highlight where the wine is produced and the commitment to products. Moreover, details are presented on the businesses’ sustainability efforts (e.g. environmental sustainability). The findings are presented around the three identity elements identified from the literature, namely CI, CP and CE, focusing on websites.

4.1 Corporate identity

Informed by the literature review, Figure 1, extracted from Atlas. ti, provides an overview of the prevalence of the codes and code groups identified in the data structure, indicating the density and groundedness of each associated with the CI elements.

From Figure 1, it is evident that the portrayal of the family identity associated with the selected wine farms was most prominent, with a groundedness score of 173. Family wineries primarily project their identity on their websites by referring to their family legacy (familiness). For instance, Boplaas Family Vineyards, which was established in 1880, describes its heritage as follows:

The family farming legacy continues at Boplaas, with both my daughters involved in the enterprise and with many longstanding employees’ children working alongside them. Without the sterling efforts of all involved in the vineyard and cellar, our story would be a short one indeed and it is their task to write the next chapter in our journey.

The codes related to the family identity of the family wine farms are legacy (G = 134), family history and ownership (combined G = 38), generations and heritage (combined G = 8), the mission and vision (G = 60), their philosophy (G = 78) as well as their values (G = 9) and goals (G = 4). Family legacy is associated with the quality (G = 151) of the wines produced and awards (G = 66). Some wines are referred to as the flagship wines of specific farms (e.g. Clos Malverne Wine Estate’s “Our story” web page states: “Auret, the flagship wine of the range, is her maiden name, and Seymour’s [the owner’s] middle name”), whereas others’ identities are positioned around their organic nature (G = 38) (e.g. Iona Wine Farm’s “How we farm” web page reveals: “Our vineyards must be alive. We want to make lively wine. For this reason, no synthetic fertilisers are used, no snail pellets and no insecticides. We make all our own compost using biodynamic methods and preparations”) or exclusivity, namely, boutique wines (G = 35) (e.g. the Groot Phesantekraal’s “Our story” page affirms: “Their boutique winery, under the expert management of Etienne Louw of Altydgedacht, soon established a niche for itself in the Durbanville wine valley…”). The wine farms being world-class was mentioned 23 times, while reference was also made to the beauty of the farms.

Family history and ownership are prominently displayed in many family wineries either through a narrative of the history, timelines, or a family tree. Neethlingshof Estate explains its roots as follows:

The history of Neethlingshof Estate spans more than 300 years. In 1692, Willem Barend Lubbe, a German settler, began farming the site he had been granted by Governor of the Cape Simon van der Stel on the Bottelary Hills overlooking False Bay.

This quote illustrates the colonial influence in South Africa and the resultant controversy around land ownership in South Africa (Gebrekidan and Onishi, 2019, 9 March). It further highlights the link to the importance of employees as stakeholders for family wineries in South Africa. The farmworkers are not only employees but play a role in land reform.

The family heritage is displayed on the website in text and through images. Like many of the wines studied, Delheim wines illustrates its family heritage by portraying images of the family on the “Our story” page on its website. The generations in the family are captured in one photo. Another farm, Altydgedacht, uses parts of the family history to showcase the legacy, generation and history associated with the farm identity:

The Parker Family have been the custodians of the farm since 1852, a legacy spanning six generations. George Francis Parker, then aged 19, arrived at the Cape with his family in 1819, with one of the many groups of settlers sent by the English government to the Cape and the Australian colonies. George remained at the Cape to become a merchant and later to acquire the farm, while the rest of the family settled in Australia. His perseverance laid the foundation for a new era for the farm and a 150-year-old ownership.

The identities of family wineries are influenced by their mission and vision (G = 60), which are reflected in their mission statements, goals, values and philosophy statements on their websites. For example, Alheit Vineyard makes the following statement on its website, linking its identity to the location of the vineyard:

Our goals are simple. We want to make wines with a clear sense of Cape identity. We want to show that the Cape’s vinous heritage is worth celebrating and protecting. We love old vineyards. We love dry farming. We love bushvines. We think that “ordinary grapes” are in fact wonderful. We believe that great things are possible here in the Cape, and that we are now just scratching the surface of what can be done.

Other vineyards highlight the desire to build a business “for the next generations” (Almenkerk Wine Estate) or “the beginning of a family legacy” (Thelema Mountain Vineyards), by “harnessing our strong family bond” (Leeuwenkuil Family Vineyards).

Family wine farms mention their philosophy (G = 78) rather than their mission and vision statements (G = 60), with some referring to their values (G = 9) and goals (G = 4). Hartenberg Estate focuses on its philosophy to “leave Hartenberg in a better condition than when we started”, while Imuko Wines claims:

Imbuko Wines envision a Sustainable Wine Company with two core principles of growth and excellence as we strive to consistently produce and deliver service to our stakeholders that meet the international standards and requirements, as well as comply with regulatory and statutory regulations.

One of the themes with the most mentions relates to competency. Wine farms have a strong focus on the quality of their work (G = 151), the awards they win (G = 66) and their craftmanship (G = 3). Raats Family Wines talks about quality: “With Gavin Bruwer joining Raats’ side in 2010, the family affair has one shared mission: to consistently produce Chenin Blanc and Cabernet Franc of outstanding quality from South Africa and to establish these wines as international benchmarks”.

Critical to the industry is the quality of the wines on sale, which serves as a reflection of their competencies. Wineries clearly state their commitment to producing quality wines: “For more than a century, the [Neethlingshof] Estate has been synonymous with the best winemaking traditions of the Western Cape” (Neethlingshof Estate). Phrases used to describe this quality commitment include “handcrafting of excellent wines” (Clos Malverne Wine Estate); “perfect the art of winemaking” (Boschkloof Wines); and “where excellence meets winemaking” (Stellenrust).

To provide other evidence of quality, many wineries mention the awards they have received for their wines, such as “Chardonnay 2016” by Bartinney Wines and the “2010 Beau Constantia, Cecily received the award for the best Viognier”. Increasingly, the awards that are placed prominently on the website are those received for their environmental and social efforts, such as “2018 Amorim Biodiversity Award” (Spier Wine Farm), “Climate Change Leadership Award” (Backsberg) and “International Women’s Forum South Africa Excellent Award in Recognition of a Sterling Contribution to Business and Community” (De Morgenzon, Stellenbosch).

4.2 Corporate personality

Informed by the literature review, Figure 2, extracted from Atlas. ti, provides an overview of the prevalence of the codes and code groups identified in the data structure, indicating the density and groundedness of each associated with the CP elements.

The wineries reflect their culture aligned to the family and their history. For example, the Back family indicates its family culture within its estate description:

An immigrant from Lithuania, the young Charles Back I landed on these shores in 1902. With a strong work ethic and passion for wine, he soon built up a booming wine export business.

This is reflected in the activities of his son (Charles Back II), who, on inheriting a share of the estate, introduced new grape varieties and started making artisanal cheese, reflecting his desire to “do things differently”.

The associated codes used to describe their culture were ethical (G = 17), integrity/honesty (G = 14), strong work ethic (G = 3), being big-hearted (G = 2), dedication (G = 9) and having a spirit of ubuntu (G = 1). An example of this can be seen on the website of Longridge Wine Estate:

Spiritual and ethical practices are greatly considered as we actively participate in biodynamic farming methods. Being biodynamic goes beyond being ecological and environmentally conscious, it’s about sustaining ecosystems and planning for the future.

Family wine farms’ expression of their personality is reflected in their passion (G = 50) that they are modern/contemporary (G = 46), and their love for what they do (G = 36). Other personality traits displayed are tradition (G = 30), pride (G = 14), innovation (G = 9), being African (G = 1), being authentic (G = 2) and humility (G = 1). Muratie Vines expresses its personality as follows:

At Muratie, our passion for preserving our rich heritage, and the wonderful human stories that are woven into the very fabric of our history, are matched only by the way in which we produce our fine wines.

The personality characteristics described on the website are closely associated with the character of the family members. One characteristic described by the families is their passion primarily for producing wine and cultivars. Blake’s Family Wines describes this as being “passionate about producing quality products bearing their name”. The Saxenburg Wine Estate describes it as:

[…] a heart which burns with the passion consistently creating the finest wine year after year; the mind, which keeps the heart in check by making the best, most informed decision at every juncture; and lastly – the soul, which binds knowledge and passion together.

This passion extends to food and literature (Leopard’s Leap). Furthermore, the families’ pride in producing quality wines influences their choices regarding the business, describing it as a “proud tradition” (Babylon’s Peak).

4.3 Corporate expression

Informed by the literature review, Figure 3, extracted from Atlas. ti, provides an overview of the prevalence of the codes and code groups identified in the data structure, indicating the density and groundedness of each associated with the CE elements.

Relationships within the family, among family members and the treatment of the employees working on the estate are considered essential and communicated on the website. The wineries’ websites detail various types of social responsibility efforts undertaken to positively influence the lives of those working on the estates, such as health care, education of employees’ children and living conditions. As an alcohol supplier, Beyerskloof established the FAITH fund in support of foetal alcohol syndrome and interrelated treatment:

The FAITH Fund raises funds to inform people in rural areas of the dangers involved in the use of alcohol during pregnancy. The funds are appropriated by schools for FAS [foetal alcohol syndrome] projects and awareness campaigns.

Two broad themes were identified as associated with relationships: relationships with various stakeholders and stakeholder identification. The stakeholders mentioned on the websites of the family wine farms are clients/customers, the community, employees and the government. In addition, there are relationships with stakeholders, the care of employees and their children, the empowerment of black people, as well as listening to and being transparent.

Employees and clients/customers were the most prominent stakeholders identified. The employee emphasis focuses on the care provided to the employees’ children and the employees themselves, supported by training/education/schooling opportunities. One way the Bosman Family Vineyards supports its employees is:

For every bottle of Fairtrade wine sold, a small additional amount of the selling price, what we call “social premiums” are collected and paid back to the Adama Foundation. This is a communal fund administered by the farm employees, with mentorship by management, to spend as they see fit, to improve the social, economic and environmental conditions of their own community.

Imbuko Wines describes its business as “developing long relationships with our clients. We are successful because we offer our clients quality, loyalty and integrity and therefore receive the same in return”.

Value promise or the value proposition includes a focus on sustainability, highlighting the importance of the environment and biodiversity to the winery’s future. Bartinney Wines describes this in the following way: “Creating excellence in wine has not been a singular pursuit. Our belief is that every aspect must work in harmony: agriculture with nature, people with animals, sustainability with excellence”. The focus of the brand promise of the wine farms revolves around the soil (G = 69) and climate (G = 63) influencing what the winery promises to offer. Established in 2004, Almenkerk Wine Estate shares on its website: “It is only due to the wide ranges of slopes, orientations and soil types that we are able to grow such a variety of cultivars”. Concerning climate, Bouchard Finlayson Winery affirms:

The mountain peaks surrounding the valley trap the moisture from these winds, ensuring frost-free winters and cool summer days that allow for longer, slower ripening periods in the months before harvest. In short, this cool maritime climate offers the ideal conditions for crafting world-class Pinot Noir.

Among these wineries, there is a strong emphasis on sustainability; conservation and the protection of biodiversity; being eco-friendly, energy- and water-wise combined with social responsibility efforts; and being considered a Fairtrade producer. Conservation (G = 50) and sustainability (G = 37) are regarded as more important than being carbon- and eco-friendly, as well as energy- and water-wise. Protecting the biodiversity on these farms is essential, although not as crucial as being sustainable. Paul Cluver Family Wines declares:

The family pursues sustainable agriculture and has been given international recognition for its farming practices. These awards include the Drinks Business Green Awards Lifetime achievement, and the Nedbank Green Award for Best Environmental Farming Practises and Nedbank Leader in Water Conservation. We are also a champion farm for Biodiversity in Wine.

Family wine farms use multiple ways to position themselves among their competitors. From the data, three broad themes emerged: hospitality and tourism, how the wine farms describe themselves, and the natural attractions and features of the farm.

The main attractions of the wine farms include providing accommodation (G = 132), restaurants (G = 80), and wine tasting (G = 36). Other hospitality and tourist attractions include conference and wedding facilities, with some mentions of the unique architecture of the buildings on the farm. Steenberg Wine Farm describes its offering as follows:

Steenberg Farm boasts the 5-star Steenberg Hotel, with 24 rooms encapsulating the dictum of understated luxury, offering spectacular views and discreet, personalised service. The original Manor House has been lovingly restored and declared a Provincial Heritage Site. Here the legendary elegance and traditions of the 17th century blend harmoniously with the most refined comforts and conveniences of our modern age.

The natural attractions on the wine farms, such as the fynbos, proteas, horses, sandstone and even leopards, are mentioned on their websites to illustrate their uniqueness. For instance, Neil Ellis Wines writes: “As part of a rehabilitation programme we remove alien plants to promote growth [sic] of indigenous vegetation such as fynbos”.

4.4 The interrelationship between family identity, personality and expression

A family business brand identity framework presented in Figure 4 is developed to understand the interrelationships between the family identity elements, specifically family identity, personality and expression. Although such a depiction may oversimplify the relationship between these elements (Mingione et al., 2020), it illustrates that family identity is intertwined with its personality and influences its expression. Family identity (FI), personality (FP) and expression (FE) are depicted in different colours. The family business brand’s three elements (FI, FP and FE) are conveyed through the brand promise on the website.

At the centre of the framework is the familiness of these wineries, as it is the essence of the family business (Lude and Prügl, 2018). Familiness is depicted where family identity, personality and expression overlap, indicating the interconnected and interrelated nature of the three family identity elements. The familiness of South African family wineries needs to be viewed by stakeholders as authentic (credible and reliable) (Astrachan et al., 2018). Authenticity can be viewed objectively because the winery presents its heritage and tradition, particularly relevant to family wineries (Mingione et al., 2019).

From the research results, familiness emerged as the foundation for the family identity, illustrating its importance in creating corporate (family) identity (Bettinelli et al., 2022). The family business philosophy, mission, vision, strategy and values determine the direction, purpose and inspiration of the family business identity (Foroudi et al., 2021; Melewar et al., 2018).

Abratt (1989) holds that personality contributes to identity. The family personality elements of pride, passion (Centeno et al., 2019) and traditions are communicated (family expression) to stakeholders (Foroudi et al., 2021) using the website, which enables the presentation as a person (anthropomorphism). When a family winery mainly focuses on family identity and expression, an opportunity to show the richness of the family personality of the family brand is lost. Abratt and Kleyn (2012) also highlight the notion that corporate identity (in this case, family identity) is linked with the brand through corporate expression (in this case, family expression). This results in higher stakeholder expectations of a family brand that carries the family name (Astrachan et al., 2018). Furthermore, identity disorientation (Devereux et al., 2020) may occur if the relationship between family identity, personality and expression is not aligned, leading to a perception of inauthenticity, to the detriment of the brand.

5. Discussion

The purpose of this research in family business branding was to identify the family identity elements used by family wineries on their websites that give them their uniqueness (Balmer, 2001a) and competitive advantage (Balmer and Podnar, 2021). This was necessary because family businesses find it challenging to identify the aspects that add value to their brand. South African wineries have a strong sense of their familiness as the foundation for their corporate (family) identity, which is evident in the use of their family name. The result is higher family expectations when the winery carries the family name because of family pride and heritage (Astrachan et al., 2018). This is integral to their corporate (family) brand (Blombäck and Brunninge, 2016), highlighting aspects like the family history, ownership, legacy and heritage to affirm this identity. The mission and vision support these, and philosophy statements highlight the unique family attributes influencing the quality of the wines produced and the awards often received. The competencies of the wine farms are associated with the family supporting their CP elements of pride, passion and tradition. These help the family winery portray an authentic family business brand (Astrachan et al., 2018; Mingione et al., 2019).

Similar to Taylor et al. (2010) and Yuan et al. (2004), this study found common features on family winery websites, including profiles of the owners/managers, employees, maps, stories, wines, awards, wine tasting information (tourist attractions) and contact information. The corporate (family) personality did not emerge as strongly as corporate (family) identity and corporate (family) expression. The corporate (family) personality is conveyed by displaying the family’s and employees’ values, beliefs and behaviour (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). Yet only about a third of the wine farms describe their personality as passionate, modern or contemporary and loving what they do, and only a few mention their culture. However, websites are the ideal platform to display how these may be enacted, creating opportunities to expand their reach and interactivity (Vlachvei et al., 2014), and highlighting potential opportunities for these wineries.

Corporate (family) expression revolves mainly around the families who own or manage the family wineries in South Africa, similar to what Balmer (2001a) outlined. However, this expression is based on the corporate (family) identity and personality (Balmer and Podnar, 2021). Sustainability as a brand promise emerges as a prominent corporate (family) expression theme associated with CI and CP. This supports the importance of aligning CI, CP and CE, forming the corporate brand (Balmer, 2001a, 2001b, 2012), where the corporate (family) identity delivers this brand promise. Employees have a critical role in delivering the brand promise (Balmer and Podnar, 2021), and thus a strong stakeholder relationship that can enrich the brand (Iglesias and Ind, 2020). The other stakeholder that emerged prominently was customers. As tourist attractions, wine farms are particularly relevant for customers. Karlsson and Karlsson (2017) found that wineries are considered tourist attractions, referred to as wine tourism. These attractions are used to portray the CI and CP of the wineries.

6. Managerial and practical implications

This paper responds to a call by Astrachan et al. (2018) to investigate suitable channels for conveying the family identity. Because of the increased importance of family businesses, communicating a family business’s identity to produce positive results in consumer (as a stakeholder) response is essential. In a family business, family members and employees (as stakeholders) influence marketing and branding strategies using a family preservation strategy. Thus, they need to communicate their family business’s identity clearly and authentically. Understanding and communicating FI, FP and FE provide insight into the sender’s perspective (communication) of the family brand identity. Familiness is the foundation of the family business’s identity, personality and expression. Furthermore, the focus on the senders’ perspective enhances understanding of family businesses and their use of various identity aspects, including their heritage, to build their brand.

From a managerial perspective, family wineries need to use websites to communicate the family brand and promise to depict their authentic familiness. This can only be achieved if the family business is clear about what familiness entails, providing a clear purpose for all stakeholders (Iglesias and Ind, 2020). When the family identity, personality and expression come together, the family business is in a position to live up to stakeholder expectations as the family name is attached to the business and brand. Family business brands must be apparent in connecting to and expanding the founder’s personality and heritage through generations to ensure that the higher expectations placed on the brand carrying the family name are met to enable brand building and avoid identity disorientation (Devereux et al., 2020). This is important because stakeholders endow humanlike qualities to brands in which owners and their employees express the family personality.

Practically, this paper suggests how families can embed their familiness in their websites by proposing a family brand identity framework in which the relationship between family identity, personality and expression forms the family brand. Creating a long history is difficult when a family brand is still young, as with South African family wineries. Yet, the nature and significance of authentic family identity can be communicated via the website when there is an understanding of how family identity and personality are expressed and related.

7. Conclusions, limitations and future research

This paper aimed to explore the family identity elements that family wineries use on their websites, resulting in a proposed family business brand identity framework. South African wineries use corporate identity, corporate personality, and corporate expression on their websites to illustrate familiness, a concept associated with a family business’s authentic, credible and reliable distinctive bundle of resources. Family wineries in South Africa possess a sense of belonging through their name and heritage, supported by their purpose, direction and aspirations, shaped by their family identity and personality. These are dynamic and communicated with stakeholders through verbal and visual means as they build and enrich the brand (Iglesias and Ind, 2020). Wineries described their behaviours, relevant competencies and passions, although the corporate personality component was less prominent. As part of the brand promise, sustainability was considered integral in reflecting their family-oriented philosophy and identity. This is important, given the context of the research (i.e. the wine industry) and increasing attention to the development of conscientious corporate brands that seek to consider both stakeholders and society (Iglesias and Ind, 2020; Rindell et al., 2011; Vallaster and Lechner, 2022). Creating a family business brand through a website involves an interrelationship between family identity, personality, and family expression. This is captured in proposing the family business brand identity framework, contributing to the current body of knowledge in which understanding the family business identity is pivotal in ensuring their competitive advantage and success. Future research into this interrelationship in diverse contexts is suggested.

The family business context in this study belongs to one industry and one geographical area in the Western Cape. Most of the wineries were established after 1990, limiting the extent to which they could appeal to their traditions and history on their websites. A comparison between these wineries and those established before this date is recommended to determine potential differences in conveying their identity.

Studying family wineries in other regions worldwide will provide insight into their applicability to different geographic areas in the same industry, thereby contributing to the body of knowledge on family business branding. The importance of communicating societal contribution is evidenced in this research, and investigation of other cultures is recommended. In addition, a comparison of websites between Old World and New World wineries is suggested. An important extension of this research is to explore the social media sites used by the family wineries to gain insight into how the family identity is expressed in other types of media. The family expression on the winery websites is not fully explored in this paper. This paper centred on the textual account of the wineries expressed on their websites, with little emphasis on website design, layout or visual elements. Consequently, it is suggested that further research be conducted into family expression by analysing family businesses’ websites and social media pages.

Figures

Table 3

Relationships between codes identified from the data

Figure 1

Digraph of the corporate identity elements identified

Figure 2

Digraph of the corporate personality elements identified

Figure 3

Digraph of the corporate expression elements identified

Figure 4

Family business brand identity framework

Table 1

Family identity elements

Category	Authors	Model/framework (if applicable)	Concepts
CI	Aaker (1996)	Brand identity planning model	Organisational associations
	Gray and Balmer (1998)		Company strategy, philosophy, organisational design
	Balmer (2001b)		Strategy, structure, history, business activities, market scope
	Harris and de Chernatony (2001)	The identity–reputation gap model of brand management	Vision
	Hatch and Schultz (2003)	The corporate branding tool kit	Strategic vision
	Burmann et al. (2009)		Heritage, organisational capabilities, values, vision, core offering
	Melewar and Karaosmanoglu (2006); Melewar et al. (2018)	The revised categorisation of CI dimensions; CI taxonomy	Corporate design, corporate structure, industry identity, corporate strategy
	Abratt and Kleyn (2012)		Strategic choices (e.g., mission, vision, values, strategy, strategy formulation and implementation)
	Suvatjis et al. (2012)	Six-station CI model	Head factor (mission, values and leadership), strategy factor (corporate strategy)
	Kitchen et al. (2013)		Mission statement, organisational founder
	Astrachan et al. (2018), Greyser and Urde (2019); Urde (2013)	The corporate brand identity matrix (CBIM); family business brand identity, portrayal and reputation matrix	Internal: mission and vision (what is our direction and inspiration); competencies (what are we particularly good at)
	Tőkés (2020)	Dimensions of brand identity	Origin, mission/vision, values, competencies, offer
	Tourky et al. (2020)		Mission and values dissemination, founder transformational leadership
	Holtzhausen (2021)	CI categories	Actual identity
CP	Aaker (1996)	Brand identity planning model	Brand personality
	Gray and Balmer (1998)		Culture
	Harris and de Chernatony (2001)	The identity-reputation gap model of brand management	Culture (e.g., artefacts, values and mental models), personality
	Balmer (2001a)		The corporate culture around the organisation’s founder, cultural mix
	Hatch and Schultz (2003)	The corporate branding tool kit	Organisational culture
	Burmann et al. (2009)		Personality
	Balmer and Greyser (2006)	The six C’s of corporate marketing	Culture, character
	Van Riel and Fombrun (2007)	Identity mix	Behaviour
	Melewar and Karaosmanoglu (2006); Melewar et al. (2018)	The revised categorisation of CI dimensions; CI taxonomy	Corporate culture, corporate behaviour
	Suvatjis et al. (2012)	The six-station CI model	Critical triplet station (corporate reputation, image and personality)
	Kapferer (2012)	The (brand) identity prism	Culture (of the brand), personality
	Abratt and Kleyn (2012)		Strategic choices (culture)
	Kitchen et al. (2013)		Corporate culture, behaviour
	Astrachan et al. (2018), Greyser and Urde (2019); Urde (2013)	The CBIM; family business brand identity, portrayal and reputation matrix	Internal: culture (attitudes, how we work and behave)
	Tourky et al. (2020)		Top management behavioural leadership, employee identification
CE	Aaker (1996)	Brand identity planning model	Product-related associations, the brand as a symbol (e.g. visual images; heritage)
	Harris and de Chernatony (2001)	The identity–reputation gap model of brand management	Creativity factor (visual identity), communication (all forms of communication), human factor (employees and stakeholders)
	Hatch and Schultz (2003)	The corporate branding tool kit	Relationships (e.g. to staff, customers and other stakeholders), positioning, presentation
	Balmer and Greyser (2006)	The six C’s of corporate marketing	Product-related associations, the brand as a symbol (e.g. visual images, heritage)
	Van Riel and Fombrun (2007)	Identity mix	Internal/external: expression (the way we communicate ourselves); brand core (promises and core value); external: (intended) position in the minds of the market; value proposition to customers and other stakeholders; relationships (interactions with key customers and non-customer stakeholders)
	Melewar and Karaosmanoglu (2006); Melewar et al. (2018)	The revised categorisation of CI dimensions; CI taxonomy	Corporate image
	Suvatjis et al. (2012)	The six-station CI model	Relationships; self-image (how the brand reflects the consumers’ inner relationship), customer reflection (how they wish to be seen as users of the brand), physique (the product features)
	Abratt and Kleyn (2012)		CE (visual identity, brand promise, brand personality, brand communication)
	Kapferer (2012)	The (brand) identity prism	Communication, symbolism
	Kitchen et al. (2013)		Communication, visual identity
	Astrachan et al. (2018), Greyser and Urde (2019); Urde (2013)	The CBIM; family business brand identity, portrayal and reputation matrix	Communication, constituencies (e.g. stakeholders), covenant (what is promised), conceptualisations (corporate reputation)
	Tourky et al. (2020)		Consistent image
	Holtzhausen (2021)	CI categories	Communicated identity, conceived identity, ideal identity, desired identity, brand identity

Table 2

Data structure based on the Gioia’s methodology (Gioia et al., 2013)

First-order terms		Second-order themes		Aggregate dimensions
Codes from the websites		Identity component	Theoretical concepts
Identity and ownership • Family history (17) • Family identity (173) • Family-owned (ownership) (21) • Generations (7) • Heritage (1) • Legacy (134)	Mission and vision • Goals (4) • Mission and vision statements (60) • Philosophy (78) • Values (9)	CI	• Organisational associations/capabilities/competencies • Corporate strategy • Philosophy • Organisational design/structure • Origin/History/Heritage • Business activities/core offering • Market scope • Mission and vision • Values • Organisational founder and leadership	• Family identity (philosophy, mission, vision, strategy, values)
Description of wine farms • Ancient wine culture (1) • Beauty (18) • Boutique (35) • Flagship (6) • Legend (9) • Minimalist (1) • Organic (38) • Size (1) • World-class (23)	Competencies • Awards (66) • Biodynamic (1) • Craftsmanship (3) • Experience (2) • ISO accreditation (1) • Quality (151)
Personality • African (1) • Authentic (2) • Humble (1) • Innovation (9) • Loving (36) • Modern/Contemporary (46) • Passionate (50) • Proud (14) • Traditional (30)	Culture • Big-hearted (2) • Dedicated (9) • Ethical (17) • Integrity/Honesty (14) • Spirit of Ubuntu (1) • Strong work ethic (3)	CP	• Brand personality/ • Personality • Culture • Culture around founder • Behaviour (employees and top management) • Reputation, image and personality • Strategic choices	• Family personality (Attitudes and beliefs of members of the family, business culture, history, generations)
Promise • Biodiversity (23) • Carbon footprint (4) • Climate (63) • Conservation (50) • Eco-friendly (3) • Energy-saving (3) • Environmental focus (1) • Fairtrade producer (6) • Social responsibility (13) • Sustainability (37) • Soil (69) • Water-wise (2)	Positioning • Accommodation (132) • Architecture/Design (12) • Conferences (13) • Functions (8) • Restaurant (80) • Wedding venue (12) • Wine tasting (36)	CE	• Product-related associations • Visual expression/identity (presentation) • Communication (website) • Human factor (employees and stakeholders)/ • relationships • Positioning • Brand promises/value proposition • Image and reputation	• Family expression (verbal and visual communication, stakeholders)
Relationships • Clients/Customers (30) • Community (6) • Employees (32) • Government (12) • Listening (5) • Stakeholders (7) • Storytelling (1) • Stakeholder relationships (3) • Training/Education/ • School (5) • Transparent (7) • Black economic empowerment (1) • Care for children of employees (13) • Caring for employees (1) • Family relationships (1)	• Bees (3) • Dairy farming (1) • Eagles (1) • Fruit farming (15) • Fynbos (22) • Horses (14) • Leopards (2) • Protea (3) • Sandstone (10)

Table A1

List of wineries

No.	Name of business	Location	Ownership	Owned since/established	1st bottled vintage	Size (in Hectares)	Website	Facebook	Instagram	Twitter	Other	Other
1	Alheit Vineyards	Hermanus	Chris and Suzann Alheit	2010	2011	Not available	www.alheitvineyards.co.za	N	N	N	None	None
2	Allée Bleue	Franschhoek	Fredrich-Wilhelm and Elke Dauphine	1999	2011	31	www.alleebleue.co.za	Y	N	N	None	None
3	Almenkerk Wine Estate	Elgin	Van Almenkerk family	2004	2009	15	www.almenkerk.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
4	Altydgedacht	Durbanville	Parker and Van der Merwe families	2017	1981	Not available	www.altydgedacht.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
5	Alvi's Drift Private Cellar	Worester	Van der Merwe family	1928	2004	Not available	www.alvisdrift.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
6	Anura Vineyards	Paarl	Tymen, Jenny and Lance Bouma	1989	2001	120	www.anura.co.za	Y	N	Y	None	None
7	Babylon’s Peak Private Cellar	Paarl	Basson family	2003	2003	350	www.babylonspeak.co.za	Y	N	N	None	None
8	Backsberg	Paarl	Michael and Simon Back	1916	1970	80	www.backsberg.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Pinterest	None
9	Badenhorst Family Wines	Swartland (Malmesbury)	Adi and Hein Badenhorst	Not available	2006	43	www.aabadenhorst.com	Y	N	Y	None	None
10	Bartho Eksteen	Hermanus	Eksteen family	2015	2015	5	www.barthoeksteen.co.za	N	N	N	None	None
11	Bartinney	Stellenbosch	Rose and Michael Jordaan	1953	2008	17	www.bartinney.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
12	Beau Constantia	Constantia Nek	Pierre and Cecily du Preez	2002	2010	11	www.beauconstantia.com	Y	Y	Y	Tripadvisor	None
13	Beaumont Family Wines	Bot River	Beaumont family	1974	1994	31	www.beaumont.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
14	Beeselaar Wines	Elsenburg	Abrie and Jeanne Beeselaar	2011	2012	Not available	www.beeslaar.co.za	Y	Y	N	Youtube	None
15	Bergsig Estate	Worcester	Lategan family	1843	1977	253	www.bergsig.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Tripadvisor	None
16	Beyerskloof	Stellenbosch	Truter family	1988	1989	125	www.beyerskloof.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
17	Blake's Family Wines	Malmesbury	Andries and Miranda Blake	2013	2011		www.blakefamilywines.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
18	Bon Courage Estate	Robertson	Bruwer family	1927	1983	150	www.boncourage.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
19	Boplaas	Calitzdorp	Nel family	1880	1982	70	www.boplaas.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
20	Boschkloof Wines	Stellenbosch	Borman family	1996	1996	19	www.boschkloofwines.com	Y	Y	Y	LinkedIn	None
21	Bosman Family Vineyards	Wellington	Bosman Adama COMPANY	1699	2004	335	www.bosmanwines.com	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
22	Bouchard Finlayson	Walker Bay	Tollman family (since 2000)	1989	1991	22	www.bouchardfinlayson.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
23	Cavalli Estate	Helderberg	Smith family	2008	2008	26	www.cavalliestate.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
24	Cederberg Private Cellar	Cederberg	Nieuwoudt family	1973	1973	74	www.cederbergwine.com	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
25	Clos Malverne Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Seymour and Sophia Pritchard	1986	1986	7	www.closmalverne.co.za	Y		Y	Wordpress	None
26	Conradie Family Vineyards	Langeberg	GARETH and KATE PENNY, C. P. and LEANA CONRADIE	Not available	Not available	Not available	https://conradiepenhill.co.za/	N	N	N	None	None
27	Constantia Glen	Constantia	Waibel family	2000	2005	28	www.constantiaglen.com	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
28	David & Nadia	Malmesbury	David and Nadia Sadie	2010	2010	Not available	www.davidnadia.com	N	N	N	None	None
29	De Grendel	Durbanville	Graaff family (since 1893); David Graaff since 1999	2000	2004	75	www.degrendel.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
30	De Trafford Wines	Stellenbosch	David and Rita Trafford	1992	1992	5	www.detrafford.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
31	Delheim	Stellenbosch	Sperling family	1971	1956	13	www.delheim.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
32	DeMorgenzon	Stellenbosch	Wendy and Hylton Appelbaum	2003	2005	55	www.demorgenzon.com	Y	Y	Y	Tripadvisor	None
33	Diemersdal Estate	Durbanville	Louw family since 1885	1698	1976	200	www.diemersdal.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
34	Diemersfontein Wine Estate	Wellington	David and Susa Sonnenberg	2000	2001	45	www.diemersfontein.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
35	Domaine des Dieux	Walker Bay	Parnell family	2002	2006	2	www.domainedesdieux.co.za	N	N	N	None	None
36	Dorrance Wines	Cape Town	Christophe and Sabrina Durand	2000	2000	11	www.dorrancewines.com	Y		Y	None	None
37	Eagles’ Nest	Constantia	Mylrea family	2001	2005	12	www.eaglesnestwines.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
38	Eikendal Vineyards	Stellenbosch	Saager family	1981	1984	41	www.eikendal.com	Y	Y	Y	LinkedIn	None
39	Elgin Ridge Wines	Elgin	Brian and Marion Smith	2007	2009	6	www.elginridge.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
40	Fairview	Paarl	Back family (acquired by them 1916)	1693	1974	300	www.fairview.co.za	Y		Y	Pinterest	None
41	Freedom Hill Family Vineyards	Paarl	Francois and Adila Klomp	1699	Not available	Not available	www.freedomhill.co.za/	Y	Y	N	None	None
42	Gerakaris Family Wines	Craighall Park	Kath Gerakaris	2009	Not available	Not available	https://gerakaris.co.za/	Y	Y	Y	None	None
43	Groot Phesantekraal	Durbanville	Andre and Ronelle Brink	2005	2005	50	www.grootphesantekraal.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
44	Hartenberg Family vineyards	Stellenbosch	MacKenzie family	1978	1978	85	www.hartenbergestate.com	Y	Y	N	Youtube	None
45	Idiom	Somerset West	Bottega family	1999	2000	35	www.idiom.co.za	Y	Y	N	Youtube	Pinterest
46	Imbuko Family Vintners	Wellington	Not available	Not available	Not available	Not available	www.imbuko.co.za/	Y	Y	Y	None	None
47	Iona	Elgin	Andrew and Rozanne Gunn	1997	2001	40	www.iona.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
48	Jordan Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Gary and Kathy Jordan	1992	1993	105	www.jordanwines.com	Y	Y	Y	Tripadvisor	None
49	Journey’s End	Somerset West	Gabb family	1995	2001	300	www.journeysend.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
50	Kaapzicht Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Steytler family	1946	1984	162	www.kaapzicht.co.za	Y	N	Y	None	None
51	Kanonkop Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Johann and Paul Krige	1910	1973	100	www.kanonkop.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
52	Kleinood	Stellenbosch	Gerard and Libbe de Villiers	2000	2002	10	www.kleinood.com	N	Y	N	None	None
53	Kruger family (wines)		Johan Kruger and the family	1976	Not available	Not available	https://oldvineproject.co.za/wines/kruger-family-wines/	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
54	Lazanou Organic Vineyards	Wellington	Bavaud family	2002	2006	5	www.lazanou.co.za	Y	N	N	None	None
55	Le Belle Rebelle	Rawsonville	Stofberg and Coetzee families	2011	2012	102	www.lebellerebelle.com	Y	N	N	None	None
56	Le Pommier Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Johan and Melanie van Schalkwyk	2003	2003	4	www.lepommier.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Tripadvisor	None
57	Le Riche	Stellenbosch	Le Riche family	1996	1997	Not available	www.leriche.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
58	Leeukuil Family Vineyards	Stellenbosch	Willie and Emma Dreyer	1693	2011	1250	www.leeuwenkuilfv.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
59	Leipzig Winery	Worcester	Francois and Lida Smith	1890	2013	4	www.leipzigcountryhouse.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Pinterest	None
60	Leopard’s Leap Family Vineyards	Franschhoek	Hanneli Rupert-Koegelenberg and Hein Koegelenberg	2000	Not available	Not available	www.leopardsleap.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
61	Longridge Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Van Der Laan and Raats family	1841	1992	38	www.longridge.co.za	N	N	N	None	None
62	Lothian Vineyards	Elgin	Wilson family	2004	2010	13	www.lothianvineyards.com	Y	N	Y	None	None
63	M.A.N Family Wines	Stellenbosch		2001	Not available	Not available	https://manwines.com/	Y	Y	N	None	None
64	Middelvlei Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Momberg family	1941	1973	50	www.middelvlei.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
65	Morgenster	Somerset West	Bertrand family	1993	1998	30	www.morgenster.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
66	Mt Vernon	Paarl	David and Debbie Hooper	1996	2005	57	www.mountvernon.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
67	Mullineux & Leeu Family Wines	Franschhoek	Chris and Andrea Mullineux; Analjit Singh	2007	2008	38	www.mlfwines.com/mullineux/	N	N	Y	None	None
68	Muratie Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Melck family	1685	1920	44	www.muratie.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
69	Neethlingshof Estate	Stellenbosch	Schreiber family	1705	188	95	www.neethlingshof.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
70	Neil Ellis Wines	Stellenbosch	Ellis family	1986	1984	Not available	www.neilellis.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
71	Neil Joubert Estate	Paarl	Joubert family	1898	1996	300	www.nieljoubert.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
72	Newstead Lund Family Vineyards	Plettenberg Bay	Doug and Sue Lund	2008	2012	6	www.newsteadwines.com	Y	Y	N	Pinterest	None
73	Newton Johnson Family Vineyards	Walker Bay	Newton Johnson family	1996	1997	18	www.newtonjohnson.com/wines	N	N	N	None	None
74	Nicovan der Merwe Wines	Stellenbosch	Nico and Petra van der Merwe	1999	1999	Not available	www.nvdmwines.com	Y	Y	N	None	None
75	Oak Valley Estate	Elgin	Rawbone-Viljoen family	1898	2003	32	www.oakvalley.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
76	Olifantsberg Family Vineyards	Breede River	Paul and Corine Leeuwerik	2003	2005	17	www.olifantsberg.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
77	Ormonde	Darling	Basson family	Not available	1999	300	www.ormonde.co.za	Y	N	Y	None	None
78	Paul Cluver Wines	Elgin	Cluver family	Not available	1997	80	www.cluver.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
79	Paul Wallace Wines	Elgin	Paul and Nicky Wallace	2004	2004	12	www.paulwallacewines.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Tripadvisor	None
80	Plasir de Merle	Simonsberg	Rose and Michael Jordaan, since 2021	1993	1993	400	www.plaisirdemerle.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
81	Pulpit Rock Winery	Riebeek West	Brink family	2003	2004	475	www.pulpitrock.co.za	Y	Y	N	None	None
82	Raats Family Wines	Stellenbosch	Bruwer Raats	2000	2000	30	www.raats.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
83	Rainbow’s End Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Malan family	1978	2002	19	www.rainbowsend.co.za	Y	N	N	None	None
84	Restless River Wines	Walker Bay	Wessels and Fourie families	1999	2005	7	www.hemelenaardewines.com/restlessriver	Y	Y	Y	None	None
85	Rietvallei Wine Estate	Robertson	Burger family	1864	1975	119	www.rietvallei.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Pinterest	None
86	Rijk’s Wine Estate	Tulbagh	Dorrington family	1996	2000	36	www.rijks.co.za	N	Y	N	None	None
87	Saxenburg	Kuils River	Adrian and Birgit Buhrer	1693	1990	85	www.saxenburg.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
88	Shannon Vineyards	Elgin	Stuart and James Downes	2000	2003	11	www.shannonwines.com	Y	Y	Y	None	None
89	Silverthorn Wines	Robertson	John and Karen Loubser	1998	2004	4	www.silverthornwines.co.za	N	Y	N	None	None
90	Simonsig	Stellenbosch	Malan families	1953	1968	210	www.simonsig.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	None
91	Spier Wine Farm	Stellenbosch	Enthoven family	1692	1770	650	www.spier.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Youtube	Tripadvisor
92	Steenberg Vineyards	Constantia	Beck family	1990	1996	60	www.steenbergfarm.com	Y	N	Y	None	None
93	Stellenrust	Stellenbosch	Van der Westhuizen and Boshoff families	1928	2004	200	www.stellenrust.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
94	Strandveld Vineyards	Cape Agulhas	Strandveld Vineyards (shareholders including Nick Diemont, Gerrie Wagener) and Rietfontein Trust (Albertyn brothers Adam, Benno, Christof, Deon)	2002	2003	82	www.strandveld.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
95	Sumsare Family Wines	Robertson	Not available	Not available	Not available	Not available	www.sumsarewines.co.za/	Y	N	Y	None	None
96	Super Single Vineyards	Stellenbosch	Daniel and Ingrid de Waal	2004	2004		www.supersinglevineyards.co.za	Y	N	Y	None	None
97	Swerwer Wines	Malmesbury	Jasper and Franziska Wickens	2012			www.swerwerwines.com	Y	Y	N	None	None
98	Teubes Family Wines		Not available	Not available	Not available	Not available	www.teubeswines.co.za/	Y	N	N	None	None
99	The Hughes Family Wines	Tiersboskloof	Not available	Not available	Not available	Not available	https://nativo.co.za/	Y	Y	N	None	None
100	Thelema Mountain Vineyards	Simonsberg	McLean and Webb families	1983	1988	90	www.thelema.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Tripadvisor	None
101	Thorne & Daughters Wines	Walker Bay	John and Tasha Seccombe	2012			www.thorneanddaughters.com	N	N	N	None	None
102	Truter Family Wines	Not available	Not available	Not available	Not available	Not available	www.truterfamilywines.co.za/	Y	Y	Y	LinkedIn	None
103	Under Oaks	Paarl	Britz family	2001	2003	Not available	www.underoaks.co.za	Y	Y	Y	Pinterest	None
104	Van Biljon Wines	Stellenbosch	Anton and Julia van Biljon	2004	2013	4	www.vanbiljonwines.co.za	N	N	N	None	None
105	Van Loveren Family Vineyards	Robertson	Retief families	1937	1980	800	www.vanloveren.co.za	Y	Y	N	Pinterest	Tripadvisor
106	Viljoensdrift	Robertson	Fred and Manie Viljoen	1998	1998	120	www.viljoensdrift.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
107	Villiera Wines	Stellenbosch	Grier family	1983	1983	180	www.villiera.com	Y	Y	Y	Pinterest	None
108	Vrede en Lust	Simonsberg	Buys family	1688	2002	66	www.vnl.co.za	N	N	N	None	None
109	Waterford Estate	Stellenbosch	Jeremy and Leigh Ord	1998	1998	60	www.waterfordestate.com	Y	Y	Y	LinkedIn	Tripadvisor
110	Waverley Hills	Tulbagh	Wynand and Kobus du Toit	2006	2004	30	www.waverleyhills.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
111	Whalehaven	Hermanus	Bottega family	1995	1995	Not available	www.whalehaven.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None
112	Wildekrans Wine Estate	Walker Bay	Gary and Amanda Harlow	1993	1993	71	www.wildekrans.com	N	N	N	None	None
113	Zevenwacht Wine Estate	Stellenbosch	Harold and Denise Johnson	1980	1993	100	www.zevenwacht.co.za	Y	Y	Y	None	None