Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

AUTHORIZATION

The report is submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Management Program in International Business of Badruka Institute of Foreign Trade, Hyderabad

(Sanjay Vishal) 09-108 BIFT, 2009-2011 31st August, 2011

Page | 1

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
On the onset, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all those great minds and hearts that have touched this project in the path of its success. The knowledge of our theoretical studies is absolutely incomplete without its proper implementation and application in todays diversified corporate world. With profound sense of gratitude and regard, I convey my sincere thanks to Mr. G.S.Rao, Director BIFT, Kachiguda, Hyderabad for providing us the platform for the research project. This project study has proved to be a wonderful opportunity to know about the various dimensions of the Business Environment. It was fortunate for me to do this project under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Aswani Kumar, Faculty of Marketing, BIFT Kachiguda, Hyderabad. We shall ever remain indebted to him for his assistance and sustained encouragement throughout the project. His practical insight and invaluable support from the beginning of the project were extremely obliging to us. We continue to acknowledge with gratitude the constant support and assistance received from the BIFT library staff persons for access to useful material as and when needed as per our convenience. Last but not the least; we thank all our friends and the respondents for expressing their views regarding the topic and for helping us directly or indirectly in the completion of the project without which the project would not have been accomplished successfully.

Page | 2

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

ABSTRACT
This project is a study of the consumer perceptions about the experience when they come across in the restaurants in India. There are some parameters that the customers look into when they are evaluating their experience at any restaurants. But there are also some attributes that the customers may not look into consciously when evaluating their experience, but they certainly increase the overall experience about the visit. The main objective of this project is to find out the main attributes that directly or indirectly affects the experience in a restaurant and create a model. In the project, extraction of different variables of service quality and features from studying a body of literature on services like retail, restaurants, fast foods, etc., was done in the similar context of exploring drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty in the Restaurant industry in India. This study attempts to find out the underlying constructs (using factor analysis) of these service variables for the Indian Restaurant customers. Then the variables (factors) that were extracted have been used as independent variables and an attempt has been made to explore the impact of these factors on customer satisfaction and loyalty as dependent variables, and also to explore the effect of these factors on satisfaction and loyalty of the customers.

Page | 3

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Table of Contents
AUTHORIZATION ........................................................................................................................ 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 2 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION: ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Need and objective: ............................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Relevance: ............................................................................................................................. 7 2. LITERATURE SURVEY: .......................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Customer satisfaction and loyalty studies: ............................................................................ 8 2.2 Customer satisfaction and loyalty studies for Restaurants: ................................................... 9 2.3 SERVQUAL Model: ........................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Gap Model: .......................................................................................................................... 14 2.5 DINESERV: ........................................................................................................................ 16 3. OPERATING VARIABLES: ................................................................................................... 17 3.1 PERCEPTION: ................................................................................................................ 17 3.2 EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................. 17 4. METHODOLOGY: .................................................................................................................. 19 5. SAMPLE ANALYSIS: ............................................................................................................. 19 5.1 Qualitative Analysis: ........................................................................................................... 20 6. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: ................................................................................... 21 6.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS: ....................................................................................................... 22 6.1.1 Descriptive studies:....................................................................................................... 22 6.1.2 Factor Extraction: ......................................................................................................... 23 6.1.3 Factor Rotation: ............................................................................................................ 25 6.1.4 The Interpretation: ........................................................................................................ 25 6.2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS: .............................................................................................. 27 6.2.1 Regression 1 ................................................................................................................. 27 6.2.2 Regression 2 ................................................................................................................. 28 7. RESULTS: ................................................................................................................................ 30 8. REFERENCES: ........................................................................................................................ 31 ANNEXURE 1: Sample questionnaire. ........................................................................................ 33
Page | 4

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

List of tables and Figures:

Table 1: Perception Variables used in the study ........................................................................... 17 Table 2: Experience Variables used in the study .......................................................................... 18 Fig 1: The Gap Model showing 5 Gaps ........................................................................................ 15 Fig 2: DINESERV ........................................................................................................................ 17 Fig 3: Pie Chart showing physical attributes and profession of Respondents .............................. 19 Fig 4: Pie Chart showing Qualitative Analysis ............................................................................. 21 Fig 5: SPSS Output 1 (Descriptive Studies) ................................................................................. 22 Fig 6: SPSS Output 2 (KMO and Bartletts Test)......................................................................... 22 Fig 7: SPSS Output 3 (Factor Extraction)..............................23 Fig 8: SPSS Output 4 (Scree Plot) 24

Fig 9: SPSS Output 5 (Rotated Component Matrix)..................................................................... 25 Fig 10: SPSS Output 6 (Regression 1 Output)......28 Fig 11: SPSS Output 7 (Regression 2 Output)..30

Page | 5

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

1. INTRODUCTION:
The impact of Indias development is observable in changing life styles of consumer. On the social side, nuclear families are coming up with gross high per head income. On the economic side, rising income in India is leading to an overall growth in consumption. All this also has a direct impact on spending patterns involving food. As India beckons the world with its famed hospitality culture, eating out is being increasingly looked upon as a cool habit. Out-of-home dining is getting high popularity and its demanding its fair share of the pie in a spiced-up economy. According to a research project conducted by Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India (www.fhari.com) there are 15 million households in India with average household income of Rs 46,000 per month and 3 million households with a household income of Rs 115,000 per month. Eating out has emerged as a trend, which is prevalent within this elite group. Two out of every five households in this group eat out at least once a month. There are 100 million 17-21 years old in India, and six out of ten households have a child that was born in the post-liberalization era and has grown up with no guilt of consumption. It is estimated that there are approximately 5,00,000 restaurants in the organized sector and this figure is expected to increase in future.

1.1 Need and objective:

The restaurant industry in the India is large and ubiquitous. It provides a range of products and services and touches nearly every household in one way or another. The restaurant industry has grown over the years, largely because the Indian way of life has changed and the rise of upper middle class who has a lot of dispensable income. The proportion of married women in the work force has increased, resulting in women having less time to plan and prepare meals at home. Today, meals are more of an afterthought rather than a planned occasion. Food is one of the basic necessities on which the very survival of human beings rests. But the desire or motivation to eat a food may be distinguished from its liking. That is, the drive or desire to eat foods can be distinct from the enjoyment derived from eating them. A restaurant takes that basic drive - the simplest act of eating-and transforms it into a civilized ritual involving hospitality, imagination, satisfaction, graciousness, and warmth (Gunasekeran, 1992). Due to the above factors the restaurant industry is becoming lucrative in size, fiercely competitive, and very important to the public palate. In particular, it is important to comprehend the dynamics of this industry from the perspective of the customer who is the final arbiter of how much to spend and where, when and what to eat (Andaleeb and Conway, 2006). Therefore, an understanding of the factors that influence customer satisfaction ought to be useful in guiding restaurant owners and managers to design and deliver the right offering.

Page | 6

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

1.2 Relevance:
This project is a study of the consumer perceptions about the experience when they come across in the restaurants in India. There are some parameters that the customers look into when they are evaluating their experience at any restaurants. But there are also some attributes that the customers may not look into consciously when evaluating their experience, but they certainly increase the overall experience about the visit. The main objective of this project is to find out the main attributes that directly or indirectly affects the experience in a restaurant and create a model. An experience is any conduct as real an offering (Pine and Gilmore, 1998) and as any service, good or commodity. In todays service economy many companies wrap experience around their traditional offerings to sell them better. An experience occurs when a company intentionally uses services as the stage, and goods as props, to engage individual customers in a way that creates a memorable event. Commodities are fungible, goods tangible, services intangible and experience memorable. Customer satisfaction is at the heart of marketing. The ability to satisfy customers is vital for a number of reasons. Investors are attracted to companies that excel at satisfying their customers. It is not possible to increase business prosperity without increasing customer satisfaction (Gilbert et al., 2004). It is not the amount of goods and services a company can produce that leads to its success as much as how well it satisfies its customers so they will return and keep the business growing. The quality of what is produced is tied not only to a business, but to the viability of the industry and national standard of living. It should be measured systematically and uniformly. Keeping these points in mind, a study to understand the different factors that influence customer satisfaction in a full service restaurant needs to be done. This not only will enhance our understanding about customer perceptions but also will help us to create a model based on which restaurants can be able to enhance customer satisfaction and experience. Though the scope of the study is limited to a particular location, the factors almost remain the same for most of the customers in a larger geographical location. So the validity of the developed model can be justified by making some minor changes as required.

Page | 7

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY:
2.1 Customer satisfaction and loyalty studies:
As said by Drucker, customer orientation is "the business seen from the point of view of its final result, that is, from the customers point of view", i.e. a way of thinking and business practice where each decision of the company is in sync with customers requirements. From this definition we can say that efforts are required for fully satisfying customer requirements, while it also raises some questions such as how we can recognize customer requirements and how they can be translated to the language of marketing. The subject of customer satisfaction has generated considerable interest and research in marketing. Satisfaction is usually referred to as a post-consumption evaluation based upon a judgment continuum that may range from dissatisfaction to satisfaction (Arora & Singer, 2006). Customers also evaluate service encounters based on prior expectations of service, i.e. the evaluation of performance during a service encounter depends not only on actual performance, but also on prior expectations before receiving and experiencing the service. Customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction results mainly from experiencing a service encounter (Oliver 1980). One of the basic necessities for the very survival of human beings is food. But the desire or motivation to eat a food may be distinguished from its hedonic value as said by Berridge KC (2001). The drive or desire to eat foods can be distinct from the enjoyment derived from eating them (Cardello et al. 2000). The decoration and ambiance of the restaurant, quality of service and quality of food are some of the variables that have received attention in research studies (Okada and Hoch 2004). Therefore the success of restaurant depends on the understanding of their mangers about their customers needs, expectations, and meeting these needs better than their competitors. Several research studies have been conducted that focus on different aspects of the restaurant industry to understand consumer behaviour in various parts of the world (Andersson & Mossberg, 2004; Kivela, Reece & Inbakaran, 1999, 2000). Satisfaction studies revealed three distinct constructs related to satisfaction. These are expectations, performance, and disconfirmation. Disconfirmation shows the gap between expectation and actual performance. Disconfirmation may be close to zero i.e. when a customer received what he (she) expected; positive when performance exceeds expectations and negative when performance falls short of expectations. The antecedents of satisfaction are expectations, perceived performance, perceived disconfirmation of expectations, and attitudes. Consequences of satisfaction are word of mouth, attitude and intention to repeat purchase (Churchill and Suprenant 1982; Oliver 1980; Oliver and Desarbo 1988; Yi 1990). Arora and Singer (2006) investigated the influence of key variables affecting customer intentions to visit a fine dining restaurant. They found that for restaurant managers, knowledge of the
Page | 8

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

relationship between key variables such as customer attitudes, satisfaction, perceived value, and intentions is vital to success in the competitive business environment. Although managers recognize the importance of value, little empirical research exists on values role in influencing intentions. They found that overall performance had the greatest impact on satisfaction. Prior expectations did not reveal statistically significant impact on satisfaction. The second and perhaps more profound finding of the study was that the ambiance of the restaurant also did not influence satisfaction. It is generally accepted that restaurant dcor or ambiance are major reasons for patronage; but in their study they found that the ambiance did not influence satisfaction. Menu prices and attributes of restaurant are generally considered to be the two components that reflect value. It is also expected that higher levels of product/service increase value to customers, while higher prices reduce value.

2.2 Customer satisfaction and loyalty studies for Restaurants:

Dube et al. (1994) in their study focused on the elements of customer satisfaction that may explain about customers return visits to any restaurant. The elements under study included food quality, menu variety, restaurant environment, waiting time, etc. Their findings revealed that all variables were significant but the relative importance of these variables varied depending on the purpose of the visit, be it business or leisure. Oh (2000) in his paper urged restaurant managers to be cautious in interpreting satisfaction scores. He investigated the role of pre-purchase and postpurchase satisfaction on intention and the findings revealed that the influence of satisfaction was stronger in the post-purchase survey. According to Oh, satisfaction may be assimilated in attitude or value over time, whereas satisfaction is still important shortly after consumption while customers are feeling the afterglow of their meal. Thus, the variables that influence customer satisfaction are customers expectations and actual performance or service level encountered can be anticipated. Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran (1999) in their study tried to find the difference in the ratings of restaurant attributes based on the demographic characteristics. In their study they divided the restaurants into four categories based on their differentiation in price, location, theme/ambience, service level, cuisine and style. They argued that determinants in restaurant selection vary across age groups, income levels, and restaurant types. They found ambience factor as an important determining choice variable for 25-34 year olds and has a strong influence. People do not go to restaurants just to be fed, they can order, take away or get delivered, if they do not want to cook. Customers at fine dining restaurants want to be made to feel special. Service quality is a critical component of customers value perceptions that, in turn, become a determinant of customer satisfaction, therefore, customers perceive greater value for their money when they experience a high level of quality (Oh, 2000).
Page | 9

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Upadhay, Singh and Thomas (2007) tried to examine the decision making process in respect of restaurant services in India. Their exploratory study attempted to investigate the impact of demographic and reason to visit variables on restaurants preferences. Their findings suggested how consumers from selected cross-sections evaluate intrinsic and extrinsic cues while evaluating a restaurant. The study was done by assessing for factors : (1) Whether persons with different occupations differ in their preferences for selected attributes in restaurant selection; (2) Whether persons from different age groups differ in their preferences for selected attributes in restaurant selection; (3) Whether persons belonging to different gender differ in their preferences for selected attributes in restaurant selection; (4) Whether persons visiting restaurant for different reasons differ in their preferences for selected attributes in restaurant selection. The results suggest that the highest rated attribute by the consumers in choosing a restaurant is its core product i.e., the quality of food. So marketers cannot afford the risk of the core product in view of the increasing number of variables affecting restaurant choice. Another important attribute was location of the restaurant. The results also illustrate that only four attributes rated by consumers concerning selection a restaurant vary by selected age groups, so age is an insignificant factor. Further, the results suggest that the preferences do not differ significantly on the basis of gender. They suggested that overall demographic variables like, age and gender hardly contributes towards difference only in preferences, which shows that restaurant sector in India is an emerging sector and the consumption preferences are yet evolving. They suggested that extrinsic cues like security, location, parking place etc. play a significant role in selection of restaurants. They also said that the demand curve of restaurants in India is not price elastic as consumers placed tariffs at the tenth spot, hence the nature of competition in the restaurant sector is that of a non-price one. Value has been an important element of business strategy. Casual observation reveals examples of management seeking to provide higher value to customers. Treacy and Wiersema (1993) said that the definition of value as a combination of quality and price, is being replaced by one that includes convenience of purchase, after-sale service, dependability, and so on. They proposed a model to enhance customer value through operational excellence, customer intimacy, or product leadership. Fredericks and Salter (1995) stressed the importance of five variables towards creating customer value: price, product quality, innovation, and service quality and company image relative to the competition. They also note that it was important that customers define in their own words the criteria for superior value on each of these variables.

Page | 10

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Arora and Singer (2006) gave a well defined dimension to value in their study. They inferred that the concept of value creation may vary across industries. According to them value is represented by: Getting something extra. Having needs satisfied. Having expectations met. Providing more than just low prices or basic products. Providing products that are superior to competitors products. Producing higher-quality products. Sternberg (2004) says that the value and the experience created by the restaurants are very much important and the customers are ready to pay a premium for it apart from the food. He said that restaurants can no longer look at menu prices or average checks to determine value. Instead, if customers believe that their dining experience was worth the price they paid, then the meal has value regardless of the portion size of the filet served or the ounces of scotch poured. Dining public of today is more sophisticated than before. According to him customers are increasingly paying first for the experience the restaurants provide, and second for the food they serve. So to succeed in this era of experience over food, restaurants must analyze what customers want and what restaurants mean to them; how can they give guests the experience they're looking for and make it worth their time and money and how can they make it so worthwhile that the customers will return again and again. Mueller (2001) says that apart from good food and quality service, a majestic environment is a must. An environment that evokes the emotions of the customers is one of the crucial factors for the success of a restaurant. She says that everyday materials used like concrete, steel bars, glasses etc. can be used innovatively to create a great atmosphere inside a restaurant. According to her, colour is the single most important contributor to an environment. Another important factor for unique dining environment was the sequence of lighting inside a restaurant. The final contributors for creating the regal environment are the tangible cues that can be touched and felt. Fabrics, their colour, texture and pattern, the cutleries for serving and eating leave a huge impact on the mind of customers in terms of a great experience. After knowing all the requirements it is necessary to know, how to respond to the deficiencies of service quality. SERVQUAL model is a useful tool in identifying the major dimensions of service quality and provides guidelines to know the deficiencies in current service offerings. Tucci and Talaga (2000) said that managers can identify the current perceptions about their service offering and what problem areas exist in their offering using SERVQUAL. But from a customers perspective, SERVQUAL instrument implies that all the attributes are equally important and the improvements (and deficiencies) in one area are as useful (or damaging) as improvements in any other area. If managers are sure that they have provided the best mix of
Page | 11

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

service attributes, then SERVQUAL is an excellent instrument for the identification and correction of service quality problems. If, however, management has not correctly identified the proper service attributes, then SERVQUAL can lead managers to invest in areas that are less than optimal. One method that has proven useful in identifying how consumers make tradeoffs among product variants is conjoint analysis. Filiatrault and Ritchie (1988) performed a study using conjoint analysis, with the focus on the impact of the dining situation on consumer evaluations of restaurant quality. The list of criteria was based on inputs from restaurant owners. The criteria chosen were: type of cuisine, price, service quality, ambiance, and food quality. Their major finding was that it is necessary to first define the dining situation in order for respondents to make meaningful evaluations. Instances where evaluations were made in absence of an explicit situation led to respondents apparently imposing their own dining situation. Sweeney, Johnson and Armstrong (1992) used conjoint analysis to measure customer trade-offs in a restaurant setting. The attributes chosen reflect the four Ps of marketing, plus three further Ps proposed as relevant for service organizations, resulting in a total of nine attributes. All attributes except price had two levels. The authors also tested for dining purpose, with two dining situations specified. In general, they found that the service of employees and restaurant reputation were most important in consumer evaluation of restaurants and that price was the least important in the choice. The authors suggest that the importance of choice criteria among restaurants is likely to vary with different market segments. Some researchers adapted the SERVQUAL instrument for a restaurant setting. They included measurement of the importance of the five SERVQUAL dimensions for the restaurant that they studied. The authors concluded that SERVQUAL can and should be used by restaurants on a regular basis to assess performance. Stevens, Knutson and Patton (1995) adapted SERVQUAL for the restaurant industry and produced a variation specific to restaurants called DINESERV. We note that the DINESERV instrument, while excellent, still has the same drawback as SERVQUAL in that each of the attributes is treated as equal in importance.

2.3 SERVQUAL Model:

SERVQUAL is an empirically derived method that may be used by a services organization to improve service quality. As said by Zeithaml, Parasuraman, and Berry, the method involves the development of an understanding of the perceived service needs of target customers. These measured perceptions of service quality for the organization in question, are then compared against an organization that is considered as a benchmark. The resulting gap analysis may then be used as a driver for service quality improvement. SERVQUAL takes into account the perceptions of customers of the relative importance of service attributes which allows the organization to prioritize its services and to use its resources to improve the most critical service attributes.

Page | 12

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

The data can be collected via surveys of a sample of customers. The customers need to respond to a series of questions based around a number of key service dimensions. The methodology was originally based around 10 key dimensions: 1. Tangibles. Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials. 2. Reliability. Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately. 3. Responsiveness. Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. 4. Competence. Possession of required skill and knowledge to perform service. 5. Courtesy. Politeness, respect, consideration and friendliness of contact personnel. 6. Credibility. Trustworthiness, believability, honesty of the service provider. 7. Feel secure. Freedom from danger, risk, or doubt. 8. Access. Approachable and easy of contact. 9. Communication. Listens to its customers and acknowledges their comments. Keeps customers informed. In a language which they can understand. 10. Understanding the customer. Making the effort to know customers and their needs. Later the above 10 dimensions were consolidated in 5 of them, they are: 1. Tangibles. Appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication materials. 2. Reliability. Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately. 3. Responsiveness. Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service. 4. Assurance. Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence. 5. Empathy. The firm provides care and individualized attention to its customers. Usage of SERVQUAL Applications: SERVQUAL is widely used within service industries to understand the perceptions of target customers regarding their service needs. And to provide a measurement of the service quality of the organization. SERVQUAL may also be applied internally to understand employees' perceptions of service quality. With the objective of achieving service improvement. Steps in SERVQUAL Process: The method essentially involves conducting a sample survey of customers so that their perceived service needs are understood. Customers are asked to answer numerous questions within each dimension that determines: The relative importance of each attribute.
Page | 13

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

A measurement of performance expectations that would relate to an "excellent" company. A measurement of performance for the company in question. This provides an assessment of the gap between desired and actual performance, together with a ranking of the importance of service criteria. This allows an organization to focus its resources to maximize service quality whilst costs are controlled. Strengths of SERVQUAL Model: SERVQUAL provides detailed information about: Customer perceptions of service (a benchmark established by your own customers) Performance levels as perceived by customers Customer comments and suggestions Impressions from employees with respect to customers expectations and satisfaction Limitations of SERVQUAL Model: There have been a number of studies that doubt the validity of the 5 dimensions and of the uniform applicability of the method for all service sectors. According to analysis by some researchers, it appears that the use of difference scores in calculating SERVQUAL contributes to problems with the reliability, discriminant validity, convergent validity, and predictive validity of the measurement. These findings suggest that caution should be exercised in the use of SERVQUAL scores and that further work is needed in the development of measures for assessing the quality of information services. Assumptions of SERVQUAL Model: The results of market surveys are accurate. The validity of the model is based around the results of empirical studies. A number of academics have since performed further empirical studies that appear to contradict some of the original findings. Customer needs can be documented and captured, and they remain stable during the whole process.

2.4 Gap Model:

Parasuraman et al (1988) identified five major gaps that face organizations seeking to meet customer's expectations of the customer experience. The five gaps that organizations should measure manage and minimize: Gap 1: It is the gap between the customers expectations and what managers perceive as they expect. Survey research is a key way to narrow this gap. Gap 2: It is the gap between management perception and the actual specification of the customer experience. Managers need to make sure the organization is defining the level of service they believe is needed.
Page | 14

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Gap 3: It is gap between the experience specifications to the delivery of the experience. Managers need to audit the customer experience that their organization currently delivers in order to make sure it lives up to the spec. Gap 4: It is the gap between the delivery of the customer experience and what is communicated to customers. All too often organizations exaggerate what will be provided to customers, or discuss the best case rather than the likely case, raising customer expectations and harming customer perceptions. Gap 5: It is the gap between a customer's perception of the experience and the customer's expectation of the service. Customers' expectations have been build by word of mouth, their personal needs and their own past experiences. Routine transactional surveys after delivering the customer experience are important for an organization to measure customer perceptions of service. Each gap in the customer experience can be closed through diligent attention from management.

Fig 1: The Gap Model showing the 5 Gaps. (Source: Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for
Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality; Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-37.)

Page | 15

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

2.5 DINESERV:
DINESERV is a tool to measure the service quality in restaurants Vanniarajan (2009). It is a derivation from the SERVQUAL Model which is specific to the restaurant industry and helps to access the quality of any restaurant at any given point of time. Researchers have come out with many attributes that leads a customer to choose a particular restaurant. Vanniarajan (2009) tried to find out the factors that lead an Indian customer to choose a particular restaurant in India. His study was based on some 32 attributes that he identified from previous researches. In his study, the confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that there are six DINESERV factors in the restaurant industry, namely Relationship benefits, Empathy, Communication, Food quality, Price fairness and Tangibles. Moreover, further analysis showed that food quality had the strongest influence on the overall service quality in restaurants. An item-wise analysis showed that personal relationship occupies a very important place among relationship benefits to customers of restaurants. Another variable, friendly service by staff also had a strong influence on overall service quality of the restaurant which reinforced the importance of friendly empathized service provided by the staff. He also found that customers typically referred the prices of food items in other similar restaurants and also have a mindset on the price fairness in the restaurant Therefore, it is important for restaurants to assess competitive prices and customers reference prices for a selected segment in which they desire to position their offering. The study also revealed that tangibles especially clean and elegant dining equipment has a stronger positive impact on overall service quality of the restaurant. Thus, the physical environment includes restaurant dcor, dining area comfort, and cleanliness of the dining area and rest rooms are all important elements of the physical environment that create an impact on the overall service quality. He also found that communication is highly needed to enhance the overall service quality in restaurant industry. The ability of the restaurant to communicate their customers regarding the menu, price, innovation and other promotional schemes though their advertisements, newsletter and direct mail determine the enhancement of overall service quality. He recommended that the managers should continually strive to increase the level of overall service quality of their restaurants by emphasizing the following important DINESERV variables namely: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Consistent quality of food and beverage, Personal relationships, Friendly service by staffs, Reasonable food price, Clean and elegant dining equipment Consistent communication.

Page | 16

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Fig 2: The main 6 pillars of Relationship Quality or DINESERV.

( Source: Vanniarajan, T (2009), DINESERV: A Tool for measuring service quality in restaurants, Journal of
Marketing & Communication, January - April 2009 Vol. 4 Issue 3.)

3. OPERATING VARIABLES:
After experiencing the service the customers are either satisfied or unsatisfied, based on the experience they undergo while consuming the service. The level of satisfaction depends on the gap between the expected and perceived service. The satisfaction can be based on 2 broad heads, namely Perception and Experience. So the variables of customer satisfaction were studied and they are listed as below:
3.1 PERCEPTION: The variables to be studied under customer perceptions are as follows.

SL No. 1. 2.

VARIABLE Prior Expectation Search

DESCRIPTION. Does the customer have any prior mindset about the place or the type of food. The customer makes an effort to gain some knowledge about the restaurant he will be visiting.

PAPER REFERRED TO: Oliver and Desarbo (1988) Upadhay, Singh and Thomas(2007)

Table 1: Perception variables used in the study. 3.2 EXPERIENCE: Experience during the consumption of the service is necessary to study to

understand the customer satisfaction. So this factor contains a no of attributes which are listed below. PAPER REFERRED SL No. VARIABLE DESCRIPTION. TO: The food served is of high quality, good 1. Food Quality taste and the ingredients were in perfect Dube et al. (1994) blend.
Page | 17

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Menu Variety Waiting Time Price Location Theme Ambience Company Image

9.

Innovation

10. 11. 12.

Consistent Quality Service of Staffs Payment Modes After sales service. Dining Equipments. Value Addition. Repeat Purchase Intention Satisfaction

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

The restaurant caters to different varieties within the same cuisine and also offers different cuisine. Does the customer have to wait long to get a table and to be served? Is the price charged for the food, justified both in terms of quality and experience? Is the restaurant located conveniently and is the enough parking spaces. The theme of the restaurant congruent to what they serve and how they serve. Is the ambience inside the restaurant asthetic? Do customers like to visit restaurants that have a good name and image. The restaurant is innovative and adds new items to the menu from time to time. Does the restaurant also have some innovative process to attract and retain customers? The restaurant must be able to deliver the same quality from time to time. The staffs are friendly courteous, efficient and comforting Does the restaurant support all types of payment modes, like Debit and credit cards, coupons, passes, etc. The restaurant keeps in touch with the special customers and has offers and loyalty programs for them. The restaurant has clean and elegant dining equipments and also in sync with the theme they portray. The restaurant is able to add value to the total experience of dining for which the customer can be ready to pay a premium Would the customer be loyal to the restaurant that performs to their expectations and also refer others? Is the customer fully satisfied after visiting a Restaurant that has all the above mentioned attributes?

Dube et al. (1994) Dube et al. (1994) Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran (1999) Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran (2000) Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran (2000) Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran (1999) Fredericks and Salter (1995) Fredericks and Salter (1995)

Vanniarajan (2009) Vanniarajan (2009) Treacy and Wiersema (1993) Treacy and Wiersema (1993) Vanniarajan (2009) Treacy and Wiersema (1993) Oh (2000) Arora and Singer (2006)

Table 2: The Experience Variables used in the study.

Page | 18

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

4. METHODOLOGY:
The variables listed above were to understand the perceptions and experience the customers want from a restaurant. With all the 14 variables, a questionnaire was prepared. All the variables were marked in a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree. Demographic data on age, sex, occupation, etc will also be gathered. A total of 150 respondents were selected for filling the questionnaire. Convenience sampling will be used for selecting the respondents. To analyze the data collected, SPSS 12.0 for Windows was used. The data on 14 variables were reduced through factor analysis and further analysis is done to in order to find out the drivers of customer experience in a restaurant. The factor scores were standardized and used as independent variables and customer satisfaction and loyalty ratings were standardized and used as the dependent variables for the regression.

5. SAMPLE ANALYSIS:
Out of the 150 respondents, mostly were between the age group of 21 24, which consisted of 58% of total respondents, followed by age group of 25 27 who were 33%, followed by 27- 30 who were 5% and more than 30 consisted 4 % of the total respondents. Most of the respondents were students of IBS Hyderabad, which consisted of 87%, followed by the Professors of IBS Hyderabad and people who are in service at 5% each and research scholars at 3&. Most of the respondents were male who consisted of 59% of the respondents.

Age of Respondents
5% 4% 33%
21 - 24 25- 27 27 - 30 > 30

Profession of respondents
5% 3% 5% 87% Professor Scholar Service Student

58%

Gender of Respondents
41% 59%

F M

Fig 3: Pie Charts showing the physical attributes and profession of Respondents. Page | 19

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

5.1 Qualitative Analysis:

Out of the 150 respondents, a qualitative analysis was done to find out some of the characteristics of the respondents. The findings were as follows: Most of the respondents had no fixed timing during the week to visit a restaurant. These respondents accounted for 70% followed by people who visited only on weekends at 22% and people who visited on weekdays at 8% of the respondents. Most of the respondents visited restaurants with friends who accounted for 81%, followed by people who visited with their family at 12% and with peers at 7%of the respondents. People who visited restaurants 1 2 times a month dominated with 58%, followed by 3 4 timers at 35% and 5 6 timers at 7%. None of them visited more than 6 times in a month. People who spent Rs 500 1000 in a single visit were 67%, followed by Rs 1000 2000 were 25% and Rs 2000 3000 were 8% of the respondents. Only 1 person said that he appends Rs 3000 5000 and nobody did spend over Rs 5000. Out of the total respondents 79% did not know about their favorite restaurant, while 11% said they did not have any favorite restaurants and 10% said that they have their favorite restaurant. 69% of the respondents said that they do not select any restaurant based on the occasion or purpose of visit while others (31%) said they do so. Time of Visit to Restaurant
8% 22%
Weekdays

Visits with Whom

7%

12%

Family Friends Peers

70%

Weekends

81%
Nothing fixed

Page | 20

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Times visited Restaurant in a Month

7% 35% 0%
1 to 2 3 to 4

Amount spend on each Visit

8% 0% 25% 0%

500 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 3000

58%

5 to 6 More than 6

67%

3000 - 5000 More than 5000

Favourite Restaurant
10% 11% Yes No 79% Dont Know

Select Restaurant based on Occasion or Purpose

31% 69% No Yes

Fig 4: Pie Charts showing the qualitative analysis.

6. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION:

The quantitative analysis was done based on the responses from the 150 respondents, for which they had to rate the attributes put in form in questions in a 5 point Likert Scale. To analyze the data collected, SPSS 13.0 for Windows was used. FACTOR ANALYSIS: The data that was collected on the basis of 16 variables was used for the factor analysis. The variables have been clubbed into six factors and teir factor scores have been utilized for the regression analysis. REGRESSION ANALYSIS The factor scores were standardized and used as independent variables and customer satisfaction and loyalty ratings were standardized and used as the dependent variables for the regression. Regression 1 relates customer satisfaction to the factors and regression 2 relates loyalty to the factors. A third regression is carried out to find out the linear relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty. All this is done to find out the drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty.

Page | 21

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

6.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS:

6.1.1 Descriptive studies:

Descriptive Statistics N Quality of food Range Waiting Line Price Location Theme Ambience Brand Innovation Consistancy Service Payment Modes Customer Assistance Cleanliness Valid N (listwise) 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maximum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 3.81 3.55 3.32 4.19 3.01 3.01 3.02 4.11 3.84 3.01 4.36 2.45 2.53 3.03 Std. Deviation .974 1.190 1.183 1.085 1.329 1.376 1.373 1.118 1.024 1.366 .707 1.190 1.127 .926

Fig 5: SPSS Output 1 (Descriptive Statistics)

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .745

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square df Sig.

658.320 91 .000

Fig 6: SPSS Output 2 (KMO and Bartletts Test)

SPSS Output 2 shows the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity. a. The KMO statistic varies between 0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates that the sum of partial correlations is large relative to the sum of correlations, indicating diffusion in the pattern of correlations (hence, factor analysis is likely to be inappropriate). A value close to 1
Page | 22

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors. Kaiser (1974) recommends accepting values greater than 0.5 as acceptable. Furthermore, values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre, values between 0.7 and 0.8 are good, values between 0.8 and 0.9 are great and values above 0.9 are superb. For our data the value is 0.745, which falls into the range of being good. Hence, the factor analysis is appropriate for our data. b. Bartlett's measure tests the null hypothesis that the original correlation matrix is an identity matrix. For factor analysis to work we need some relationships between variables and if the R-matrix were an identity matrix then all correlation coefficients would be zero. Therefore, we want this test to be significant (i.e. have a significance value less than 0.05). A significant test tells us that the R-matrix is not an identity matrix; therefore, there are some relationships between the variables we hope to include in the analysis. For these data, Bartlett's test is highly significant (p < 0.001), and therefore factor analysis is appropriate
6.1.2 Factor Extraction:

Fig 7: SPSS Output 3 (Factor Extraction)

Page | 23

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

SPSS Output 3 lists the Eigen values associated with each linear component (factor) before extraction, after extraction and after rotation. Before extraction, SPSS has identified 14 linear components within the data set (we know that there should be as many eigenvectors as there are variables and so there will be as many factors as variables). The Eigen values associated with each factor represent the variance explained by that particular linear component and SPSS also displays the Eigen value in terms of the percentage of variance explained. So, factor 1 explains 23.065% of total variance. It should be clear that the first few factors explain relatively large amounts of variance (especially factor 1) whereas subsequent factors explain only small amounts of variance. SPSS then extracts all factors with Eigen values greater than 1, which leaves us with six factors. The Eigen values associated with these factors are again displayed (and the percentage of variance explained) in the columns labeled Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings. In the final part of the table (labeled Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings), the Eigen values of the factors after rotation are displayed. Rotation has the effect of optimizing the factor structure and one consequence for these data is that the relative importance of the six factors is equalized. Before rotation, factor 1 accounted for considerably more variance than the remaining three, however after extraction it accounts for only 21.478% of variance. So, on both grounds Kaiser's rule may not be totally accurate. However, considering the huge sample that we have, we have taken this approach because the research into Kaiser's criterion gives recommendations for much smaller samples. We have also use the screen plot. The screen plot is shown with thunderbolt indicating the point of inflexions on the curve.

Scree Plot

Eigenvalue

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Component Number

Fig 8: SPSS Output 4 (Scree Plot)

Page | 24

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants. 6.1.3 Factor Rotation:

SPSS Output 5 shows the rotated component matrix (also called the rotated factor matrix in factor analysis) which is a matrix of the factor loadings for each variable onto each factor. This matrix contains the same information as the component matrix in SPSS Output 4 except that it is calculated after rotation. The factor loadings less than 0.4 have not been displayed because we asked for these loadings to be suppressed. Comparing this matrix with the unrotated solution, before rotation, most variables loaded highly onto the first factor and the remaining factors didn't really get a look in. However, the rotation of the factor structure has clarified things considerably: there are six factors and variables load very highly onto only one factor. The suppression of loadings less than 0.4 and ordering variables by loading size also have made the interpretation considerably easier.
Rotated Component Matrix(a) Component 1 Quality of food Range Waiting Line Price Location Theme Ambience Brand Innovation Consistancy Service Payment Modes Customer Assistance Cleanliness Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 10 iterations. .527 .436 -.741 .811 -.591 .807 .499 .816 .429 .965 .973 .850 .814 .680 .704 .463 -.528 2 3 4 5 6

Fig 9: SPSS Output 5 (Rotated Component Martrix)

6.1.4 The Interpretation:

This SPSS output 05 reports the factor loadings for each variable on the components or factors after rotation. Each number represents the partial correlation between the item and the rotated factor. These correlations also help one formulate an interpretation of the factors or components. This is done by looking for a common thread among the variables that have large loadings for a particular factor or component.
Page | 25

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

The above generated factors were then named after grouping the corresponding variables that showed high correlation with a particular factor together (in this case variables with a correlation coefficient higher than 0.4 were considered to be significant). Factor 1- BASIC PRODUCT OR SERVICE Quality of food Range of menu Price Brand / Company Image Service of Staffs.

Factor 2- ATMOSPHERE Theme Ambience

Factor 3- AUGMENTED SERVICE Innovation Customer Assistance / After sales service / Follow up.

Factor 4- ACCESSORIES Payment Modes Dining Equipments.

Factor 5- CONVENIENCE Location Waiting Line

Factor 6- QUALITY CONSISTENCY Consistency

Page | 26

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

6.2 REGRESSION ANALYSIS:

Three separate regressions were carried out with factor scores of the six factors as independent variables. The two dependant variables were: Overall Satisfaction and Revisit. Another Regression was carried out to find out whether search is influenced by overall expectation.
6.2.1 Regression 1

Y1= Overall Customer Satisfaction FS1= Basic Product or Service FS2= Atmosphere FS3= Augmented Service FS4= Accessories FS5= Convenience FS6= Quality Consistency The model can be written as : Y1 = a + b1 * FS1 + b2 * FS2 + b3 * FS3 + b4 *FS5 + b5 * FS6

Page | 27

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Fig 10. SPSS Output 6 (Regression 1 Output)

Adjusted R2 for the regression was 0.464, and Anova (F= 22.527) was also significant (0.00), indicating regression results are valid and the six factors are explaining 46.4% of variance in dependant variable Overall Customer Satisfaction. From the table of coefficients, it is clear that Factor 4 Accessories is not significant at 5 % level of significance; the remaining five factors are highly significant and impact overall Customer satisfaction with Quality Consistancy and Atmosphere showing higher impact (standardized Beta= 0.410 and 0.428 respectively) followed by Basic Product and Service, Conveniences and Augmented Service.
6.2.2 Regression 2

Y2= Customer Revisit or Loyalty. FS1= Basic Product or Service FS2= Atmosphere FS3= Augmented Service FS4= Accessories FS5= Convenience FS6= Quality Consistency The model can be written as : Y2 = a + b1 * FS1 + b2 * FS2 + b3 * FS3 + b4 *FS5 + b5 * FS6

Page | 28

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Fig 11. SPSS Output 7 (Regression 2 Output)

Adjusted R2 for the regression was 0.234, and Anova (F= 8.575) was also significant (0.00), indicating regression results are valid and the six factors are explaining 23.4% of variance in dependant variable Customer Revisit. From the table of coefficients, it is clear that Factor 4 Accessories and Factor 5 Convenience are not significant at 5 % level of significance; the remaining 4 factors are highly significant and impact Customer Revisit with Quality Consistency and Atmosphere showing higher impact (standardized Beta= 0.309 and 0.310 respectively) followed by Basic Product or Service and Augmented Service.

Page | 29

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

7. RESULTS:
In this study of exploration of the drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers in a restaurant, several insights have come up. The 14 variables used for the exploratory research had been clubbed into six factors which mainly affect the satisfaction and loyalty towards the sector. The factors identified are: FS1= Product Superiority FS2= Atmosphere FS3= Dining Experience FS4= Basic Requirements FS5= Conveniences FS6= Constant Quality

Narrowing down on these factors, their scores are used for further multivariate analysis. The scores obtained from SPSS have been standardized for regression. The ratings obtained from the survey for loyalty and satisfaction has also been standardized The regression carried out for customer satisfaction against the factors shows Factor 4 Basic Requirements and Factor 3 Dining Experience is not significant at 5 % level of significance. This can be because they feel that basic requirements are so common and compulsory that it does not impact the satisfaction level. The Dining Experience is not so much of importance as innovation and Customer assistance is something that is not easily provided by restaurants. Checking on the standardized coefficients of the factors the maximum contribution is by Constant Quality and Atmosphere showing higher impact (standardized Beta= 0.410 and 0.428 respectively) followed by Product Superiority and Conveniences The regression carried out for Customer Revisit against the factors shows that Factor 4 Basic Requirements; Factor 3 Dining Experience and Factor 5 Conveniences are not significant at 5 % level of significance. This can be because loyalty is altogether a different aspect. It does not depend on the basic requirements or the product related convenience. This is because in this age of competition this is a very insignificant part deciding on loyalty as it is being provided by every retailer. Checking on the standardized coefficients of the factors the maximum contribution to customer revisit are Constant Quality and Atmosphere showing higher impact (standardized Beta= 0.309 and 0.310 respectively) followed by Product Superiority. But the results of the regression are not very satisfactory as the R-square is only 0.23. This may say that the model we have assumed does not fully satisfy the situation.

Page | 30

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

8. REFERENCES:

Andaleeb, Syed Saad and Conway, Carolyn ,(2006), Customer satisfaction in the restaurant

industry: an examination of the transaction-specific model, Journal of Services Marketing 20/1 (2006) 311, Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045]. Andersson, T.D. and Mossberg, L. (2004), The Dining Experience: Do Restaurants Satisfy Customer Needs?, Food Service Technology, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 4(4), Dec., pp. 171177. Arora, Raj & Singer, Joe (2006), Customer Satisfaction and Value as Drivers of Business Success for Fine Dining Restaurants, Journal of Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 28(1) 2006. Berridge, K.C. (2001), Reward Learning: Reinforcement, Incentives Expectations, Psychology Learn Motivation, 40, pp. 22378. Boss, Donna.L (2008); Providing authentic customer service yield results, Nations Restaurant News, Feb 25, 2008 Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H., Snow, C. and Lesher, L. (2000), Predictors of Food Acceptance, Consumption and Satisfaction in Specific Eating Situations, Food Quality Pref, 11, pp. 20116. Churchill, G.R. and Surprenant, C. (1982), An investigation into determinants of customer satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 491-504. Dube, Laurette, Leo M. Renaghan, and Jane M. Miller (1994), Measuring Customer Satisfaction for Strategic Management, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35 (1), 39-47.
Filiatrault, P. and Ritchie, J.R.B. (1988). The Impact Of Situational Factors on the Evaluation of Hospitality Services. Journal of Travel Research, 26 (2), 29-37.

Fredericks, Joan O. and James M. Salter, II (1995), Beyond Customer Satisfaction. Increasing Customer Loyalty, Management Review, 84 (5), 29-33. Gilbert, G. Ronald, Veloutsou, Cleopatra. , Goode, Mark M.H., and Moutinho, Luiz (2004), Measuring customer satisfaction in the fast food industry: A cross-national approach, Journal of Services Marketing Volume 18 Number 5 2004 pp. 371-383 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 0887-6045 DOI 10.1108/08876040410548294 Gunasekeran, R. (1992), Choice of Up-market (Fine Dining) Restaurants by Young Professional and Business People, National University of Singapore School of Business Management. Unpublished. Kivela, J., Reece, J. and Inbakaran, R. (1999), Consumer Research in the Restaurant Environment. Part 2: Research Design and Analytical Methods, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 1999, 11(6), pp. 269-286.

Page | 31

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J., (2000), Consumer Research in the Restaurant Environment- Part 3: Analysis, Findings and Conclusions, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12/1, pp. 13-30. Mueller, Patricia (2001),Success by design: Restaurant Environment just as crucial as good food and prompt service, Nations Restaurant News, New York, December 3, 2001 Oh, H. (1999), The Effect of Brand Class, Brand Awareness, an Price on Customer Value and Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(2), May, pp. 136-162 Oh, H. (2000), Diners Perceptions of Quality, Value, and Satisfaction: A Practical Viewpoint, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, pp. 58-66. Okada, Erica Mina, Stephen J. Hoch (2004), Spending Time versus Spending Money, Journal of Consumer Research, (Sept.), 31, (2), 313-314. Oliver, R. L. (1980), A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, XVII (4), 460-69. Oliver, R. L. and DeSarbo, W. S. (1988), Response Determinants in Satisfaction Judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (4), 495-507. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., and Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality; Journal of Retailing, 64 (1), 12-37. Pine, B. Joseph and Gilmore, James. H. (1998), Welcome to the Experience Economy, Harvard Business Review, July-August, 1998. Sternberg, Micheal (2004) Redefining the Value Equation, Restaurant Hospitality magazine, April 2004 Stevens, P., Knutson, B., and Patton, M. (1995). DINESERV: A Tool of Measuring Service Quality in Restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36 (2), 56-60. Sweeney, J.C., Johnson, L.W., and Armstrong, R.W. (1992). The Effect of Cues on Service Quality Expectations and Service Selection in a Restaurant Setting. Journal of Services Marketing, 6 (4), 15-22. Tucci, Louis A & Talaga, James A (2000), Determinants of Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality in Restaurants, Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 6(2) 2000 Treacy, Michael and Fred Wiersema (1993), Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines, Harvard Business Review, 71 (1), 84-93. Upadhyay, Yogesh; Singh, Shiv Kumar & Thomas, George, DO PEOPLE DIFFER IN THEIR PREFERENCES REGARDING RESTAURANTS? AN EXPLORATORY STUDY; The Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 l No. 2 l AprilJune 2007 Vanniarajan, T (2009), DINESERV: A Tool for measuring service quality in restaurants, Journal of Marketing & Communication, January - April 2009 Vol. 4 Issue 3.
Page | 32

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants.

Yi, Y. (1990), A Critical Review of Consumer Satisfaction, in Zeithaml, V.A. Ed. Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 68-123

ANNEXURE 1: Sample questionnaire.

Questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam, I am a student of IBS, Hyderabad. As part of the requirements for my Post Graduation course in Management I am required to do a research based project. Kindly spend a few minutes of your valuable time and fill in this questionnaire.
1. PERSONAL INFORMATION a) NAME b) AGE c) PROFESSION d) GENDER Male 2. When do you generally visit restaurants? Weekdays Weekends Nothing fixed.

Female

3. With whom do you generally go out to a restaurant? Family Friends Peers

Others (if any mention): ___________________ 4. How many times do you visit a restaurant in a month? 12 34 56 More than 6

5. How much do you generally spend on dining in restaurant during each visit? 500 1000 3000 5000 1000 2000 More than 5000 2000 3000

6. Do you have a favorite restaurant where you visit the most? Yes No Dont know

If Yes, mention name : ________________________

Page | 33

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants. 7. Do you select a restaurant based on the occasion or purpose of your visit? Yes No

On the next page is given a series of statements. Please tick the appropriate choice according to you. Please note that there is no right or wrong answer. Its your opinion that matters. All the variables were marked in a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 strongly disagree. Sl no Parameters Strongly disagree disagree (2) (1) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly agree (5)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

I have some prior expectation before visiting any restaurant. I search for information about the restaurant before visiting any. I go to restaurants that have tasty and high quality of food. I usually visit restaurants that offer a greater range and variety of cuisines. I like visiting restaurants where I have to wait. Price is a priority for me when visiting a restaurant. Location is a priority for me when visiting any restaurant. Theme of any restaurant is of not much importance to me. I visit a restaurant that has a good ambience. Credibility or name of the brand not of much importance to me. I like restaurants that constantly bringing in new items and services. Consistent quality can influence me to revisiting a restaurant. I will not go back to any restaurant that has medium or low level of service from the staffs. I prefer restaurants that have different Payment modes. I like restaurants that have good after sales customer assistance. I visit a restaurant that has elegant and clean utensils and cutleries. I am ready to pay a premium price for better quality of service, ambience and a whole new experience in a restaurant. I am ready to go back to a restaurant visiting Page | 34

Study of Consumer Experience in Restaurants. which has been a good experience for me. I am highly satisfied with a restaurant which has above mentioned attributes.

19.

Page | 35