Visual strategies used by labels of Spain's best wines - Dining and Cooking

Abstract

This study analyses the visual strategy of the labels of the 100 highest-rated Spanish wines included in the 2025 edition of the Guía Peñín, the leading wine guide in Spain, with the aim of identifying graphic patterns and assessing the degree of homogeneity in the visual communication of wine quality. The research is based on a content analysis focused on manifest visual variables, structured according to three semiotic dimensions (plastic, iconic and linguistic signs). Using a final sample of 63 labels—after excluding graphic variations of the same product—a reliability test was conducted on 10% of the initial sample, retaining only those variables that achieved a minimum agreement of 80%. The results, analysed through descriptive statistics and chi-square tests, reveal a high level of visual similarity—stronger in the plastic and linguistic dimensions than in the iconic one—as well as a significant association between the Denomination of Origin and certain visual components of the labels, suggesting that superior wine quality tends to be communicated through largely traditional graphic approaches rather than through explicitly transgressive designs.

1 Introduction

From a semiotic perspective, a graphic design artefact (such as a poster, a logo, or a magazine cover) can be understood as a visual text; that is, a signifying structure composed of iconic, plastic and linguistic signs which, when organised according to a specific syntax, decisively shape the interpretation of the message (Groupe µ, 1993; Joly, 2009; Zunzunegui, 1998). From this viewpoint, graphic design constitutes a fundamental instrument in the production of meaning and in the symbolic construction of messages, thereby influencing the receiver’s attitude towards the stimulus.

Precisely because of this semiotic and cultural dimension, it is common for certain fields, sectors, or disciplines to homogenise their visual discourses in order to meet the expectations of their target audiences. Many studies on graphic design—particularly within the field of visual identity—have demonstrated the recurrence of similar expressive resources in specific contexts. Research about haute cuisine restaurants (Martín-Sanromán and Suárez-Carballo, 2018), non-governmental organisations (Montes Vozmediano et al., 2024) and pharmaceutical companies (Romero-Rodríguez et al., 2023) provides illustrative examples of this phenomenon.

Within design and visual identity, packaging represents an area of particular relevance. As Dufranc (2019) argues, “building brands through packaging design is as inevitable as it is essential […]. Without value, it is difficult to attract consumers”. Packaging is conceived as a system intended to contain and protect the product throughout its life cycle, especially in the case of food products; however, it does not fulfil a purely protective function, as it also incorporates dimensions related to brand identity (Lee et al., 2024; Silva et al., 2024). In fact, as Richard Gerstman, president of Interbrand, succinctly states, “packaging is branding” (Ambrose and Harris, 2011, p. 16).

From this perspective, the aesthetic and symbolic qualities of packaging make it a resource capable of eliciting emotional responses, increasing product appeal and influencing consumers’ purchasing decisions (Candil-Blas, 2024; Nascimento et al., 2022). Recent research has shown that consumers attribute connotative and semiotic meanings to abstract visual features of packaging design (such as colour, shape, or spatial arrangement), responses that, although they may appear innate, are often acquired through associative learning within the marketplace (Spence and Van Doorn, 2022).

In the specific case of wine packaging, which constitutes the focus of this study, there is extensive literature addressing its communicative functions and its implications for consumers’ decision-making, as documented in the recent systematic reviews by Candil-Blas (2024) or Anagnostou and Tsiakis (2025). Several authors highlight label design as a powerful communication tool capable of attracting consumers (Thomas and Pickering, 2003) and constructing a narrative that adds value to the product. As Celhay and Passebois (2011) note, wine labels shape consumers’ perceptions of quality, authenticity and brand reputation. Along these lines, Cabello Mora et al. (2025) demonstrate that variables such as typography, colour and graphic style in red wine labels exert a consistent influence on perceived quality and price.

However, there appears to be a gap in the scientific literature regarding studies that systematically analyse the visual patterns used to communicate product quality through labels. In this regard, the present study seeks to contribute to this field by mapping the graphic codes through which enological quality—operationalised through the ratings of a specialised ranking such as the Guía Peñín—is visually communicated on wine labels.

2 Method2.1 Objectives

The main objective of this study is to identify and analyse the predominant graphic features of high-quality wine labels in order to determine whether product quality is conveyed through specific visual attributes. To this end, the following specific objectives are proposed, corresponding to the variables analysed in the study:

EO1. To examine whether these similarities occur across the three types of signs (iconic, plastic and linguistic).

EO2. To assess whether there is any relationship between wine characteristics (such as Denomination of Origin or wine type) and the graphic design of labels.

2.2 Hypotheses

Based on these objectives, the study proposes the following hypotheses:

H1. The labels included among the best wines in the 2025 Guía Peñín share numerous common graphic criteria.

H2. The plastic sign exhibits the greatest variability, although figurative elements, organic shapes and restrained use of colour are frequently observed.

H3. The linguistic sign reveals numerous affinities, particularly in the preference for serif or script typefaces and symmetrical compositions.

H4. There is a high degree of homogeneity in the iconic sign, with recurrent motifs linked to the world of wine (such as wineries, vineyards or grapes).

H5. Characteristics such as Denomination of Origin or wine type do not have a decisive influence on the construction of the graphic message, as visual attributes are common across the entire sample.

H1 addresses the overall presence of shared graphic patterns among the labels analysed. In turn, hypotheses H2 to H4 specify this general prediction by examining these regularities through the different semiotic dimensions (plastic, linguistic and iconic signs).

2.3 Analytical technique and variables

With regard to the methodological approach, this study employs content analysis, a technique that enables the generation of objective indicators for describing a set of messages through systematic and replicable procedures (Bardin, 2002; Puebla-Martínez, 2013). Content analysis allows for the examination of any form of communication by quantifying messages or contents into categories and subcategories followed by statistical analysis (Hernández-Sampieri et al., 2010). This method has been widely used in research on visual communication and graphic design where it has proven effective in detecting and comparing formal and symbolic regularities across different types of visual messages. Recent examples include studies by Martín-Sanromán et al. (2022), Suárez-Carballo et al. (2022) and Trehan and Kalro (2024).

In line with these contributions, and despite the fact that many content analysis studies incorporate qualitative parameters or interpretative elements (Eiroa and Barranquero, 2017; Medina Cambrón et al., 2017), the present research focuses on the analysis of manifest variables; that is, graphic attributes that are directly observable and objectively identifiable on wine labels without resorting to interpretative inference.

The variables used in this study are structured according to the three semiotic dimensions proposed by Joly (2009)—plastic, iconic and linguistic signs—an approach also adopted in recent graphic design research such as studies on film posters for video-on-demand platforms (Suárez-Carballo et al., 2024) and podcast cover design (Suárez-Carballo and Pérez Maíllo, 2022). Regarding the first two levels (plastic and iconic signs), Polidoro (2016) distinguishes between two complementary analytical perspectives: figurative analysis, which examines images as representations of the world, and plastic analysis, which focuses on visual configurations beyond their referential content.

To ensure the consistency of the coding instrument, an intercoder reliability test was conducted on a subsample representing 10% of the original dataset (100 labels), a proportion considered sufficient to guarantee reliability when working with manifest variables and closed categories (Krippendorff, 2018; Neuendorf, 2017). This subsample was independently coded by two evaluators and a minimum agreement threshold of 80% per variable was established as a criterion for validity.

The results of this test enabled the refinement of the analytical instrument by retaining only those variables that exhibited consistent coding and eliminating those that revealed systematic discrepancies between coders. Specifically, three variables were excluded from the final analysis: one linguistic variable related to typeface weight which proved difficult to discriminate objectively due to the wide range of possible variants (regular, medium, semibold, bold, black etc.) and its dependence on the specific design of each typeface family; and two plastic variables related to printing technique and the use of special inks whose accurate identification is problematic when the analysis is based on photographs of labels as in the present study.

Table 1 presents the final set of variables used in the analysis along with their categories and possible values.

CategoryVariablePossible valuesPlastic signShapes1 = Geometric; 2 = Organic; 3 = MixedPlastic signCompositional balance1 = Symmetry; 2 = Asymmetry; 3 = InstabilityPlastic signLabel shape (front view)1 = Circular; 2 = Square; 3 = Rectangular; 4 = Irregular; 5 = No labelPlastic signImage iconicity1 = Realistic; 2 = Figurative; 3 = Abstract; 4 = Typography only; 5 = MixedPlastic signNumber of colors1 = One; 2 = Two; 3 = Three; 4 = Four; 5 = More than fourPlastic signBackground color1 = White; 2 = Black; 3 = Blue; 4 = Red; 5 = Green; 6 = Yellow; 7 = OrangePlastic signPredominant color1 = White; 2 = Black; 3 = Blue; 4 = Red; 5 = Green; 6 = Yellow; 7 = OrangePlastic signChromatic harmony1 = Achromatic; 2 = Monochromatic; 3 = Analogous; 4 = Complementary; 5 = OtherPlastic signImage technique1 = Photography; 2 = Vector; 3 = Hand-drawn; 4 = Collage; 5 = Other; 6 = Typographic onlyLinguistic signWinery name on front label1 = Yes; 2 = NoLinguistic signMain typeface family1 = Serif; 2 = Sans serif; 3 = Decorative; 4 = ScriptLinguistic signTypeface inclination1 = Upright; 2 = Italic/ObliqueLinguistic signCase usage1 = Uppercase; 2 = Lowercase; 3 = Small capsLinguistic signAmount of information1 = Low; 2 = Medium; 3 = HighIconic signNature of iconic elements1 = Winery/vineyards; 2 = Heraldry; 3 = Other wine-related motifs; 4 = Other; 5= Seal

Variables and categories used in the content analysis.

2.4 Sample

The study uses a purposive sample composed of the labels of the 100 highest-rated Spanish wines included in the 2025 edition of the Guía Peñín (Peñín, 2025) which with more than 30 editions is widely regarded as “the most comprehensive guide to Spanish wine and an international benchmark” (Canales, 2025). Product quality is therefore determined by a guide with a long-standing reputation and proven reliability. The analysis focuses on the front label of the bottle understood as the primary symbolic resource of wine packaging given that other packaging elements (such as bottle shape or material) tend to be more stable in this product category. All the images analysed in this research are available in an open Zenodo repository (Suárez-Carballo, 2026).

From this initial sample, a data-cleaning process was undertaken to avoid graphic redundancy in the analysis. In many cases, multiple labels corresponded to the same product marketed across different vintages or varieties while maintaining an almost identical visual formula. Examples include Enoteca Gramona Brut Nature and 2009, Pazo Señoráns Selección de Añada 2013 and 2014 or Pingus 2021 and 2022. Since the inclusion of such minor variations could distort the identification of visual patterns, only one representative label per product was retained when the overall graphic similarity was high beyond minor differences such as colour. As a result of this process, the final analytical sample comprised 63 labels with differentiated graphic approaches (Table 2).

Product nameWineryD.O.Dominio del Águila – Albillo Viñas Viejas 2016Dominio del ÁguilaRibera del DueroLa Rioja Alta – Gran Reserva 890 2010La Rioja Alta S.A.RiojaPazo Señorans—Selección de Añada 2013Pazo SeñoransRías BaixasDominio de Atauta—La Roza 2018Dominio de AtautaRibera del DueroPingus 2021Dominio de PingusRibera del DueroLa Fillaboa 1898 2016Bodegas FillaboaRías BaixasVega Sicilia—Único Reserva EspecialVega SiciliaRibera del DueroEnoteca Gramona 2011 Brut NatureGramonaCorpinnatBelondrade—Les Parcelles 2019BelondradeRuedaContador—Las Paulejas 2020ContadorRiojaLes Manyes 2022Terroir al LímitPrioratViña El Pisón 2022ArtadiRiojaContador 2016ContadorRiojaLa Riva Amontillado SuperiorísimoDe la RivaJerezAmontillado Tradición VORS 30 YearsBodegas TradiciónJerez1902 Tossal d’en Bou Gran Vinya Classificada 2021Mas DoixPrioratReserva Particular de Recaredo 2014 Brut NatureRecaredoCorpinnatTuró d’en Mota de Recaredo 2009 Brut NatureRecaredoCorpinnatEl Val 2021César MárquezBierzoArtadi El Carretil 2021ArtadiRiojaManuel Aragón Premium Oloroso SecoManuel AragónJerezLa Saca de Altanza Palo Cortado CentenarioAltanzaJerezAmontillado de añada 1975González ByassJerezMuchada-Léclapart Lumière 2021Muchada-LéclapartVino de EspañaReliquia Amontillado SecoBarbadilloJerezEnoteca Personal Manuel Raventós 2008 Gran Reserva Brut NatureRaventós i BlancConca del Riu AnoiaSei Solo 2021Sei SoloRibera del DueroCastillo Ygay 2012 Gran Reserva EspecialMarqués de MurrietaRiojaSorte Antiga 2022Rafael PalaciosValdeorrasAlabaster 2021Teso La MonjaToroOld Mountain 2012 DulceOld MountainMálaga y Sierras de MálagaRecóndita Armonía Dulce 1987Salvador Poveda (Fondillón)AlicanteTapias de Marqués de Riscal 2019Marqués de RiscalRiojaMas del Serral 2010 Gran Reserva Brut NaturePepe RaventósConca del Riu AnoiaLa Bota de Manzanilla Pasada n° 110Equipo NavazosManzanilla – Sanlúcar de Barrameda1955 Pedro Ximenez Solera CincuentenarioMontilla-Moriles (genérico)Montilla-MorilesJorge Ordóñez & Co. N°3 Viñas Viejas 2019 DulceJorge Ordóñez & Co.MálagaLustau Palo Cortado VORSLustauJerezTío Pepe Cuatro PalmasGonzález ByassJerezParés Baltà Bassegues 2010Parés BaltàPenedèsSorte O Soro 2022Rafael PalaciosValdeorrasChivite Colección 125 Vendimia Tardía 2008 Fermentado en Barrica DulceChiviteNavarraLa Comtesse Gran Vino de Guarda 2018 Fermentado en BarricaPazo BarrantesRías BaixasAs Sortes Val do Bibei 2021Rafael PalaciosValdeorrasAmancio 1998Sierra CantabriaRiojaSierra Cantabria Mágico 2019Sierra CantabriaRiojaPeñas Aladas 2016 Gran ReservaDominio del ÁguilaRibera del DueroPico Ferreira 2022César MárquezBierzoLas Beatas 2021Compañía de Vinos Telmo RodríguezRiojaBrotons Gran Fondillón Reserva 1978Bodegas BrotonsAlicanteConde de Aldama Amontillado SecoConde de AldamaJerez-Xérès-SherryDominio de Atauta Valdegatiles 2018Dominio de AtautaRibera del DueroSin Palabras F1982 2018Sin PalabrasRías BaixasFondillón Luis XIV 25 años FondillónLuis XIVAlicanteLa Faraona 2022 BarricaDescendientes de J. PalaciosBierzoEl Jardín de las Iguales Garnacha 2021El Jardín de las IgualesIGP ValdejalónAlma 2020ContadorRiojaPedro Ximénez Tradición VOS Pedro Ximénez DulceBodegas TradiciónJerez-Xérès-SherryArtuke La Condenada 2022ArtukeRiojaLa Quebrá 2021 BarricaRico NuevoCebrerosRemelluri 2021RemelluriRiojaGran Vino de Remelluri 2020 ReservaRemelluriRiojaDominio do Bibei 2021Dominio do BibeiRibeira Sacra

Final sample of labels used for the analysis.

Contextual information relating to the winery, vintage, Denomination of Origin and wine type (red, white or others) was also collected in order to describe the composition of the sample and explore potential relationships between these variables and the observed graphic decisions. Regarding provenance, the Denomination of Origin Rioja accounts for the highest proportion of analysed labels (22.2%), followed by Jerez and Jerez-Xérès-Sherry (15.9%) and Ribera del Duero (11.1%). Other denominations such as Rías Baixas, Corpinnat, Bierzo, Valdeorras or Alicante appear less frequently, while the remainder are distributed across various producing regions. In terms of wine type, red wines constitute the majority (42.9%), followed by other wine types —sparkling, fortified and sweet wines—, which are grouped together for analytical consistency (38.1%), and white wines (19%).

2.5 Research procedure

The research was conducted in five phases between November 2025 and January 2026:

In the first phase, the researchers designed the coding sheet and collected the selected wine labels.

The second phase involved the analysis of the sample by researcher 1. Products with visually similar labels were excluded.

Subsequently researcher 2 coded 10% of the sample (the first 10 labels) for the reliability test.

Following the reliability analysis, variables that did not reach the 80% agreement threshold were removed.

In the fifth phase, the data collected from the coding sheets were entered into Microsoft Excel (version 16).

Finally, the data were analysed using descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation procedures. All data collection, coding and analysis were conducted by the researchers. ChatGPT 5.2 and Perplexity were used primarily for the final verification of the statistical analyses. The full dataset with the results of the content analysis is provided as Supplementary Material in an Excel file, allowing independent verification and replication of the statistical procedures.

3 Results

The visual strategies of the labels in the final sample (N = 63) are analysed below, using the variables proposed in the study and organized according to the three semiotic levels—plastic, iconic and linguistic—that structure the research. The chi-square goodness-of-fit test was applied to compare the distribution of each variable with an equiprobable distribution. Effect size was calculated using Cramér’s V in order to assess the strength of the visual patterns detected, taking statistical significance as the reference criterion. Table 3 presents the results obtained from these statistical tests, which are interpreted in the following sections.

Semiotic levelVariableχ2pV (Cramér)ConsensusPlastic sign.Shapes.16.94.<.001.0.3.Moderately low.Plastic sign.Compositional balance.48.67.<.001.0.62.Moderately high.Plastic sign.Label shape (front view).101.38.<.001.0.73.High.Plastic sign.Image iconicity.19.98.<.001.0.33.Moderately low.Plastic sign.Number of colors.67.19.<.001.0.46.Moderate.Plastic sign.Predominant color.159.97.<.001.0.66.Moderately high.Plastic sign.Background color.194.65.<.001.0.29.Low.Plastic sign.Chromatic harmony.63.27.<.001.0.5.Moderately high.Plastic sign.Image technique.48.67.<.001.0.36.Moderately low.Linguistic sign.Winery name on front label.41.29.<.001.0.81.High.Linguistic sign.Main typeface family.34.95.<.001.0.53.Moderately high.Linguistic sign.Typeface inclination.70.57.<.001.0.75.High.Linguistic sign.Case usage.38.27.<.001.0.45.Moderate.Linguistic sign.Amount of information.14.0.<.001.0.33.Moderately low.Iconic sign.Nature of iconic elements.19.0.0.002.0.25.Low.

Results of the chi-square goodness-of-fit test for visual variables.

V ≥ .70: High;.50 ≤ V < .70: Moderately high;.40 ≤ V < .50: Moderate;.30 ≤ V < .40: Moderately low;.20 ≤ V < .30: Low; V < .20 o p ≥ .05; No consensus or not statistically significant.

Taken together, the findings reveal the presence of relevant visual regularities in the labels of the highest-rated Spanish wines, although with varying degrees of homogeneity depending on the semiotic level considered.

3.1 Plastic sign

Regarding label shape, there is a marked predominance of rectangular formats, which account for 79.4% of cases, followed at a distance by square solutions (14.3%), while irregular shapes and the absence of a label are clearly marginal.

Compositional balance shows a strong tendency towards symmetry, which appears in 73% of labels, compared to 23.8% of asymmetrical compositions and only two instances of instability (La Fillaboa 1898 2016). With respect to the nature of forms, greater diversity is observed: organic images constitute the most frequent category (44.4%), followed by geometric proposals (23.8%) and mixed solutions (7.9%). In terms of technique, vector illustrations predominate (39.68%), followed by hand-drawn imagery (20.63%). A further 20.63% of the labels (n = 13) are exclusively built on typographic solutions.

Colour treatment tends towards chromatic simplicity. The most common schemes involve three and two colours (49.21% and 25.40%, respectively), including white. From the perspective of harmony, monochromatic solutions predominate (57.1%), followed by analogous combinations (20.6%, often based on warm colours) and achromatic proposals (17.5%). Harmonies based on complementary colours or other schemes are almost residual. Regarding predominant colour, black stands out in a statistically significant way (54%), followed at a considerable distance by yellow (17.5%) and red (7.9%). In terms of background colour, white clearly predominates, appearing in 68.25% of cases (n = 43), followed by black (12.7%) and yellow (11.11%), while other chromatic options occur only marginally.

Finally, a certain degree of homogeneity is observed in terms of iconicity. Figurative images represent the most frequent option (44.4%), followed by abstract solutions (27%), while a substantial proportion of labels make exclusive use of typographic resources (23.8%). Realistic representations (photographs) are very rare (4.8%).

3.2 Linguistic sign

The linguistic sign shows a high degree of uniformity across the analysed sample. All labels contain textual information, as expected, and in most cases (90.5%) the winery name appears on the front label. From a typographic perspective, serif typefaces (68.3%) and script fonts (19%) predominate, while sans-serif families occupy a clearly secondary position (12.7%). These features are accompanied by a preference for uppercase lettering (55.6%), followed by lowercase (23.8%) and small caps (19%), reinforcing a typographic reading associated with traditional and prestige-oriented codes.

With regard to the amount of textual information, labels with a low volume of text predominate (54%), followed by those with a medium amount (30.2%), while cases with a high informational load are less frequent (15.9%).

3.3 Iconic sign

In contrast to the greater homogeneity observed in the plastic and linguistic signs, the iconic sign presents greater heterogeneity, with statistically significant distributions but a low level of consensus. Regarding the nature of iconic elements and considering only the 50 cases that include graphic representation, there is a marked preference for motifs linked to the world of wine. Images of wineries, vineyards and other elements associated with wine production or culture constitute the largest category (36%). Heraldic elements rank second (18%), while seals or specific graphic marks show a smaller proportion (8%). The remaining cases (38%) include a wide variety of motifs, such as animals (Dominio del Águila, Old Mountain), cartographic elements (La Fillaboa 1898), or human figures (Raventòs i Blanc, Recóndita Armonía), among others. Finally, 13 labels are exclusively typographic.

3.4 Dependence between contextual and graphic variables

Chi-square tests of association between Denomination of Origin and the visual variables were then conducted, revealing significant relationships for several plastic and linguistic attributes.

While wine type does not show statistically significant associations with any of the analysed visual variables, Denomination of Origin is consistently related to several graphic decisions. The most relevant associations—although moderate in strength—are concentrated in plastic variables, particularly colour, both in terms of predominant hue (χ2 = 353.11; p < .001; V = .38) and background colour (χ2 = 157.26; p < .001; V = .29), as well as image technique (χ2 = 130.10; p < .001; V = .27). Other plastic variables, such as the number of colours, chromatic harmony, or compositional balance, also show statistically significant associations, but weaker than the previous ones.

At the linguistic level, Denomination of Origin is significantly associated with the main typeface family (χ2 = 59.52; p = .03; V = .20), whereas other variables—such as the type of name used or the presence of the winery name on the front label—show weaker relationships. By contrast, no statistically significant associations are observed between Denomination of Origin and variables corresponding to the iconic sign.

4 Discussion and conclusions

The results allow for only partial confirmation of the hypotheses proposed in this study. First, the findings support hypothesis H1: the labels of wines ranked among the best in the 2025 Guía Peñín share a significant number of common graphic criteria, supporting the existence of recognisable visual codes in Spanish high-quality wines. These regularities are particularly evident in aspects such as compositional balance, typographic treatment and colour use.

Regarding the analysed categories, hypothesis H2 is supported, although with some qualifications, as the plastic sign combines highly consensual features with others that display greater variability; some of its characteristics—such as those mentioned above—exhibit highly consistent patterns. A clear tendency towards chromatic simplicity—characterised by the predominance of monochromatic harmonies—and compositional balance is observed. Other features, such as label shape (predominantly rectangular or square) and background colour (mainly black and especially white), present very high frequencies, but, in the absence of comparative studies, do not appear to be exclusive attributes of the analysed sample.

Although not the majority option, the proportion of figurative images (44.4%) deserves attention, as it represents the single largest category and may constitute an idiosyncratic feature of the sample; further research would be required to determine whether comparable figures appear in other contexts, either within the wine sector or beyond. A similar observation applies to the predominance of organic forms over geometric ones, which receive considerable attention in contemporary graphic design. Likewise, despite not being the dominant option, the substantial presence of hand-drawn illustration merits consideration, albeit at a lower level than vector imagery.

By contrast, hypothesis H3—focused on the linguistic sign—is fully supported across most variables. The results indicate a clear preference for serif and script typefaces, as well as uppercase characters, organised within balanced and symmetrical compositions. Such typeface choices may be associated with meanings related to tradition, whereas sans-serif typefaces—which are scarcely represented in the analysed sample— have been associated in prior research with more modern or contemporary contexts (Shaikh et al., 2006). Hypothesis H4, concerning the predominance of wine-related iconic motifs, is only partially supported: although references to wineries and vineyards do not constitute statistically dominant motifs, they nevertheless play a relevant role. The fact that more than one third of the labels include such elements suggests a certain degree of predictability or tradition in visual concepts.

Finally, hypothesis H5 is also only partially supported. While no statistically significant associations are found between wine type and the analysed graphic decisions, Denomination of Origin does reveal relevant differences in label design, particularly in plastic variables—such as predominant colour, number of colours and image technique—and, to a lesser extent, in certain linguistic features, such as the main typeface family. Although this study does not analyse the specific visual attributes of each Denomination of Origin, given their diversity, the findings do suggest the coexistence of shared graphic codes linked to geographic provenance, which could be explored in future research.

In summary, the study demonstrates that there are numerous graphic affinities among the labels of wines highly rated by the Guía Peñín when communicating product quality. A certain degree of predictability or conservatism can be identified in their visual configuration, based on the nature of the elements employed: a preference for script and serif typefaces, balanced compositions, figurative iconicity, organic forms, chromatic simplicity and an iconic repertoire frequently drawn from the world of wine. These symbolic resources appear to be the means through which Spanish wines visually represent superior quality; based on the results, the highest wine quality tends to be represented through largely traditional graphic approaches or, at least, through designs that are not especially transgressive.

Beyond these conclusions, the study also highlights several limitations. First, although the final number of analysed labels after excluding visually similar units (N = 63) appears sufficient and the prestige of the selected ranking (the 2025 Guía Peñín) is widely recognised, the results must be interpreted within this specific context. Future research could compare these findings with other product categories (such as mass-market wines) or with international rankings (such as Robert Parker’s The Wine Advocate) to determine whether the identified visual patterns are applicable to all high-quality wines or are instead specific to the Spanish context. In addition, although statistically significant associations were identified between several plastic and linguistic variables and Denomination of Origin, this study does not address the specific graphic characteristics of each denomination, an issue that could be examined in future research using samples with a smaller number of geographic regions.

Moreover, the study relies on content analysis using manifest variables to assess the extent to which enological quality is communicated through shared visual resources. Future lines of research could evaluate the effectiveness of these visual strategies; that is, whether consumers actually perceive quality based on label design. In this sense, future research could employ quantitative surveys or integrate a neuromarketing perspective (e.g., attention and emotional responses to specific visual variables), in order to further enrich the implications of visual communication in packaging design. Although this study highlights the particular relevance of labelling within the wine sector—given the relative stability of other packaging elements, such as bottle shape—it would also be valuable to examine the role of other variables, such as atypical bottle forms or additional packaging components, especially among less experienced consumers.

The study ultimately focuses on regularities within a specific set of products—those singled out for their quality—but it cannot determine whether the patterns identified are exclusive to this subgroup or extend to the wine market as a whole. In other words, are features such as chromatic simplicity or the use of script and serif typefaces specifically representative of high-quality wines? Other clearly predominant characteristics, such as white (or, to a lesser extent, black) backgrounds and classic rectangular labels, seemed self-evident at first glance, but it remains uncertain whether they are genuinely typical of Spanish wines overall or reflect a more deeply rooted visual tradition; wines such as Habla del Silencio or Casa Mariol provide suggestive counterexamples in this respect. Future research could therefore contrast the present findings with new samples—for instance, the best-selling wines in Spain—to assess whether the traits identified here are indeed common to all products from the same geographic area.

Finally, although the Guía Peñín is widely recognised as a benchmark for wine quality, this study does not examine the specific tasting procedures underlying its ratings, which are conducted under non-blind conditions (Pardo, 2024) and take place in the production areas (Peñín, 2025). Therefore, any potential influence of extrinsic factors on the evaluation—including visual communication—falls outside the scope of this research and should be considered with caution. At the same time, a complementary research direction could explore whether wine producers strategically emulate the visual codes of highly rated labels in influential guides such as the Guía Peñín, analysing to what extent lower-tier or newly launched wines adopt graphic conventions associated with premium products in order to signal higher quality.

StatementsData availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

FS-C: Software, Validation, Supervision, Investigation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Data curation, Project administration, Methodology. MR-B: Formal analysis, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Investigation. J-RM-S: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Validation.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. ChatGPT and Perplexity have been used for: 1) a first translation into English (which would be thoroughly reviewed if the article is finally approved), 2) the verification of certain statistical analyses (mainly distributions) and 3) a first bibliographic search of some specific references.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

AmbroseG.HarrisP. (2011). Packaging de la Marca. Barcelona: Parramón.

AnagnostouE.TsiakisT. (2025). Highlighting wine labels: a systematic literature review of dominant informational parameters as communicative elements. Beverages11 (1), 12. 10.3390/beverages11010012

BardinL. (2002). El Análisis de Contenido. Madrid: Akal.

Cabello MoraM. B.Ferrer MaravezM. A.Briede WestermeyerJ. C.Hernandis OrtuñoB.Segovia BlancoR. (2025). El diseño de etiquetas como herramienta de comunicación en la industria vitivinícola. RIVAR12 (37), e7409. 10.35588/pe8wdr83

CanalesM. (2025). José Peñin, el Abstemio que se Convirtió en el mayor Experto en Vino de España. Metrópoli. Available online at: https://www.elmundo.es/metropoli/elmundovino/2025/05/08/681b43a2fdddffffae8b457c.html (Accessed December 2, 2025).

Candil-BlasN. (2024). Tendencias en el estudio de packaging: una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Eur. Public Soc. Innov. Rev.9, 1–16. 10.31637/epsir-2024-953

CelhayF.PasseboisJ. (2011). Wine labelling: is it time to break with tradition? A study of the moderating role of perceived risk. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res.23 (4), 318–337. 10.1108/17511061111186497

DufrancG. (2019). Marcas Envasadas: Como el Diseño de Packaging Ayuda a Crear Marcas. Self-published.

EiroaM.BarranqueroA. (2017). Métodos de Investigación en la Comunicación y sus Medios. Madrid: Síntesis.

Groupe µ (1993). Tratado del Signo Visual. Para una Retórica de la Imagen. Madrid: Cátedra.

Hernández-SampieriR.Fernández-ColladoC.Baptista-LucioP. (2010). Metodología de la Investigación. 5th ed. México City: McGraw-Hill Interamericana.

JolyM. (2009). Introducción al Análisis de la Imagen. 2nd Edn.Buenos Aires: La marca editora.

KrippendorffK. (2018). Content Analysis: An introduction to its Methodology. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

LeeJ.-H.ParkM.-S.KimS.-Y. (2024). Current status of sustainable food packaging regulations: a global overview. Sustainability16 (13), 5554. 10.3390/su16135554

Martín-SanrománJ. R.Suárez-CarballoF. (2018). El lenguaje visual de las marcas gráficas de los restaurantes de alta cocina en españa. Arquetipo17, 123–140. https://revistas.ucp.edu.co/index.php/arquetipo/article/view/86

Martín-SanrománJ. R.Suárez-CarballoF.Galindo-RubioF. (2022). Identidad visual editorial dinámica y diseño de portadas: el caso de la luna de metrópoli (2018–2020). Rev. Comun.21 (2), 157–178. 10.26441/RC21.2-2022-A8

Medina CambrónA.DonaireM.Busquet DuránJ. (2017). “Técnicas de recogida de datos: técnicas cuantitativas,” in La Investigación en Comunicación. ¿Qué Debemos Saber? ¿Qué Pasos Debemos Seguir?, eds. Busquet DuránJ.Medina CambrónA. (Barcelona: Editorial UOC), 231–238.

Montes VozmedianoM.Vizcaíno LaorgaR.Gallego GómezJ. D. (2024). Identificación de rasgos básicos en el diseño de logotipos: el caso de las entidades de la federación de ONG caldas. Kepes21 (30), 85–115. 10.17151/kepes.2024.21.30.4

NascimentoA. G. M.ToledoB. S.GuimarãesJ. T.RamosG. L. P. A.da CunhaD. T.PimentelT. C.et al (2022). The impact of packaging design on the perceived quality of honey by Brazilian consumers. Food Res. Int.151, 110887. 10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110887

NeuendorfK. A. (2017). The Content Analysis Guidebook. 2nd Edn. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

PardoJ. (2024). Guías de Vinos más Relevantes en España: Cómo Catan y Puntúan sus Autores. CT: Telecinco. Available online at:https://www.telecinco.es/gastronomia/vinos/20241208/guias-vinos-mas-relevantes-espana-penin-gourmets-proensa-como-catan-puntuan-autores-pl4y_18_014131429.html (Accessed April 7, 2026).

PeñínG. (2025). Guía Peñín de los Vinos de España. Available online at: https://guiapenin.wine (Accessed December 12, 2025).

PolidoroP. (2016). ¿Qué es la Semiótica Visual?Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.

Puebla-MartínezB. (2013). El Tratamiento de la Actualidad en las Series de Ficción. Los Casos de 7 Vidas y Aquí no hay Quien viva (2004-2006) (Tesis Doctoral). BURJC Digital, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain. https://burjcdigital.urjc.es/items/609ccf16-4449-0c23-e053-6f19a8c0ba23

Romero-RodríguezL. M.Castillo-AbdulB.Sánchez-HolgadoP. (2023). Iconographic-symbolic analysis model of corporate visual identity (CVI): application test on pharmaceutical companies in Spain. J. Graphic Design11 (22), 145–157. 10.5565/rev/grafica.259

ShaikhA. D.ChaparroB. S.FoxD. (2006). Perception of fonts: perceived personality traits and uses. Usability News8, 1.

SilvaC. F.CostaJ. P.SousaM. (2024). Advancements in sustainable food packaging: materials, design, and consumer perception. Sustain. Food Technol.2, 1297–1364. 10.1039/d4fb00084f

SpenceC.Van DoornG. (2022). Visual communication via the design of food and beverage packaging. Cogn. Research.7 (42), 1–23. 10.1186/s41235-022-00391-9

Suárez-CarballoF. (2026). Low-resolution Pictures of the Labels of the 100 Best Wines According to Guía Peñín 2025. Zenodo. 10.5281/zenodo.18417161

Suárez-CarballoF.Galindo RubioF.Martín-SanrománJ. R. (2024). Estrategias visuales de los carteles cinematográficos en las principales plataformas de video on demand (VOD) en españa. Mediterranean J. Commun.15 (1), 201–216. 10.14198/MEDCOM.25490

Suárez-CarballoF.Pérez MaílloA. (2022). El diseño gráfico de pódcast: análisis de estrategias visuales. J. Graphic Design10 (19), 55–62. 10.5565/rev/grafica.243

ThomasA.PickeringG. (2003). The importance of wine label information. Int. J. Wine Mark.15 (2), 58–74. 10.1108/eb008757

TrehanK.KalroA. D. (2024). A comprehensive framework of visual elements in brand logos: a content analysis of top 500 global brands. J. Prod. Brand Manag.33 (6), 897–913. 10.1108/JPBM-09-2023-4720

ZunzuneguiS. (1998). Pensar la Imagen. Madrid: Cátedra.

Summary

Keywords

graphic design, packaging, visual communication, visual identity, wine labels

Citation

Suárez-Carballo F, Rodríguez-Basas M and Martín-Sanromán J-R (2026) Visual strategies used by labels of Spain’s best wines. Front. Commun. 11:1790186. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2026.1790186

Updates

Check for updates

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Fernando Suárez-Carballo fsuarezca@upsa.es

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.