analysis the impact of service quality on brand image
TRANSCRIPT
ANALYSIS THE IMPACT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON
BRAND IMAGE
(CASE STUDY AT KFC KELAPA GADING)
By
Jesslyn Stephanie
011200800043
A thesis presented to the Faculty of Economics President
University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for Bachelor
Degree in Economics Major in Management
President University
Cikarang Baru – Bekasi
Indonesia
2012
i
THESIS ADVISER
RECOMMENDATION LETTER
This thesis entitled “Analysis The impact of Service Quality on Brand Image
(Case Study at KFC Kelapa Gading)” prepared and submitted by Jesslyn
Stephanie in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Bachelor Degree in
Economics – Majoring in Management, has been reviewed and found to have
satisfied the requirements for a thesis fit to be examined. We therefore recommend
this thesis for Oral Defense.
Cikarang, Indonesia, December 16, 2011
Acknowledged by,
Irfan Habsjah, MBA, CMA
Head of Management Study Program
Recommended by,
Suresh Kumar, S. T., M. Si
Thesis Adviser
ii
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I declare that this thesis, entitled “Analysis The impact of Service
Quality on Brand Image (Case Study at KFC Kelapa Gading)” is, to
best of my knowledge and belief, an original piece of work that has not
been submitted, either in whole or in part, to another university to obtain
a degree.
Cikarang, Indonesia, December 16, 2011
Jesslyn Stephanie
iii
PANEL OF EXAMINERS
APPROVAL SHEET
The Panel of Examiners declare that the Thesis entitled “Analysis The impact of
Service Quality on Brand Image (Case Study at KFC Kelapa Gading)” that was
submitted by Jesslyn Stephanie Majoring in Management from the Faculty of
Economics was assessed and approved to have passed the Oral Examination on 18
January 2012.
Irfan Habsjah, MBA, CMA
Chair, Panel of Examiners,
Ir. Farida Komalasari, M. Si
Examiner 1
Suresh Kumar, S. T., M. Si
Examiner 2
iv
ABSTRACT
KFC is one of fast food restaurant owned by PT. Fast Food Indonesia in
Jakarta. This fast food restaurant has developed many branches in Indonesia,
including Kelapa Gading. KFC Kelapa Gading has made many changes, them is
built a physical building and system. This showed that the service quality given to
the customer has been improved. In turn, this improvement will increase the
community’s perception that will create brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading.
The objective of this research is to analysis the impact of service quality on
brand image of the restaurant. The restaurant’s service quality consists of tangible,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy.
The number of population of KFC Kelapa Gading in a day was 250
customers and the sample was 154 customers. The data were collected by
questionnaire. A total of 154 customers were randomly chosen at KFC Kelapa
Gading to have their perception about the service quality on brand image of KFC
Kelapa Gading.
The research method used multiple regressions. The overall test (F-test) of
service quality (tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) on
brand image showed F = 20.516. The results of t-test showed that tangible,
responsiveness, and assurance are not significant impact on brand image of KFC
Kelapa Gading with t value result are 1.791, 0.255, -0.282. Reliability and empathy
are significant impact on brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading with t value results are
2.296 and 4.671.
The results of this research showed that service quality conducted had
positive and significant effect to the brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading. Out of the
five variables used in this research that empathy variable is dominant variable among
other variable. Based on determinant identification that R square is 39.3% that means
brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading is affected by service quality variable by 39.3%
and the rest 60.7% is affected by other variables that has not been used in this
research.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to give my biggest gratitude to God for all His bless and
grace to me, and guidance. I found a lot of difficulty when do and finishing this
thesis, but God always give the way and make me strong to face all problems that I
faced and His love taught me to be thankful of whatever happened in my life.
This thesis will never be completed without help from other parties. I would like to
say thanks for:
1. Mr. Suresh Kumar, He is giving me nice advice to accomplishing this
research, thanks for your ideas guidance, and suggestions.
2. My Parents, sister, and brother, Thanks for support, prayers, and
encouragement for me when I face the problem.
3. Mr. Wahab, Mr. Ridwan, Mr. Steven, and Mr. Bowo, thanks for permission
to do my research in KFC Kelapa Gading.
4. Randy, thanks for your support and prayer for me to finished this thesis and
always listened my entire problem.
5. My best friends ever, Quilizy Maggio, She always supports and sometimes
helps in grammar and vocabulary.
6. All of D5 group, IB students and friends in PU who always want to give
information about thesis or announcement from PU and support.
7. All customers of KFC Kelapa Gading, thanks for your participation for
filling in my questionnaires.
Finally, sincere gratitude for President University, and all lectures, thanks you very
much for the support, guidance, advice, and great experience. It is unforgettable, and
I will not forget it as one of the greatest part of my life.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page
THESIS ADVISER RECOMMENDATION LETTER............................................ i
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY..................................................................... ii
PANEL OF EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET.................................................... iii
ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................................. vi
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................... x
CHAPTERS
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background of Study........................................................................................... 1
1.2. Company Profile...................................................................................................2
1.2.1 History of KFC............................................................................................2
1.2.2 Profile of PT. Fast Food Indonesia Tbk.......................................................3
1.3. Problem Identification..........................................................................................5
1.4. Statement of Problem............................................................................................5
1.5. Theoretical Framework.........................................................................................5
1.6. Significance or Importance of the Study..............................................................7
1.7. Scope and Limitation of Study.............................................................................7
1.8. Assumption and Hypothesis.................................................................................8
vii
1.9. Define of Terms................................................................................................... 8
II. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................. 10
2.1. Past Research...................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Perception........................................................................................................... 11
2.3. Service................................................................................................................ 13
2.4. Quality................................................................................................................ 16
2.5. Service Quality................................................................................................... 16
2.6. Brand Image....................................................................................................... 19
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................... 22
3.1. Research Method................................................................................................ 22
3.2. Research Time and Place.................................................................................... 23
3.3. Research Instrument........................................................................................... 23
3.4. Sampling Design................................................................................................. 27
3.4.1 Population.................................................................................................. 27
3.4.2 Sample....................................................................................................... 27
3.5. Statistical Treatment........................................................................................... 28
3.5.1 Validity Test.............................................................................................. 28
3.5.2 Reliability Test.......................................................................................... 29
3.5.3 Multiple Regressions..................................................................................30
3.6. Testing Hypothesis............................................................................................. 33
3.6.1 F-test.......................................................................................................... 33
3.6.2 t-test........................................................................................................... 34
3.7. Data Result of Validity and Reliability Testing................................................. 34
viii
3.8. Limitation............................................................................................................ 36
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULT................ 38
4.1. Data Collection................................................................................................... 38
4.2. Research Result.................................................................................................. 38
4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis.................................................................................. 38
4.2.1.1 Tangible........................................................................................... 38
4.2.1.2 Reliability........................................................................................ 40
4.2.1.3 Responsiveness................................................................................ 42
4.2.1.4 Assurance......................................................................................... 43
4.2.1.5 Empathy........................................................................................... 45
4.2.1.6 Brand Image..................................................................................... 47
4.2.2 Model Evaluation....................................................................................... 48
4.2.2.1 Normality Test................................................................................. 48
4.2.2.2 Multicollinearity Test...................................................................... 49
4.2.2.3 Heteroscedasticity Test.................................................................... 51
4.3. Analysis and Interpretation................................................................................ 52
4.3.1 Regression Model...................................................................................... 52
4.3.2 Determination Coefficient......................................................................... 52
4.3.3 F-test.......................................................................................................... 53
4.3.4 t-test........................................................................................................... 54
4.3.4.1 Tangible........................................................................................... 54
4.3.4.2 Reliability........................................................................................ 55
4.3.4.3 Responsiveness................................................................................ 56
4.3.4.4 Assurance......................................................................................... 57
4.3.4.5 Empathy........................................................................................... 57
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................... 59
5.1. Conclusion........................................................................................................ 59
5.2. Recommendation.............................................................................................. 60
REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 61
APPENDICES
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Research Time 23
Table 3.2 Likert Scale 25
Table 3.3 Table of Variables and Indicators 26
Table 3.4 The result of Validity Test Of “KFC Kelapa Gading” 35
Table 3.5 Reliability Test of “KFC Kelapa Gading” 36
Table 4.1 Customers’ Perception on Tangible Dimension 38
Table 4.2 Customers’ Perception on Reliability Dimension 41
Table 4.3 Customers’ Perception on Responsiveness Dimension 42
Table 4.4 Customers’ Perception on Assurance Dimension 44
Table 4.5 Customers’ Perception on Empathy Dimension 46
Table 4.6 Customers’ Perception on Brand Image Dimension 47
Table 4.7 Coefficient of KFC Kelapa Gading 50
Table 4.8 Model Summary of KFC Kelapa Gading 52
Table 4.9 ANOVA of KFC Kelapa Fading 53
x
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 1.1 Theoretical Frame Work of the Research 6
Figure 2.1 Four Service Characteristic 14
Figure 4.1 Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual 49
Figure 4.2 Scatter plot 51
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The development of Franchise Industry in Indonesia has been
escalating rapidly and continuously. Its remarkable growth indicated by the
number of Franchisors as well as the advancement of income level that keeps
increasing annually.
There are many franchises serving many various such as fast food and
bakery, food shops, supermarket, etc. No wonder, we can find various kind of
food from traditional, Chinese, western food, etc.
A franchise system is one promising option for fast food restaurant.
Fast food restaurants start scattering around the world. Fast food is a
phenomenon that has exploded into popularity and has even become part of
some of our daily lives. The cause of fast food and the appearance of fast
food chains is the one big factor that is convenience and speed. Many people
in this modern day are quite busy which causes them to choose a one minute
prepared meal instead of twenty minute meal. The convenience includes the
plethora of fast food restaurants out on the streets. Generally we can see chain
restaurants statistics: comparing KFC, McDonalds, AW, CFC, Wendy’s in
most parts of a city. This allows easy access for a hungry person who is in a
rush to get food quickly. So the great convenience of eating in or taking out at
a fast food joint is one great contribution to the fast food phenomena’s
success.
2
One fast food restaurant is now also competing with others is
Kentucky Fried Chicken, well known as KFC. Kentucky Fried Chicken
(KFC) has opened many branches in Indonesia, including in Kelapa Gading.
KFC Kelapa Gading has a good image by providing quality products
and services. A good image comes from experience and impression. To get a
good image on quality, KFC focused on quality service to attract customers
and variant menus.
To get the heart of consumer, KFC Kelapa Gading is currently
experiencing rapid growth with the renewal of the service system such as 24
hour service. Improvement in the quality of services provided to consumers is
able to improve the public perception and hence. It will help KFC Marketing
activities.
Therefore this research is focusing in service quality affecting brand
image, which is expected to give some suggestion to KFC Kelapa Gading
how to take some steps and action perform base on dimension in service
quality toward brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading.
1.2 Company Profile
1.2.1 History of KFC
9th September 1890, Harland Sanders the owner of KFC, was born in
Indiana. Sander was a cook expert when he was a child.
1990 – 1924, Harland Sanders hold a variety of jobs such as a
farmer, a rail yard fireman, an army private in Cuba, an insurance
3
salesman, a conductor, a tire salesman and a service station operator
for standard oil.
In 1939, Harland Sanders made original recipe with 11 kinds of
spices using a unique method to maintain the flavor of chicken. He
got “Kentucky Colonel Award” from the Government of Kentucky.
In 1952, Colonel began actively franchising his chicken business by
travelling from town to town and cooking batches of chicken for
restaurant owners and employees.
In 1955, Colonel Sanders built KFC Inc.
In 1964, KFC has more than 600 franchised outlets in the United
States and the first overseas outlet, in England. Sanders sold his
share to a group of investor headed by John Y. Brown Jr and Jack
Massy.
Since 1978, KFC starts its National Training Center
16th December 1980, Colonel Harland Sanders, who came to
symbolize quality in the food industry, he died because leukemia.
1.2.2 Profile of PT. Fast Food Indonesia Tbk
PT. Fast Food Indonesia Tbk is the sole owner of the KFC franchise in
Indonesia, founded by Gelael Group in 1978 as the first party who obtained
the franchise for KFC Indonesia. Opening in October 1979 on Jl. Melawai,
Jakarta, and up to June 30, 2011, the company operates 402 restaurant outlets.
All the company restaurant outlets are located in Indonesia, 146 which of are
4
located in Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Depok, Bekasi, and Tangerang
(Jabodetabek) and the rest are located outside Jabodetabek.
In 2008, KFC introduced new concept “One-Stop”, complete facilities
such as Internet Corner, self-service booth, and KFC Cafe’ Counter located in
the main counter of KFC. The company focused type of restaurant is “free
standing” to improve visibility brand of KFC and accessibility for customer.
Vision and Mission OF KFC:
Vision Become the best restaurant and most popular in
Indonesia, and leader in the fast food industry.
Mission Give satisfaction to all customers with high quality
product and unforgettable moment, KFC Jagonya
Ayam.
Commitment Maintain the leading trademark in the fast food industry,
in term of:
• Product – provide quality product with many
variation.
• Service – always served with smile and give best
customer expectation.
• Value – consistently give more value to all market
segments from kids, teenagers, young people, and
family.
• Development – excelled in the number of outlets and
new design and trendy for all outlets KFC, which has
various facilities base on customer needs.
5
1.3 Problem Identification
Number of fast food restaurant in the world such as McDonald’s
restaurants in the world: 32.737, The largest burger chain in the world with
annual revenues of over 24 billion dollars. Number of Kentucky Fried
Chicken restaurants in the world: 16.200, KFC is the largest chicken
restaurant in the world with outlets in over 100 countries. Number of
Wendy’s restaurants in the world: 6.650 (Retrieved from
http://www.thetoptenlist.net/2011/07/top-10-largest-fast-food-chains-in-the-world/)
Competition in fast food restaurant business is extremely tight not
only in terms of product but also services. The role of service quality
dimensions are the best alternative to develop the best service quality, so that
they will affect much to the impression and image of the restaurant toward
brand image of KFC.
1.4 Statement of Problems
Based on the background of problem, the researcher would like to
know is there any impact of service quality (tangible, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) toward KFC brand image.
1.5 Theoretical Framework
To measure the service quality, the researcher takes the service quality
concepts of “SERVQUAL”, which is tangible, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, and empathy. (Tjiptono, 2005: 273)
6
1) Tangible: the ability of restaurant to show physical facilities,
equipment, and appearance personal.
2) Reliability: the ability of restaurant to perform the promised
service dependably and accurate.
3) Responsiveness: the willingness of employee to provide service
and help customer
4) Assurance: the employee knowledgeable, polite, competence, and
trustworthy. The ability of employee to inspire trust and confident.
5) Empathy: The service firms provide caring and personalized
attention to each customer and don’t care their old or new
customer.
Company performance will determine consumer perceptions toward
service quality. Consumer perception toward service quality will build
company image. (Arafah, 2004:57)
Figure 1.1: Theoritical Frame work of the research; adopted
From Tjiptono (2005, p. 273) and Arafah (2004, p. 57)
SERVQUAL
Brand Image
7
1.6 Significance or Importance of the Study
There are purposes of writing the thesis which are stated below:
For KFC, it is expected that the result of the study can give contribution
to KFC about the importance of improving service quality toward brand
image in KFC.
For President University, it is expected that the result of the study can
give more experience and reference especially to develop knowledge on
service quality toward brand image.
For researcher, to enhance the knowledge and skill in doing
observation, to improve the writing and reading skill and more
importantly of learn to implement the theories that have been learned.
For other researchers or readers, the results can be used as an input in
conducting research in the future.
1.7 Scope and Limitation of Study
The scope of this study is about to analyze service quality which
includes factors of tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy toward brand image of KFC. Meanwhile the research is conducted
in Kelapa Gading, and the customers in this research are those who are
regular customers at KFC Kelapa Gading.
The limitation of this research is the respondents of this research are
consumers come and eat in KFC Kelapa Gading and Service Quality in KFC
Kelapa Gading only.
8
1.8 Assumption and Hypothesis
Hypothesis is a proportion of explanation and temporary explanation
to get conclusion. The hypothesis is service quality (tangible, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) has a positive and significant impact
to brand image of KFC conducted by KFC of Kelapa Gading franchise.
1.9 Definition of Terms
Perception: The process by which people translate sensory impressions into
a consistent and unified view of the world around them.
Services: the act of serving from the restaurant to customers which is
basically point of sale and do not result belonging toward a product.
Quality: a measure of excellence or a state of
being free from defects, deficiencies, and significant variations, brought about
by the strict and consistent adherence to measurable and verifiable standards
to achieve uniformity of output that satisfies specific customer
or user requirements.
Service Quality: is the expectation of customers towards the service or
product.
Brand: is a set of perceptions and images that represent a company, product
or service.
Brand Image: is the impression in the consumer’s mind of a brand’s totally
personality (real and imaginary qualities and shortcomings). Brand image
is developed over time through advertising campaigns with
9
a consistent theme, and is authenticated through the
consumers' direct experience.
Reliability: The ability of an apparatus, machine, or system to consistently
perform its intended or required function or mission, on demand and without
degradation or failure.
Tangible: Having physical existence and/or form, or discernible through one
or more senses.
Responsiveness: The willingness to help a customer and provide prompt
service.
Assurance: The knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to
convey trust and confidence.
Empathy: The provision of caring, individualized attention to customers.
10
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Past Research
The kind of research has been conducted before by Nisrul Irawati
and Rina Primadha with a Title “Pengaruh Kualitas Pelayanan Terhadap
Brand Image pada Unit Rawat Jalan Poliklinik Penyakit Dalam RSU DR.
Pirngadi di Medan”; Effect of service quality toward brand image in RSU Dr.
Pringadi. The objective of this research was to analysis the effect of the
hospital’s service quality to the brand image of the hospital. The hospital’s
service quality consists of Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy,
and Tangible. This research used Non Probability sampling with combine
between Purposive and Quota sampling which 60 peoples.
The research method used Descriptive Statistic Method and Inferential
Statistic (Multiple Regression). The result of this research showed that
service quality had positive and significant effect to the brand image of Dr.
Pringadi Medan Hospital. Out of the five variables used in this research that
tangible variable is the dominant variable among others variables. Based on
determinant identification showed that R square is 53.6% that means brand
image of Dr. Pirngadi Hospital effected by service quality variables by 53.6%
and the rest 46.4 effected by other variables that not been used in this
research.
11
Other research has been conducted before by Ika Puspita with a title
“Hubungan Persepsi Konsumen Tentang kualitas Pelayanan Dengan Citra
Rumah Sakit Umum Daerah Kabupaten Aceh Tamiang”; the relationship of
patient’s perception about quality of service with the image of Aceh Tamiang
District General Hospital. The purpose of this research study was to analyze
in the relationship of patient’s perception about quality of service with the
image of Aceh Tamiang District General Hospital. The population of this
study used purposive sampling technique. The data obtained were analyzed
through Chi-Square test.
The research method used descriptive statistic method. The result of
Chi-Square Test showed that there were a relation between the perception of
patient on the quality of service consisting of technical quality dimension
(professionalism, p = 0.000) and the functional quality dimension (reliability
with p = 0.000, attitudes with p = 0.000, accessibility with p = 0.000, service
recovery with p = 0.000, and servicecape with p = 0.000) with the image of
Aceh Tamiang District General Hospital.
2.2 Perception
According Philip Kotler, Kevin Lane Keller, Swee Hoon Ang, Siew
Meng Leong, and Chin Tiong Tan (2006, p. 191) a motivated person is ready
to act. How the motivated person actually acts is influenced by his or her
view or perception of the situation. Perception is the process by which an
individual selects, organizes, and interprets information inputs to create a
meaningful picture of the world. Perception depends not only the physical
12
stimuli; but also on the stimuli’s relation to the surrounding field and on
conditions within the individual. People can emerge with different
perceptions of the same object because of three perceptual processes:
1. Selective Attention. Consumers are exposed to numerous ads or
brand communications every day.
2. Selective Distortion is tendency to interpret information in a way
that will fit our preconceptions.
3. Selective Retention is people remember good points about a
product and forget good points about competing products.
The world is full of stimuli. A stimulus is any unit of input affecting
one or more of the five senses: sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. The
process by which people select, organize, and interpret these stimuli into a
meaningful and coherent picture is called perception. (Lamb, Hair, McDaniel
2010, p. 217)
Perception is how consumer understands the world around them based
on information received through their sense. In response to the stimuli,
consumers subconsciously evaluate their needs, values, and expectations, and
then they use that evaluation to select, organize, and interpret the stimuli
(Laura A. Lake; 2009, p.85)
Human beings perceive through sensory processes involving sight,
sound, taste, and hearing. After having absorbed inputs with our sense, it is
time to perceive them. Perception is the process of meaning creation where
13
the brain identifies input pattern and recognizes certain elements as being
intertwined (Tilde Heding; 2009, p. 68).
2.3 Service
One of the major world trends in recent years has been the dramatic
growth of services. As a result of rising affluence, more leisure time, and the
growing complexity of products that require servicing, the United States has
become the world’s first service economy. The world largest economies 2011
base on percentage contribution of services sector in GDP such as United
States is 76.8% (as of 2010), China is 43% (as of 2010), Japan is 73.8% (as of
2010), India is 55.2% (as of 2010), German is 71.3% (as of 2010). (Retrieved
from http://www.therichest.org/world/worlds-largest-economies/)
A service is an act or performance offered by one party to another.
Although the process may be tied to a physical product, the performance is
essentially intangible and doesn’t normally result in ownership of any of
factors of production. Service are economic activities that create value and
provide benefits for customer at specific times and places, as a result of
bringing about a desired change in – or on behalf of – the recipient of the
service (Christoper Lovelock & Lauren Wright, 1999 : p. 1).
According Philip Kotler, Kevin Lane Keller, Swee Hoon Ang, Siew
Meng Leong, and Chin Tiong Tan (2006, p. 420) a service is any act or
performance that one party can offer to another that is essentially intangible
and does not result in the ownership of anything.
14
The following represent a sample of service definition:
1. A service is a way of delivering value to a customer by facility the
expected outcome (Hurwitz, Robin Bloor, Klaufman, Halper 2009,
p.8)
2. A service is the result of applying human or mechanical effort to
people or objects. Service involve a deed, a performance, or an
effort that cannot physically possessed (Lamb, Hair, McDaniel
2010, p. 389)
3. A service is a time-perishable, intangible experience performed for
a customer acting in the role of co-procuder (James A. Fitzsimmon
2005, p. 4).
According Kotler and Garry (2011; p. 237) Services have four
distinctive characteristics that greatly affect the design of marketing
programs: intangibility, inseparability, variability, and perishability.
Figure 2.1 Four Service Characteristic
15
1. Intangibility. Service are performances, rather than objects, they
cannot be seen, felt, tasted, or touched in the same manner in which
goods can be sensed. For example, when buy ticket for watching
movie in cinema. That means we buy the services and promises
from cinema about they will give comfortable seat for watching,
nice picture and sound.
2. Inseparability of production and consumption involves the
simultaneous production and consumption which characterizes
most services. That means if goods the first must produced – sold –
consumed, but services sold – produced – consumed.
3. Variability is quality services depends on who provides them and
when, where, and how. For example: when use taxi cab from home
to mall Rp 15.000, but when want to go home from mall to home
Rp 17.000. The different price because different driver, situation in
the street, and how they drive the car.
4. Perishability is service cannot be stored for later sale or use. For
example: restaurant A have different service when weekdays and
weekend days. In the weekdays, the restaurant only uses 20
employees, but in the weekend restaurant use 30 employees. That
means services must see the condition when must provide more to
get good service quality.
16
2.4 Quality
According Daniels, Radebaugh, and Sullivan (2006; p. 703) Quality is
defined as meeting or exceeding the expectations of the customer. According
Guetsch and Davis (2006; p. 5) Quality is a dynamic state associated with
products, service, people, processes, and environment that meets or exceeds
expectations.
According Philip Kotler (2003, p. 84) Quality is the totally of features
and characteristic of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy
stated or implied needs. According Stephen P. Robbins and Mary Coulter
(2010; p. 527) Quality is the ability of product or service to reliably do what
it’s supposed to do and to satisfy customer expectations. According Peter
Mudie and Angela Pirrie (2006; p. 86) Quality is implies a condition of
excellence or achieving or reaching for the highest standard
2.5 Service Quality
Service quality is a measure of how well service level matches
customer expectations. Quality service means conforming to customer
expectations on a consistent basis. (Lewis and Booms, 1983).
According Philip Kotler (2003, p. 84) service quality is the totally of
features and characteristic of a product or service that bear on its ability to
satisfy stated or implied needs.
17
According Zeithaml and Bitner (2003, p. 92) service quality is the
extent of discrepancy between customer expectation or desire and their
perception.
The most extensive research into service quality is strongly user
oriented. From focus group research, Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman
identified ten criteria used by consumers in evaluating service quality
according to Lovelock, Wirtz, Hean Tat Keh, Xionwen Lu. (2005: 452).
1. Credibility: Trustworthiness, believability, honesty of service
provider.
2. Security: freedom from danger, risk, or doubt.
3. Access: approachability and ease of contact.
4. Communication: Listening customers and keeping them informed
in language they can understand
5. Understanding customer: making the effort to know customers and
their needs.
6. Tangible: appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel,
and communication materials.
7. Reliability: ability to perform the promised service dependably and
accurately.
18
8. Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt
service.
9. Competence: possession of the skills and knowledge required to
perform the service
10. Courtesy: politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of
contact personnel.
According Hooley, Piercy, Nicoulaud (2008, p. 405) against
expectations customers evaluate the performance of service. Again, there are
a number of factors that customers typically take into account when
evaluating the service they have received. The most enduring classification is
the five dimensional models proposed by Parasuraman et al. (1988) in
Hooley, Piercy, Nicolaud (2008, p. 405) and easily remembered by the
acronym RATER: Reliability, Assurance, Tangible, Empathy, and
Responsiveness.
1. Reliability is the ability of the provider to perform the promised
service dependably and accurately. In other words it is
conformance to specification – doing what you said you would do
it. In many service situations reliability has been shown to the
single most important aspect to many customers. Reliable service
reduces the costs of redoing the service and can contribute to
employee morale and enthusiasm.
19
2. Assurance stems from the knowledge and courtesy of employee
and their facility to convey trust and confidence in their technical
abilities.
3. Tangible are the appearance of physical features: equipment,
personnel, reports, communications materials. Tangibles can be
used in this way as indicators of professional competence.
4. Empathy is the provision of caring, individualized attention to
customers. It is the quality good doctors have of being able to
convince patients that they really care about their welfare beyond
addressing the current ailment. Empathy implies treating
customers as individual clients and being concerned with their
longer-term interest.
5. Responsiveness is the ability of the organization to react positively
and in time to customer requests and requirements.
2.6 Brand Image
Lovelock, Jochen, Hean Tat Keh, Xionwen told, although brand
strategy has long been associated primarily with manufactured goods, it is
assuming increasing importance in service. “Branding”, says Leonard Berry,
“Plays a special role in service companies because strong brand increase
customer trust of the invisible purchase.” Brand is which refers to the
customer’s perception of the brand and the associations that come to mind,
not least from personal experience. (2005: 167)
20
The consumer is likely developing a set of brand belief about where
each stands on each attribute. Brand image is how consumers actually do
think, feel, and act with respect with brand (Kotler and Lee 2006, p. 114)
According to tilde Heding (2009, p. 13) the image of the brand is the
perception of the brand by consumers. The goal of working strategically with
brand image is to ensure that consumers hold strong and favorable association
of the brand in their minds. The brand image typically consists of multiple
concepts: perception, because the brand is perceived; cognition, because that
brand is cognitively evaluated; and finally attitude, because consumers
continuously after perceiving and evaluating what they perceive form
attitudes about the brand (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2002, p.43; Keller 1993,
2003; Grunig 1993)
Integration is especially critical with marketing communication. From
the perspective of brand building, all communication option should be
evaluated in terms of ability to affect brand. Each communication option can
be judged on the effectiveness and efficiency with which it creates, maintains,
or strengthens brand image. Brand image is the perception and beliefs held by
consumers, as reflected in the associations held in consumer memory (Philip
Kotler, Kevin Lane Keller, Swee Hoon Ang, Siew Meng Leong, and Chin
Tiong Tan 2006, p. 297).
Brand image is on the receiver’s side. Image research focuses on the
way in which certain groups perceive a product, a brand, a politician, a
company or a country. The image refers to the way in which these groups
21
decode all of the signals emanating from the product, service, and
communication covered by the brand (Jean Noel Kapferer 2008, p.174)
According Kotler and Waldemar (2006, p. 53) Create Brand image –
Brands enable companies value propositions to be more emotive and
compelling. Above all a positive brand image also appeals to all other
stakeholders. Image is a perception and need, not necessarily a fact.
22
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Research Method
Since the purpose of this research is to analysis service quality on
brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading received by Kelapa Gading KFC
customers, thus, the researcher used Qualitative and Quantitative Method as a
useful tool to do the research.
Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009; p. 151) Qualitative is used
predominantly as a synonym for any data collection technique (such as
interview) or data analysis procedure (such as categorizing data) that
generates or use no-numerical data. According to Jonker and Pennink (2010;
p. 78) Qualitative research is characterized by the fact that the researcher
works on the basis of an open question. Qualitative method is to know about
service quality on brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading, with compare
between real with theory.
Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009; p. 151) Quantitative is
predominantly used as a synonym for any data collection technique (such as
Questionnaire) or data analysis procedure (such as graphs and statistics) that
generates or uses numerical data. In general, Quantitative research specifies
numerical assignment to the phenomena under study Scott W. Vanderstoep
and Johnson (2009; p. 7). Quantitative research is methodological techniques
23
that represent the human experience in numerical or statistical forms Amir B.
Marvasti (2004; p. 147). Quantitative research is to know opinion of customer
KFC about service quality on brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading.
3.2 Research Time and Place
This research was conducted in KFC Kelapa Gading. The research
was conducted on October 29th
2011 – November 13th
2011. During the
period, the researcher conducted several activities which connected to the
research, interviewing and distributing questionnaire.
Table 3.1 Research Time
3.3 Research Instrument
The researcher used survey to this research by using questionnaire
which was distributed to KFC Kelapa Gading customer and also interviewed
No Activity Month
August September October November December January
1 Availability study
2 Thesis Proposal
3 Data Collection
4 Data Analysis
5 Thesis Writing
6 Defense
24
Duty Manager in KFC Kelapa Gading. But this research, focus on examining
and explaining the results based on the questionnaire.
Technically, method of collecting data can be obtained from:
1. Interview
The researcher conducted interview with the duty manager in KFC
Kelapa Gading. In the interview, the researcher asked about
company profile, brand image, standard of serving customer in the
restaurant.
2. Questionnaire
Questionnaire is a document containing questions and other types
of items designed to solicit information appropriate to analysis.
Questionnaire used primarily in survey research and also in
experiments, fields research, and other modes research Jan Jonker
and Bartjan Pennink (2010; p. 155).
The questionnaire distributed in KFC Kelapa Gading, and the
respondents answered each question by giving rate to the five – point Likert
Scale provided in each. According to Scott W. Vander Stoep and Johnson
(2009; p. 54) A likert scale is a point scale anchored by bipolar adverbs
(like/dislike, agree/disagree) in which participants indicate their degree of
agreement with a stated attitudes or judgesment. In this research, independent
variables (X) are tangibles(X1), reliability (X2), responsiveness (X3),
25
assurance (X4), and empathy (X5). Dependent variable (Y) is Brand image
KFC.
Table 3.2 Likert Scale
Scale Strength
1 Strongly Disagree (SD)
2 Disagree (D)
3 Neutral (N)
4 Agree (A)
5 Strongly Agree SA)
26
Table 3.3 Table of Variables and Indicators
Variables Indicators
Tangibles
a) Physical Facilities such as restaurant condition, parking
area, toilet
b) Packaging the product
c) Employee performance in the restaurant
d) Payment system
Reliability
a) Employee's attitudes when customer come
b) Employee's attitudes to serve customer in front of
counter
c) Employee attitude when there are complaints from
customers
Responsiveness
a) Speed and accuracy to serve customer
b) Employee ability to communicate and explain the
product
c) The ability of restaurant to see the condition
d) Employee initiative to help customer
Assurance
a) Attitudes and behavior shown as serving customers
b) Employee professional when served the menu
c) The restaurant give guarantee if there any customer
complaints
d) The ability of Employee to presenting the menu
Empathy
a) The ability of employee to know customers want
b) The location of restaurant is easy to access
c) The ability of restaurant to serve customer with delivery
order
d) The attitudes of the restaurant with old and new
customer
Brand Image
a) In customer mind with spontaneously say "ayam
kentucky"
b) KFC as the fast food restaurant always on customer mind
c) Customer remember about KFC Slogan
27
3.4 Sampling Design
3.4.1 Population
Population is the universe of people from which a sample is drawn
and to which the results of study could be generalized the conclusion
Scott W. Vanderstoep and Johnson (2009; p. 26). Population
according to Levine and Stephan (2005; p. 2) is all the members of
group about which you want to draw a conclusion.
In this research the population determined was customers who came
and ate in KFC Kelapa Gading in a day. The number of population
was 250 customers.
3.4.2 Sample
Sample according to Levine and Stephan (2005; p. 2) is the part of
population selected for analysis. Sample is the subset of people from
the population who will participate in the current Scott W.
Vanderstoep and Johnson (2009; p. 26).
According to the data provided by KFC Kelapa Gading, the number of
population KFC Kelapa Gading was 250 customers. The minimum
sample for this research is derived by Slovin formula:
28
Where:
n = size of sample
N = size of the population
e = error percentage tolerable toward inappropriate usage of the
sample to represent the population; e = 5%
This research used 154 customers randomly chosen of KFC Kelapa Gading to
have their responses about the service quality toward brand image of KFC Kelapa
Gading.
3.5 Statistical Treatment
3.5.1 Validity Test
According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2009; p. 157), validity
is the extent to which data collection method or method accurately
measure what they were intended to measure. Construct validity is
needed to get validity testing. The coefficient of correlation can be
based on the actual values of X and Y. The equation as follow:
29
Source: Lind, Marchal, & Mason (2002; p. 464)
Where:
N = the number of paired observations
∑X = the X variable summed
∑Y = the Y variable summed
∑X2
= the X variable squared and the squared summed
(∑X)2
= the X variable summed and the sum squared
∑Y2
= the Y variable squared and the squared summed
(∑Y)2
= the Y variable squared and the sum squared
∑XY = the sum of the product of X and Y
3.5.2 Reliability Test
Reliability is the extent to which data collection technique or
technique will yield consistent findings, similar observation would be
made or conclusions reached by other researcher or there is
transparency in how sense was made from raw data (Saunders, Lewis,
and Thornhill, 2009; p. 156). Cronbach’s Alpha was used to test on
the reliability.
30
Where:
α = instrument reliability’s coefficient
r = mean correlation coefficient between variables
k = number of questions
3.5.3 Multiple Regression
The multiple regression raw score equation is expansion of the raw
score equation for simple linear regression. It is as follows:
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + b4X4 + b5X5 + e
Where:
Y = Dimension score brand image of KFC
a = Constant
b1...b5 = Regression Coefficient
X1 = Dimension score of tangibles
X2 = Dimension score of reliability
X3 = Dimension score of responsiveness
X4 = Dimension score of assurance
X5 = Dimension score of empathy
e = Standard error
31
According Berry D. W. (1993; p. 22) regression models can be cross-
sectional (where the cases for analysis are multiple units observed at a
single point in time) or time-series (where the cases are observations
of a single unit at multiple points in time).
Multiple regressions can be a good model if the models fulfill some
assumption and that assumption called Classic Assumption. The
testing process of classic assumption conducted with test regression.
The steps for test classic assumption same with regression test. There
are any 3 assumption test for regression model, that are normality test,
multicollinearity test, and heteroscedasticity test (Lawrence, Glenn,
and Guarino, 2005: p. 67):
1. Normality Test
The shape of distribution of continuous variable in a
multivariate analysis should correspond to a (univariate) normal
distibution. That is, the variable’s frequency distribution of
values should roughly approximate a bell-shaped curve. Both
Stevens (2002) and Tabachnick and Fidel (2001b) indicate that
univariate normality violations can be assessed with statistical
and graphical approaches.
Statistical approaches that assess univariate normality often
begin with measures of skewness and kurtosis. Skewness is a
measure of the symmetry of a distribution and kurtosis is a
measure of the general peakedness of a distribution. Graphical
32
approaches use normal P-P plot (Lawrence, Glenn, and Guarino,
2005: p. 67)
2. Multicollinearity Test
Multicollinearity is a condition that exists when more than two
predictors correlate very strong. In a good regression model,
there are not correlations between independent variable.
Multicollinearity Test does it to see the value of tolerance and
the value of inflation factor (VIF). Tolerance parameter is tries
to protect the procedure from multicollinearity by rejecting
predictor’s variables that are too highly correlated with other
independent variable. A related statistic is the variance inflation
factor (VIF), which is computed as 1 divided by tolerance.
(Lawrence, Glenn, and Guarino, 2005: p. 182)
3. Heteroscedasticity Test
Heteroscedasticity typically occur when the variable is not
distributed in a normal manner or when a data transformation
procedure has produced an unanticipated distribution for a
variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001b). If variant from residual
is constant, that is homoscedasticity and if not constant is
heterosdasticity. A good regression model, if there are not
homoscedasticity and heterosdasticity. (Lawrence, Glenn, and
Guarino, 2005: p. 67)
33
Heterosdasticity test using Glejser test, conducted by regression
the value of absolute residual obtained from regression model.
Regression model as dependent variable toward all independent
variable. If regression coefficient value from every independent
variable is not significant base on statistic, it can be conclude
not occur heterosdasticity (Sumodiningrat 2001:271)
3.6 Testing of Hypothesis
3.6.1 F-test
F test is to find out whether all independent variables (X) have
significant impact on dependent variable (Y). The null hypothesis is
written as follow:
H0 : β1 = β2 = β3 = β4 = β5 = 0
It means there is no significant effect of independent variables
(tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, or empathy) on
dependent variable (brand image).
H1 : βi ≠ 0, i = 1,2,3,4,5
It means there is at least one independent variables (tangible,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, or empathy) has significant
impact on dependent variable (brand image).
H0 accepted if Ftest < Ftable
H0 rejected if Ftest > Ftable
34
3.6.2 t-test
t test is to find out which one of the independent variables (X) has the
most influence on dependent variable (Y).
H1 : βi ≠ 0
It means there is a significant impact of one independent variable
(tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, or empathy) on
dependent variable (brand image).
H0 accepted if ttest < ttable
H0 rejected if ttest > ttable
3.7 Data result of Validity and Reliability Testing
Validity Test
The researcher used SPSS version 16.0 to check validity and
reliability testing. Based on the calculation, the result for pre-test
questionnaires with 25 questions, the mean correlation coefficient between
variables or r = 0.3961. It means that according to corrected item-total
correlation table, if r result is greater than r table, the variable is valid. If r
result is smaller than r table, the variables are not valid
Based on table 3.4, All variable is valid that eligible to be used as
part of the questionnaire. The complete validity testing result is shown at
Table 3.4.
35
Table 3.4 The result of Validity Test of “KFC Kelapa Gading”
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation r table Remarks
Q1 .661 0.396 valid
Q2 .454 0.396 valid
Q3 .477 0.396 valid
Q4 .516 0.396 valid
Q5 .479 0.396 valid
Q6 .419 0.396 valid
Q7 .685 0.396 valid
Q8 .663 0.396 valid
Q9 .405 0.396 valid
Q10 .619 0.396 valid
Q11 .646 0.396 valid
Q12 .470 0.396 valid
Q13 .491 0.396 valid
Q14 .566 0.396 valid
Q15 .671 0.396 valid
Q16 .611 0.396 valid
Q17 .514 0.396 valid
Q18 .572 0.396 valid
Q19 .425 0.396 valid
Q20 .538 0.396 valid
Q21 .677 0.396 valid
Q22 .453 0.396 valid
Q23 .781 0.396 valid
Q24 .710 0.396 valid
Q25 .554 0.396 valid
Source: SPSS and primary data
36
Reliability Test
Reliability coefficient is measured by using Cronbach’s alpha for
each variable. Nunnaly (1978) has indicated 0.7 to be an acceptable
reliability coefficient but lower thresholds are sometimes used in
the literature. The results of reliability test of each variable in this
research can be seen as follow:
Table 3.5 Reliability Test of “KFC Kelapa Gading”
Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Remark
Tangible
Reliability
Responsiveness
Assurance
Empathy
Brand Image
0.783
0.733
0.741
0.776
0.702
0.820
Reliable
Reliable
Reliable
Reliable
Reliable
Reliable
Source: SPSS and primary data
3.8 Limitation
Doing this research there are many limitations that the researcher had to face:
Thus, there may be some mistakes may occur during this research.
Researcher expects to learn more and improve researching skills.
37
Although this is the first time doing research, the researcher can
overcome the difficulties and get used to doing research.
This research may cause many difficulties for the researchers to
accomplish, but at least the researcher do the best and contribution to
have this research done effectively.
The other problem faced by researcher in gathering data and analyzing
data. For example: not good response from respondent and hard to get
permission from company.
38
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA AND INTERPRETATION
OF RESULTS
4.1 Data Collection
There are 154 customers taken from KFC Kelapa Gading, but two
customers didn't fill the questionnaire based on the instructions provided. So,
two questionnaires were rejected.
4.2 Research Result
4.2.1 Descriptive Analysis
4.2.1.1 Tangible
Tangible has seven indicators, such as restaurant condition,
arranging table and chair, parking area, toilet, packaging
product, employee performance in the restaurant, and payment
system.
Table 4.1 Customers’ perception on Tangible Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) % Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC Kelapa Gading have
Comfortable and
Cleanliness
8 5,19% 72 46,75% 72
46,75%
2
KFC Restaurant have
neatness in arranging
tables and chairs
14 9,09% 57 37,01% 81 52,60%
3
KFC Restaurant have
clean and comfortable
toilet
28 18,18% 65 42,21% 59 38,31%
39
4 KFC gives safety parking
area with enough spaces 50 32,47% 65 42,21% 37 24,03%
5 KFC product package
has an interesting design 12 7,79% 63 40,91% 77 50,00%
6
KFC employee use a
neatly dress, polite, and
clean
2 1,30% 38 24,68% 112 72,73%
7
The payment system
serve with enough and
good equipment
9 5,84% 30 19,48% 113 73,38%
Based on customer perception about KFC Kelapa Gading
comfortable and cleanliness place, 72 customers are neutral
(46.75%), 72 customers agree (46.75%) and 8 customer
(5.19%) disagree. Most of the customers think that KFC
already has a comfortable and cleanliness place.
Customer perception about KFC restaurant neatness in
arranging tables and chairs, 81 customers agree (52.6%), 57
customers are neutral (37.01%) and 14 customers disagree
(9.09%). Most of customers think KFC has well arrange tables
and chairs.
Customer perception about toilet, 65 customer are neutral
(42.21%), 59 customer agree (38.31%), and 28 customers
disagree (18.18%). Most of customers think KFC has already a
clean and comfortable toilet.
Customer perception about parking area, 65 customers are
neutral (42.21%) about parking area in KFC restaurant, but 50
customer disagree (32.47%) and 37 customers agree (24.03%).
40
Most of customers think KFC had enough parking area spaces,
but half of the customers’ think that the parking area is not
enough and safety.
Customer perception about packaging, 77 customer agree
(50%), 63 customers are neutral (40.91%), and 12 customers
disagree (7.79%). Most of customers think KFC has interesting
design package and some are neutral.
Customer perception about KFC employee use a neatly
dress, polite, and clean, 112 customers agree (72.73%), 38
customers are neutral (24.68%), and 2 customers disagree
(1.3%). Most of customers agree about KFC employee use a
neatly dress, polite, and clean.
Customer perception about payment system, 113 customers
agree (73.38%), 30 customers are neutral (19.48%), and 9
customers disagree (5.84%). Most of customers agree about
the payment system serve with enough and good equipment in
KFC Kelapa Gading.
4.2.1.2 Reliability
Reliability has three indicators, such as employee’s
attitudes when customer come, employee’s attitudes to serve
customer in front of counter, and employee attitude when there
are complaints from customers.
41
Table 4.2 Customers’ Perception on Reliability Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC employee always
give greeting when
customer enter the
restaurant
35 22,73% 54 35,06% 63 40,91%
2
KFC employee always
give friendly greeting
when customer are in
front of the customers
13 8,44% 43 27,92% 96 62,34%
3
KFC employee always
give good respond for
customer complaint
21 13,64% 81 52,60% 50 32,47%
Base on customer perception about employee’s attitudes
when customer come, 63 customers agree (40.91%), 54
customers are neutral (35.06%) and 35 customer (22.73%)
disagree. Most of the customers agree KFC employee always
gives greeting when customers enter the restaurant.
Customer perception about employee’s attitudes to serve
customer in front of counter, 96 customers agree (62.34%), 43
customers are neutral (27.92%), and 13 customers disagree
(8.44%). Most of the customers agree KFC employees always
give friendly greeting when customers are in front of the
customers.
Customer perception about employee’s attitude when there
are complaints from customers, 81 customers are neutral
(52.6%), 50 customers’ agree (32.47%) and 21 customers
42
disagree (13.64%). Most of the customers are neutral KFC
employee always give good respond for customer complaint.
4.2.1.3 Responsiveness
Responsiveness has four indicators, such as speed and
accuracy to serve customer, employee ability to communicate
and explain the product, the ability of restaurant to see the
condition, and employee initiative to help customer.
Table 4.3 Customers’ Perception on Responsiveness Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agree
(4-5) %
1
KFC serve the
customer fast and
precisely even in
the store and
delivery
16 10,39% 53 34,42% 83 53,90%
2
KFC staff have a
good ability to
communicate and
explain the
product clearly
15 9,74% 43 27,92% 94 61,04%
3
In long queue, all
cashier counters
always open
51 33,12% 42 27,27% 59 38,31%
4
Employees always
help customer
without asking first
49 31,82% 65 42,21% 38 24,68%
Customer perception about speed and accuracy to serve
customer, 83 customers agree (53.9%), 53 customers are neutral
(34.42%), and 16 customers disagree. Most of the customers agree
43
KFC serve the customer fast and precisely even in the store and
delivery.
Customer perception about employee ability to communicate
and explain the product, 94 customers agree (61.04%), 43 customers
are neutral (27.92%), and 15 customers disagree (9.74%). Most of the
customers agree KFC staff had a good ability to communicate and
explain the product clearly.
Customer perception about the ability of restaurant to see the
condition, 59 customers agree (38.31%), 51 customers disagree
(33.12%), and 42 customers are neutral (27.27%). Most of customers
agree when long queue, all cashier counters always open, but half of
customers disagree.
Customer perception about employee initiative to help
customer, 65 customers are neutral (42.21%), 49 customers’ disagree
(31.82%) and 38 customers agree (24.68%). Most of customer are
neutral KFC Employees always help customer without asking first.
4.2.1.4 Assurance
Assurance has four indicator, such as attitudes and behavior
shown as serving customer, employee professional when served
the menu, the restaurants give guarantee if there any customers
complaints, and the ability of employee to presenting the menu.
44
Table 4.4 Customers’ Perception on Assurance Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC employees are
always polite in
communication with
customer
9 5,84% 47 30,52% 96 62,34%
2
KFC employees are
always professional
when serving the
menu
20 12,99% 43 27,92% 89 57,79%
3
KFC employee
always serve the
customer complaint
24 15,58% 83 53,90% 45 29,22%
4
KFC employee have
the ability to make
sure the customer
that they are always
served a delicious
food
33 21,43% 62 40,26% 57 37,01%
Customer perception about attitudes and behavior shown as
serving customer, 96 customers agree (62.34%), 47 customers
are neutral, and 9 customers disagree (5.84%). Most of
customers agree KFC employees were always polite in
communication with customers’.
Customer perception about employee professional when
served the menu, 89 customers agree (57.79%), 43 customers
are neutral (27.92%), and 20 customers disagree (12.99%).
Most of customers agree KFC employees are always
professional when served the menu.
45
Customer perception about the restaurants give guarantee if
there any customers complaints, 83 customers are neutral
(53.90%), 45 customers agree (29.22%), and 24 customers
disagree (15.58%). Most of customers are neutral KFC
employee always serve the customer complaint.
Customer perception about the ability of employee to
presenting the menu, 62 customers are neutral (40.26%), 57
customers’ agree (37.01%) and 33 customers disagree
(21.43%). Most of customers are neutral KFC employees have
the ability to make sure the customer that they are always
served a delicious food.
4.2.1.5 Empathy
Empathy has four indicators, such as the ability of
employee to know customer want, the location of restaurant is
easy to access, the ability of restaurant to serve customer with
delivery order, and the attitudes of the restaurant with old and
new customer.
46
Table 4.5 Customers’ Perception on Empathy Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC employees have
an ability to know
what as customer
wants
54 35,06% 65 42,21% 33 21,43%
2
KFC restaurant at
Kelapa Gading is
strategic and easy to
access
8 5,19% 19 12,34% 125 81,17%
3
KFC make customers
easier to order in
delivery service
6 3,90% 28 18,18% 118 76,62%
4
KFC always
welcome either new
and old customers
10 6,49% 41 26,62% 101 65,58%
Customer perception about the ability of employee to know
customer want, 65 customers are neutral (42.21%), 54
customers disagree (35.06%), and 33 customers agree
(21.43%). Most of customers are neutral KFC employee has an
ability to know what as customer wants.
Customer perception about the location of restaurant is easy
to access, 125 customers agree (81.17%), 19 customers are
neutral (12.34%), and 8 customers disagree (5.19). Most of
customers agree KFC restaurant at Kelapa Gading is strategic
and easy to access.
Customer perception about the ability of restaurant to serve
customer with delivery order, 118 customers agree (76.62%),
47
28 customers are neutral (18.18%), and 6 customers disagree
(3.9%). Most of customers agree KFC make customers easier
to order in delivery service.
Customer perception about the attitudes of the restaurant
with old and new customer, 101 customers agree (65.58%), 41
customers are neutral (26.62%), and 10 customers disagree
(6.49%). Most of customers agree KFC always welcome either
new or old customers.
4.2.1.6 Brand Image
Brand image has 3 indicators (Top of Mind, Brand recall,
and Brand recognition), such as in customer mind with
spontaneously say “ayam kentucky”, KFC as the fast food
restaurant always on customer mind, and customer remember
about KFC slogan.
Table 4.6 Customers’ Perception on Brand Image Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
If you want to eat chicken,
you will spontaneous tell
“ayam kentucky”
16 10,39% 43 27,92% 93 60,39%
2
If want to visit to fast food
restaurant, KFC is always
in your mind
22 14,29% 57 37,01% 73 47,40%
3
If you come to KFC, you
will remember KFC
Slogan “Jagonya Ayam”
44 28,57% 41 26,62% 67 43,51%
48
Customer perception about customer mind with
spontaneously say “ayam kentucky”, 93 customers agree
(60.39%), 43 customers are neutral (27.92%), and 16
customers disagree (10.39%). Most of customers agree if
customer want to eat chicken, customer will spontaneous tell
“ayam kentucky”.
Customer perception about KFC as the fast food restaurant
always on customer mind, 73 customers agree (47.40%), 57
customers are neutral (37.01%), and 22 customers disagree
(14.29%). Most of customers agree if want to visit to fast food
restaurant; KFC was always in customer mind.
Customer perceptions about customer remember about
KFC slogan, 67 customers agree (43.51%), 44 customers’
disagree (28.57%), and 41 customers are neutral (26.62%).
Most of customers are remembering KFC Slogan “Jagonya
Ayam”.
4.2.2 Model Evaluation
This model evaluation is meant ensure whether the multiple regression
model can be used or not.
4.2.2.1 Normality Test
In the normal probability plot, a normal distribution
produces straight lines, and the plotted data values are
compared with diagonal. Normality is assumed if the data
49
values follow the diagonal lines. (Lawrence, Glenn, and
Guarino, 2005: p. 67)
From Normal P-Plot above, the distribution of data is
around the diagonal line and the residual points follow a
straight line. It can be concluded that the regression model is
normality distributed.
Figure 4.1 Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residul
Source: SPSS and primary data
4.2.2.2 Multicollinearity Test
Multicollinearity test is to see the value of tolerance and the
value of inflation factor (VIF). Conceptual, tolerance is the
amount of predictor’s variance not accounted for by the other
predictors (1 – R2) between predictors.
50
Table 4.7 Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -.629 .465 -1.354 .178
Tangible .309 .172 .154 1.791 .075 .544 1.839
Reliability .276 .120 .212 2.296 .023 .470 2.126
Responsiveness .032 .126 .023 .255 .799 .494 2.026
Assurance -.034 .120 -.025 -.282 .778 .494 2.023
Empathy .568 .122 .397 4.671 .000 .558 1.792
a. Dependent Variable: Y
Source: SPSS and primary data
From Table 4.7 above, the Tolerance < 1. It means lower
tolerance value indicate that there are stronger relationship
(increasing the chance of multicollinearity) between the
predictor variables. (Lawrence, Glenn, and Guarino, 2005: p.
182)
In Table 4.7 above, value of VIF from each independent
variable smaller than 5 (VIF < 5) i.e. value of VIF from X1
(tangible) is 1.839, value of VIF from X2 (reliability) is 2.126,
value of VIF from X3 (responsiveness) is 2.026, value of VIF
from X4 (assurance) is 2.023, and value of VIF from X5
51
(empathy) is 1.792. It can be concluded that among the
independent variables does not occur multicollinearity in linear
regression models. (Aczel and Sounderpadian, 2008; p. 536).
4.2.2.3 Heteroscedasticity Test
Heteroscedasticity exist, it cannot use the ordinary
least-squares method for estimating the regression and
should use a more complex method, called generelized
least squares. (Aczel and Sounderpadian, 2008; p . 446).
Regression model is dependent variable toward all
independent variable. Figure 4.2 shows the data were
spread randomly, above 0 on X and Y axis. It means there
is not heterosdasticity in this regression coefficient, so this
model is applicable and acceptable.
Figure 4.2 Scatterplot
Source: SPSS and primary data
52
4.3 Analysis and Interpretation
4.3.1 Regression Model
The results as follow based on table 4.7, the regression Model is:
Y = -629 + 0.390 X1 + 0.276 X2 + 0.032 X3 – 0.034 X4 + 0.568 X5 + e
In this regression Y is dimension score brand image of KFC, X1 is
dimension score of tangible, X2 is dimension score of reliability, X3 is
dimension score of responsiveness, X4 is dimension score of
responsiveness, and X5 is dimension score of empathy.
4.3.2 Determination Coefficient
Table 4.8 Model Summary
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .642a .413 .393 .67562
a. Predictors: (Constant), X5, X2, X1, X4, X3
b. Dependent Variable: Y
Source: SPSS and primary data
R Square (Correlation nominal) from the table is 0.393. R Square
is also called Coefficient of Determination. R ranging is between 0 < R2 <
1, otherwise, if R square is getting 1, the correlation is getting stronger. R
Square from the table above is 0.393 or 39.3%. It means Brand Image of
KFC affected by Tangible, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance and
Empathy. While the rest is 60.7%, it can be explained from other causing
factors which are not studied in this research.
53
4.3.3 F-test
Table 4.9 ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 46.824 5 9.365 20.516 .000a
Residual 66.643 146 .456
Total 113.467 151
a. Predictors: (Constant), X5, X2, X1, X4, X3
b. Dependent Variable: Y
Source: SPSS and primary data
F-test is to see the correlation of Tangible, Reliability,
Responsiveness, assurance, and Empathy toward Brand Image
simultaneously needs to be reviewed from the results found in
ANOVA.
The test can be conducted by comparing F-test with F-table, as follow:
1. The F-test result was 20.516 by SPSS.
2. F-table, level of significance = 0.05 and Degree of Freedom (DF)
by using numerator rules:
df1 = C – 1
df2 = n- C
Where:
C = amount of variable (dependent and independent variable)
n = amount of sample
From the rules above, F table is 2.28
54
3. Determine criteria of testing hypothesis as follow:
If Ftest < Ftable, it means that H0 accepted and H1 rejected
If Ftest > Ftable, it means that H0 rejected and H1 accepted
4. Since Ftest (20.516) is greater than Ftable (2.28), hence, H0, which
state “service quality (tangible, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, and empathy) has no impact on brand image” is
rejected. Thereby, H1, which stated “service quality (tangible,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy) has significant
impact on brand image” is accepted.
4.3.4 t-test
4.3.4.1 Tangible
Based on table 4.7, the t-test of tangible variable was 1.791,
it means t-test is smaller than t-table (1.96). Thus, H0 is
accepted, coefficient of regression (tangible) is not significant
impact toward brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading. In past
research, tangible had significant impact toward brand image
of RS. Dr. Pirngadi Medan.
Based on table 4.7, the coefficient of tangible was 0.309, it
means tangible variable compare with other service quality
dimension is in the third rank. KFC has a comfortable and
cleanliness place and toilet, but KFC has not enough parking
area space. To improve tangible variable, KFC Kelapa Gading
55
repairs physical facilities, and equipment to make customer
feel comfortable.
Based on table 4.7, tangible dimension has positive
unstandardized coefficient. It means tangible dimension in
KFC Kelapa Gading has good improvement to service quality
and this will give good impact to brand image. If tangible is
good, brand image Of KFC Kelapa Gading will be better.
4.3.4.2 Reliability
Based on table 4.7, the t-test of reliability variable was
2.296, it means t-test is greater than t-table (1.96). Thus, H1 is
accepted, coefficient of regression (reliability) is significant
impact toward brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading. In past
research, reliability was not significant impact toward brand
image of RS. Dr. Pirngadi Medan.
Based on table 4.7, the coefficient of reliability was 0.276,
it means reliability variable compare with other service quality
dimension is in the second rank. KFC employees give a good
attitude when customers come, serve customer, and always
give good respond for customer complaint.
Based on table 4.7, reliability dimension has positive
unstandardized coefficient. It means reliability dimension in
KFC Kelapa Gading has good improvement to service quality
56
and this will give good impact to brand image. If reliability is
good, brand image Of KFC Kelapa Gading will be better.
4.3.4.3 Responsiveness
Based on table 4.7, the t-test of responsiveness variable was
0.255, it means t-test is smaller than t-table (1.96). Thus, H0 is
accepted, coefficient of regression (reponsiveness) is not
significant impact toward brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading.
In past research, responsiveness had significant impact toward
brand image of RS. Dr. Pirngadi Medan.
Based on table 4.7, the coefficient of responsiveness was
0.032, it means responsiveness variable compare with other
service quality dimension is in the fourth rank. KFC had good
serve and staff had a good ability to communicate and explain
the product clearly, but KFC don’t have good ability to see the
condition in restaurant such as when long queue, all cashier
counter didn’t open. Other thing KFC must improve employee
initiative to help customer.
Based on table 4.7, responsiveness dimension has positive
unstandardized coefficient. It means responsiveness dimension
in KFC Kelapa Gading has good improvement to service
quality and this will give good impact to brand image. If
responsiveness is good, brand image Of KFC Kelapa Gading
will be better.
57
4.3.4.4 Assurance
Based on table 4.7, the t-test of assurance variable was
-0.282, it means t-test is smaller than t-table (1.96). Thus, H0 is
accepted, coefficient of regression (assurance) is not
significant impact toward brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading.
In past research, assurance was not significant impact toward
brand image of RS. Dr. Pirngadi Medan.
Based on table 4.7, the coefficient of assurance was -0.034,
it means assurance variable compare with other service quality
dimension is in the fifth rank. For improve assurance
dimension, KFC gives guarantee if there any customers
complaints. For example: if customer complaints the plate is
not clean, KFC will change the plate. KFC employee is less
able to have the ability to convince the customer that they are
always served a delicious food.
Based on table 4.7, assurance dimension has negative
unstandardized coefficient. It means Assurance dimension in
KFC Kelapa Gading need more improvement to service
quality because it will give impact to brand image. If assurance
is good, brand image Of KFC Kelapa Gading will be better.
4.3.4.5 Empathy
Based on table 4.7, the t-test of empathy variable was
4.671, it means t-test is greater than t-table (1.96). Thus, H1 is
58
accepted, coefficient of regression (empathy) is significant
impact toward brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading. In past
research, reliability was not significant impact toward brand
image of RS. Dr. Pirngadi Medan.
Based on table 4.7, the coefficient of empathy was 0.568, it
means empathy variable compare with other service quality
dimension is in the first rank. KFC Kelapa Gading had
strategic location and pay attention to all customers such as
customers easier to order in delivery service and welcome
either new and old customers.
Based on table 4.7, empathy dimension has positive
unstandardized coefficient. It means empathy dimension in
KFC Kelapa Gading has good improvement to service quality
and this will give good impact to brand image. If empathy is
good, brand image Of KFC Kelapa Gading will be better.
59
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
1. Brand image of KFC Kelapa Gading is affected by service quality variable
(tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy). It can be
seen when confident interval 95%, Service quality (tangible, reliability,
responsiveness assurance, and empathy) has significant impact on brand
image of KFC Kelapa Gading.
2. Service quality variable (tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
and empathy) has a significant impact on brand image of KFC Kelapa
Gading.
3. From five dimension of service quality (tangible, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, or empathy), a significant effect on brand
image is empathy and reliability variable. KFC Kelapa Gading has a good
attention to all customers whether their old or new customers.
60
5.2 Recommendation
1. Variables of service quality (tangible, reliability, responsiveness,
assurance, empathy) have a significant impact on brand image of KFC
Kelapa Gading, so KFC Kelapa Gading in providing service must pay
attention to all service quality dimensions, especially assurance dimension.
KFC Kelapa Gading must improve assurance dimension by training their
employees how to be capable in presenting, serving, making sure that the
restaurants are the best choice and KFC Kelapa Gadig can give assurance
upon something which should not be happened while serving customer.
2. Independent variables (tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy) have a strong correlation with dependent variable (brand image).
It is seen from number of correlation is 39.3%. It means brand image of
KFC affected by tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and
empathy. While the rest 60.7% can be explained from other causing
factors. Therefore, it is expected that other researcher to explore other
variables that may be possible to have an influence on brand image.
3. The results also gain in the past research, tangible and responsiveness
variable had significant impact on brand image of RS. Dr. Pirngadi Medan
which shown from t-test. The result in this research, reliability and
empathy variable has significant impact on brand image of KFC Kelapa
Gading. Assurance is not significant impact toward brand image of RS. Dr.
Pirngadi Medan and KFC Kelapa Gading.
61
REFERENCE
Aczel, Amir. & Sounderpadian, Jayavel. (2008). Complete Business Statistics –
Seventh Edition. McGraw Hill.
Arafah, Willy. (2004). Analisis Kualitas pelayanan RS Terhadap Image (studi
Pada RS “X” di Jakarta Selatan). Metode Riset Bisnis dan Manajemen,
Volume 4. No. 1. April: 55 – 75.
Berry, William D. (1993). Understanding Regression Assumptions. London and
New Delhi. Sage Publications.
Daniels, John. Radebaugh, Lee. Sullivan, Daniel. (2006). International Business.
Pearson.
Firtzsimmons, James A. (2005). Service Management: Operations, Strategy,
Information Strategy – fifth International Edition. McGraw Hill Higher
Education.
Guetsch, David L. & Davis, Stanley B. (2006). Quality Management: Intoduction
to Total Quality Management for Production, Processing, and Service –
fifth Edition.
Heading, Tilde. (2009). Brand Management: Theory and Practise. London and
New York. Routledge.
Hooley, Graham.; Piercy, Nigel F. & Nicoulaud, Brigitte. (2008). Marketing
Strategy and Competitive Positioning, 4th
Edition. UK. Prentice Hall.
Hurwitz, Judith.; Bloor, Robin.; Klaufman, Marcia.; Halpen, Fern. (2009).
Service Management For Dummies. For Dummies.
Irawati, Nisrul & Primadha, Rina. (2008). Pengaruh Kualitas Pelayanan
Terhadap Brand Image Pada Unit Rawat Jalan Poliklinik Penyakit Dalam
62
RSU DR. PIRNGADI Medan. Jurnal Manajemen Bisnis, Volume 1. No. 2.
Mei: 78 – 88.
Jean N. Kapferer. (2008). The New Strategic Brand Management : Creating and
Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London. Kogan Page.
Jonker, Jan & Pennink, Bartjan. (2010). The Essence of Research Methodology.
London. Springer.
Kotler, Philip. (2003). Marketing Management – Eleventh Edition. Pearson.
Kotler & Amstrong. (2011). Principles of Marketing, 14th
Edition. New Jersey.
Pearson.
Kotler, Philip. Keller, Kevin L. Ang, Swee H. Leong, Siew M. Tan, Chin T.
(2006). Marketing Management: An Asian Perspective. Prentice Hall.
Kotler, Philip & Lee, Nancy R. (2006). Marketing in The Public Sector: A
Roadmap for Improved Performance. Wharton School.
Kotler, Philip & Profertsch Waldemar. (2006). B2B Brand Management. German.
Springer.
Lake, Laura. (2009). Consumen Behavior for Dummies (For Dummies Business
and Personal Finance). For Dummies.
Lewis, Robert C. And Bernard H, Booms. (1983). The Marketing Aspects of
Service Quality, in Emerging Perspectives on Service Marketing. L. Berry,
G, Shostack, and G. Upah, eds. Chicago: American Marketing, 99 – 107.
Levine & Stephan. (2005). Even You Can Learn Statistics: A Guide for Everyone
Who Has Everbeen Afraid of Statistics. Pearson.
Lind, D., Marchal, W., & Mason, R. (2002). Statistical Techniques in Business and
Economics (Eleventh Edition ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Lovelock, Christopher. Wirtz, Jochen. Keh, Hean Tat. Lu, Xionwen. (2005).
Service Marketing in Asia. Prentice Hall.
63
Lovelock, Christopher & Wright, Lauren. (1999). Principles of Service
Management and Management. Prentice Hall.
Marvasti, Amir B. ( 2003). Qualitative Reseacrh in Sociology. London and New
Delhi. Sage Publications Ltd.
McDaniel, Lamb, Hair. (2010). Marketing-Eleventh Edition. Pearson.
Meyers, Lawrence S. Gamst, Glenn. Guarino, A. J. (2005). Applied Multivariate
research. London and New Delhi. Sage Publications.
Mudie, Peter & Pirrie, Angela. (2006). Service Marketing Management – Third
Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Puspita, Ika. (2009). Hubungan Persepsi Konsumen Tentang Kualitas Pelayanan
dengan Citra RSUD Kabupaten Aceh Tamiang.
Robbins, Stephen P. & Coulter, Mary. (2010). Management – Eleventh Edition.
Pearson.
Sauders, Mark. Lewis, Philip. Hill, Adrian T. (2009). Research Methods for
Business Student – fifth Edition. Pearson.
The World’s Largest Economies 2011. Retrieved February 20, 2011 from
http://www.therichest.org/world/worlds-largest-economies/
Tjiptono, Fandy. (2005). Pemasaran Jasa. Edisi Pertama. Malang: Bayumedia.
Vanderstoep, Scott W. & Johnson, Deidre D. (2009). Research Methods for
Everyday Life: Blending Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
(Research Methods for The Social Science). San Fransisco. Jossey – Bas.
Zeithaml, Valeria and Bitner, Marry Jo. (2003). Service Marketing: Integrating
Customer Focus Across The Firm – Third Edition. Boston. McGraw Hill.
APPENDICES
Appendix Questionnaire
I. Respondent Identity
Name : ................................................................................
Gender : Male / Female
Age : a. 6 – 16th c. 26 – 35th
b. 17 – 25th d. >36th
II. Petunjuk Pengisian:
Berdasarkan pengalaman anda sebagai pelanggan, coba anda pikirkan
sejenak, seperti apakah kualitas pelayanan yang harus diberikan oleh KFC
dalam mempengaruhi brand image. Coba anda pikirkan, kualitas pelayanan
yang diberikan sudah sesuai dengan yang diharapkan. Dibawah ini ada 25
kriteria kualitas pelayanan yang seharusnya dimiliki oleh restaurant fast food
dalam mempengaruhi brand image. Jika anda berpikir penyataan sesuai
dengan yang anda alami, maka anda memberi check list 5 (lima) yang berarti
sangat setuju, atau jika anda merasa pernyataan tidak pernah anda alami
check list 1 (satu) yang berarti sangat tidak setuju. Jika anda merasa perlu
ada, tetapi anda tidak pernah mengalami atau kadang – kadang mengalami,
maka anda check list dari angka 2 (dua) hingga 4 (empat). Dalam hal ini tidak
ada jawaban benar atau salah.
Give a thick (√) on the available spaces:
1. Strongly Disagree (Sangat tidak setuju)
2. Disagree (Tidak setuju)
3. Neutral (Netral)
4. Agree (Setuju)
5. Strongly Agree (Sangat Setuju)
No Statement Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
1
KFC restaurant memiliki
kenyamanan dan kebersihan
untuk ruangan store
KFC store have comfortable and
cleanliness
2
KFC restaurant memiliki kerapihan dalam menata meja
kursi
KFC store have neatness in arranging table and chair
3
KFC restaurant menyediakan
toilet yang bersih dan nyaman
KFC store have clean and comfortable toilet
4
KFC Menyediakan lahan parkir yang nyaman dan memadai
KFC gives area parking with safety and enough spaces
5
Kemasan produk KFC memiliki desain yang menarik
KFC product has an interesting
design.
6
Karyawan KFC berpenampilan
rapi, sopan, dan bersih
KFC employee use a neatly
dress, polite, and clean
7
Sistem pembayaran dilayani
dengan perlatan pendukung yang lengkap dan baik
The payment system serve with
enough and good equipment
8
Karyawan KFC selalu menyapa
saat anda tiba di restoran
KFC employee always give
greeting when you enter the restaurant
9
Karyawan KFC ramah dalam
menyapa saat anda berada
didepan counter
KFC employee always give
friendly greeting when you are infront of the counter
10
Karyawan KFC memberikan
respon baik akan keluhan
costumers
KFC employee always give good
respond for customer complaint
11
KFC melayani customer dengan cepat dan tepat baik di store
maupun delivery
KFC serve the customer with fast
and precise even in the store and
delivery
12
Staff KFC mempunyai
kemampuan untuk
berkomunikasi dengan baik dan
mampu menjelaskan aneka pilihan produk dengan jelas
KFC staff have a good ability to communicate and explain the
product clearly
13
Saat terjadi antrian panjang,
seluruh counter kasir dibuka
When long queque, all cashier
counter always open
14
Karyawan selalu menawarkan
bantuan tanpa diminta
Employee always help customer without ask first
15
karyawan selalu bersikap sopan
dalam berkomunikasi dengan pelanggan
KFC employee always polite in
communication with customer
16
Karyawan KFC bersikap
profesional saat menawarkan
menu yang ada
KFC employee always
professional when served the
menu
17
KFC sigap dalam menangani
keluhan konsumen
KFC employee always served the customer compalaint
18
Karyawan KFC memiliki
kemampuan untuk menyakinkan customer bahwa menu yang
disajikan nikmat
KFC employee have the ability to make sure the customer that
they always served a delicious
food
19
Karyawan KFC mempunyai
kemampuan untuk mengetahui
apa yang diinginkan oleh
customer
KFC employee have an ability to
know what customer wants
Thanks for your participation
20
Lokasi restaurant KFC Kelapa
Gading strategi dan mudah di
jangkau
KFC store at Kelapa Gading is
strategies and easy to access
21
KFC mempermudah customer untuk memesan makanan lewat
layanan pesan antar
KFC make customer easier to order in delivery
22
KFC bersikap terbuka terhadap
seluruh pelanggan baik pelanggan baru maupun lama
KFC always welcome either new
or old customers
23
Jika anda ingin mengkonsumsi
makanan ayam cepat saji, ayam
kentucky selalu yang ada dalam benak anda
If you want to eat chicken, you will spontaneous tell “ayam
kentucky”
24
Jika ingin mengunjungi
restaurant fast food, KFC selalu
dalam benak anda
If want visit to fast food restaurant, KFC always in your
mind
25
Jika anda datang ke KFC, anda
ingat akan slogan KFC “Jagonya Ayam”
If you come to KFC, you will remember KFC Slogan “Jagonya
Ayam”
Appendix Validity and Reliabilty X1
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 30 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
.783 .800 7
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Q1 3.67 .606 30
Q2 3.40 .932 30
Q3 2.93 .944 30
Q4 2.97 1.033 30
Q5 3.20 .664 30
Q6 3.80 .610 30
Q7 3.73 .740 30
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
23.70 13.872 3.725 7
Summary Item Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Maximum /
Minimum Variance N of Items
Item Means 3.386 2.933 3.800 .867 1.295 .131 7
Item Variances .651 .368 1.068 .700 2.903 .082 7
Inter-Item Covariances .222 .048 .411 .363 8.524 .009 7
Inter-Item Correlations .364 .085 .565 .480 6.661 .019 7
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q1 20.03 10.861 .661 .518 .737
Q2 20.30 10.286 .454 .454 .770
Q3 20.77 10.116 .477 .389 .765
Q4 20.73 9.513 .516 .313 .760
Q5 20.50 11.293 .479 .304 .763
Q6 19.90 11.748 .419 .388 .773
Q7 19.97 10.102 .685 .590 .724
Appendix Validity and Reliability X2
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 30 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
.733 .729 3
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Q8 3.10 1.029 30
Q9 3.27 .944 30
Q10 3.03 1.033 30
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
9.40 5.903 2.430 3
Summary Item Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Maximum /
Minimum Variance N of Items
Item Means 3.133 3.033 3.267 .233 1.077 .014 3
Item Variances 1.006 .892 1.068 .176 1.197 .010 3
Inter-Item Covariances .481 .336 .721 .385 2.147 .035 3
Inter-Item Correlations .473 .344 .678 .334 1.971 .026 3
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q8 6.30 2.631 .663 .490 .510
Q9 6.13 3.568 .405 .168 .808
Q10 6.37 2.723 .619 .466 .567
Appendix Validity and Reliability X3
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 30 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
.741 .752 4
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Q11 3.47 .860 30
Q12 3.43 .971 30
Q13 2.73 1.172 30
Q14 2.77 1.104 30
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
12.40 9.628 3.103 4
Summary Item Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Maximum /
Minimum Variance
N of
Items
Item Means 3.100 2.733 3.467 .733 1.268 .164 4
Item Variances 1.070 .740 1.375 .634 1.857 .080 4
Inter-Item Covariances .446 .223 .660 .437 2.959 .019 4
Inter-Item Correlations .431 .196 .616 .420 3.147 .018 4
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q11 8.93 6.133 .646 .506 .635
Q12 8.97 6.378 .470 .433 .716
Q13 9.67 5.540 .491 .377 .714
Q14 9.63 5.482 .566 .346 .663
Appendix Validity and reliability X4
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 30 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
.776 .789 4
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Q15 3.53 .730 30
Q16 3.17 1.020 30
Q17 2.87 1.042 30
Q18 2.73 .944 30
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
12.30 8.493 2.914 4
Summary Item Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Maximum /
Minimum Variance
N of
Items
Item Means 3.075 2.733 3.533 .800 1.293 .126 4
Item Variances .888 .533 1.085 .552 2.034 .063 4
Inter-Item Covariances .412 .320 .563 .244 1.763 .007 4
Inter-Item Correlations .482 .348 .595 .247 1.710 .010 4
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q15 8.77 5.633 .671 .474 .697
Q16 9.13 4.740 .611 .426 .706
Q17 9.43 5.013 .514 .363 .762
Q18 9.57 5.151 .572 .378 .726
Appendix Validity and reliability X5
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 30 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized Items N of Items
.702 .745 4
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Q19 3.23 1.006 30
Q20 4.47 .571 30
Q21 4.30 .651 30
Q22 4.37 .556 30
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
16.37 4.378 2.092 4
Summary Item Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Maximum /
Minimum Variance
N of
Items
Item Means 4.092 3.233 4.467 1.233 1.381 .332 4
Item Variances .518 .309 1.013 .703 3.275 .111 4
Inter-Item Covariances .192 .118 .341 .223 2.883 .005 4
Inter-Item Correlations .422 .212 .537 .326 2.540 .018 4
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
Q19 13.13 2.120 .425 .272 .750
Q20 11.90 2.990 .538 .393 .624
Q21 12.07 2.547 .677 .463 .529
Q22 12.00 3.172 .453 .317 .666
Appendix Validity and Reliability Y
Case Processing Summary
N %
Cases Valid 30 100.0
Excludeda 0 .0
Total 30 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the
procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized
Items N of Items
.820 .825 3
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Q23 3.63 1.098 30
Q24 3.40 .968 30
Q25 3.07 1.143 30
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
10.10 7.610 2.759 3
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if
Item Deleted
Scale Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected Item-
Total Correlation
Squared Multiple
Correlation
Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted
Q23 6.47 3.292 .781 .675 .637
Q24 6.70 3.941 .710 .627 .726
Q25 7.03 3.826 .554 .326 .880
Summary Item Statistics
Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Maximum /
Minimum Variance N of Items
Item Means 3.367 3.067 3.633 .567 1.185 .081 3
Item Variances 1.150 .938 1.306 .368 1.392 .036 3
Inter-Item Covariances .693 .524 .841 .317 1.605 .020 3
Inter-Item Correlations .612 .474 .791 .318 1.671 .021 3
Appendix Descriptive Analysis
1. Customers’ perception on Tangible Dimension
2. Customers’ Perception on Reliability Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC Kelapa Gading have
Comfortable and
Cleanliness
8 5,19% 72 46,75% 72
46,75%
2
KFC Restaurant have
neatness in arranging
tables and chairs
14 9,09% 57 37,01% 81 52,60%
3
KFC Restaurant have
clean and comfortable
toilet
28 18,18% 65 42,21% 59 38,31%
4 KFC gives safety parking
area with enough spaces 50 32,47% 65 42,21% 37 24,03%
5 KFC product package
has an interesting design 12 7,79% 63 40,91% 77 50,00%
6
KFC employee use a
neatly dress, polite, and
clean
2 1,30% 38 24,68% 112 72,73%
7
The payment system
serve with enough and
good equipment
9 5,84% 30 19,48% 113 73,38%
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC employee always
give greeting when
customer enter the
restaurant
35 22,73% 54 35,06% 63 40,91%
2
KFC employee always
give friendly greeting
when customer are in
front of the customers
13 8,44% 43 27,92% 96 62,34%
3
KFC employee always
give good respond for
customer complaint
21 13,64% 81 52,60% 50 32,47%
3. Customers’ Perception on Responsiveness Dimension
4. Customers’ Perception on Assurance Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC employees are
always polite in
communication with
customer
9 5,84% 47 30,52% 96 62,34%
2
KFC employees are
always professional
when serving the
menu
20 12,99% 43 27,92% 89 57,79%
3
KFC employee
always serve the
customer complaint
24 15,58% 83 53,90% 45 29,22%
4
KFC employee have
the ability to make
sure the customer
that they are always
served a delicious
food
33 21,43% 62 40,26% 57 37,01%
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agree
(4-5) %
1
KFC serve the
customer fast and
precisely even in
the store and
delivery
16 10,39% 53 34,42% 83 53,90%
2
KFC staff have a
good ability to
communicate and
explain the
product clearly
15 9,74% 43 27,92% 94 61,04%
3
In long queue, all
cashier counters
always open
51 33,12% 42 27,27% 59 38,31%
4
Employees always
help customer
without asking first
49 31,82% 65 42,21% 38 24,68%
5. Customers’ Perception on Empathy Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
KFC employees have
an ability to know
what as customer
wants
54 35,06% 65 42,21% 33 21,43%
2
KFC restaurant at
Kelapa Gading is
strategic and easy to
access
8 5,19% 19 12,34% 125 81,17%
3
KFC make customers
easier to order in
delivery service
6 3,90% 28 18,18% 118 76,62%
4
KFC always
welcome either new
and old customers
10 6,49% 41 26,62% 101 65,58%
6. Customers’ Perception on Brand Image Dimension
No Statements
Number of Respondents
Disagreed
(1-2) %
Neutral
(3) %
Agreed
(4-5) %
1
If you want to eat chicken,
you will spontaneous tell
“ayam kentucky”
16 10,39% 43 27,92% 93 60,39%
2
If want to visit to fast food
restaurant, KFC is always
in your mind
22 14,29% 57 37,01% 73 47,40%
3
If you come to KFC, you
will remember KFC
Slogan “Jagonya Ayam”
44 28,57% 41 26,62% 67 43,51%
Appendix Multiple Regression
1. Normality Test
2. Multicollinearity Test
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) -.629 .465 -1.354 .178
X1 .309 .172 .154 1.791 .075 .544 1.839
X2 .276 .120 .212 2.296 .023 .470 2.126
X3 .032 .126 .023 .255 .799 .494 2.026
X4 -.034 .120 -.025 -.282 .778 .494 2.023
X5 .568 .122 .397 4.671 .000 .558 1.792
a. Dependent Variable: Y
3. Heteroscedasticity Test
4. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Y 3.4408 .86686 152
X1 3.4690 .43263 152
X2 3.3662 .66640 152
X3 3.2747 .62227 152
X4 3.3717 .65419 152
X5 3.6595 .60527 152
Variables Entered/Removedb
Model
Variables
Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1 X5, X2, X1, X4,
X3a
. Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: Y
5. Model Summary
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .642a .413 .393 .67562 .413 20.516 5 146 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), X5, X2, X1,
X4, X3
b. Dependent Variable: Y
6. ANOVA
ANOVAb
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 46.824 5 9.365 20.516 .000a
Residual 66.643 146 .456
Total 113.467 151
a. Predictors: (Constant), X5, X2, X1, X4, X3
b. Dependent Variable: Y
7. Collinearity
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model Dimension Eigenvalue
Condition
Index
Variance Proportions
(Constant) X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
1 1 5.929 1.000 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
2 .023 15.899 .23 .04 .13 .04 .19 .02
3 .017 18.934 .03 .02 .47 .35 .01 .12
4 .014 20.751 .07 .02 .15 .29 .70 .00
5 .012 22.436 .15 .00 .03 .28 .02 .81
6 .006 31.836 .52 .92 .20 .04 .09 .05
a. Dependent Variable: Y