csisg 2017 q3 final 2017 q3_final.pdffish & co pizza hut crystal jade la mian xiao long bao...

INSTITUTE OF

SERVICE EXCELLENCESINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY

ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2017 Q3 RESULTS Announcement

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2017 Q3 RESULTS

F&B AND TOURISM

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG Methodology

4

Customer Satisfaction

CSISG (Scale of 0-100)

1. Overall Satisfaction 2. Ability to Meet Expectations

3. Similarity to Ideal

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? The CSISG Score

Qn. Overall Satisfaction Qn. Ability to Meet Expectations Qn. Similarity to Ideal

CSISG Structural Model (For Q3 Sectors)

Qn. Repurchase Intention Qn. Price Tolerance

Qn. Complaint Behaviour

Qn. Perceived Product Quality Qn. Perceived Product Customisation Qn. Perceived Product Reliability

Qn. Perceived Service Quality Qn. Perceived Service Customisation Qn. Perceived Service Reliability

Perceived Service Quality

Perceived Product Quality

Perceived Overall Quality

(After Recent Experience)

Perceived Value

Customer Satisfaction

Customer Complaints

Customer Loyalty

Customer Expectations (Predicted Quality

Before Recent Experience)

Qn. Price / Quality Qn. Quality / Price

Qn. Expected Overall Quality Qn. Expected Customisation Qn. Expected Reliability

5→ Denotes positive relationship between the drivers → Denotes inverse relationship between the drivers

General CSISG Fieldwork Methodology

Singapore citizens and PRs are interviewed at their homes. Homes are selected from a random address listing that matches the housing profile of Singapore resident population. (Not Applicable to Hotels Sub-sector)

Departing tourists are interviewed at Changi Airport.

Typically 50-200 respondents per company would have answered the CSISG questionnaire.

Each respondent answers up to 21 CSISG questions and about 25 touchpoint questions about the company/brand they had recent experiences with. Each respondent evaluates only 1 to 2 companies/brands.

6

7

Overview of Score Calculation

Company Score

Sub-Sector Score

National ScoreSector Score

Incidence Study

• Identify companies with highest interactions with locals and tourists.

• Locals surveyed door-to-door. • Tourists surveyed at Changi Airport. • DOS population and STB Visitor

Arrival data used to further identify proportion of locals and tourist customers.

Local & Tourist Weights

Company Weights

Revenue / GDP Contribution Weights

• Identify revenue contribution of each sub-sector to its respective sector.

• Identify GDP contribution of each sector to the total GDP of sectors measured in the CSISG.

1 2 3 4

Revenue Share Study / DOS GDP Data

8

CSISG 2017 Q3 Sub-sectors

F&B Sector

• Restaurants

• Fast Food Restaurants

• Cafes & Coffee Houses

• Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

Tourism Sector

• Attractions

• Hotels REVISED

REVISED

Note: • Prior to 2017, ‘Cafes & Coffee Houses’ and ‘Snack Bars & Food Kiosks’ were measured as one sub-sector ‘Cafes & Snack Bars’.

9

Sectors Covered Food & Beverages Tourism

Survey Period Jul to Oct 2017

Total Questionnaires Completed 6,900

Locals 3,035

Tourists 3,865

Distinct entities measured 370

Entities with published scores 57

CSISG 2017 Q3 Quick Facts

INSTITUTE OF


CSISG 2017 Q3 RESULTS

How Well Did Companies Satisfy Their Customers? CSISG 2017 Q3 Results Overview

11* Refers to companies/sub-sectors significantly above their sub-sector/sector scores

QUALIFIER FOR RESPONDENT (1) Recently interacted with companies/brands (Past 3 months for F&B,

Past 6 months for Tourism) (2) Each respondent evaluates satisfaction with 1 to 2 companies/brands

from different sectors

2017 Q3 SCORES FOOD & BEVERAGE AND TOURISM

The sparklines indicate the satisfaction score of their respective sectors, sub-sectors and companies over the past few years.

statistically significant increase in customer satisfaction from 2016 to 2017

statistically significant decrease in customer satisfaction from 2016 to 2017

no significant year-on-year change in customer satisfaction score

This chart summarises the results of the CSISG 2017 satisfaction scores in the Food & Beverage, and Tourism sectors at the sector, sub-sector and company levels. 2017 was the first year of measure for the Cafes & Coffee Houses and Snack Bars & Food Kiosks Sub-sectors. Previously, they were measured as one sub-sector (i.e., the Cafes, Coffee Houses, & Snack Bars Sub-sector).

The sector scores (in gold) represents a weighted average of their respective sub-sector scores (in blue). Satisfaction scores for sub-sectors with individual company scores are weighted averages of these individual company scores.

All scores displayed are accurate to one-decimal place. Entities are presented in decreasing levels of satisfaction.

* Companies indicated with an asterisk(*) are companies that have performed significantly above their sub-sector average.

* Sub-sectors indicated with an asterisk(*) are sub-sectors that have performed significantly above their sector average.

74.2 Tourism

74.4 Hotels

Luxury & Upscale Hotels

75.1 The Ritz-Carlton74.6 Marina Bay Sands74.2 Grand Hyatt73.7 Hotel Michael73.5 Pan Pacific Singapore72.8 Shangri-La72.2 Mandarin Orchard72.1 Marina MandarinEconomy Hotels

70.6 Fragrance Hotel69.5 Hotel 81

74.9 Other hotels

73.3 Attractions

74.9 Sentosa74.5 Singapore Zoo73.9 Jurong Bird Park73.4 S.E.A. Aquarium73.2 Singapore Flyer73.2 Gardens By The Bay72.8 River Safari71.9 Universal Studios71.8 Adventure Cove71.1 Night Safari70.4 Singapore Discovery Centre71.2 Other attractions

71.7 Food & Beverage

73.6 Snack Bars & Food Kiosks*

72.6 Old Chang Kee71.0 Jollibean74.2 Other snack bars & food kiosks

71.9 Cafes & Coffee Houses

73.2 Starbucks70.3 Toast Box70.2 Ya Kun72.2 Other cafes & coffee houses

71.7 Fast Food Restaurants

72.9 Burger King72.7 McDonalds71.6 Mos Burger70.7 Subway70.4 KFC70.3 Other fast food restaurants

71.5 Restaurants

73.5 Thai Express73.5 Boon Tong Kee 73.4 Astons 73.0 Din Tai Fung72.7 Sushi Tei72.6 Jack’s Place72.6 Crystal Jade Kitchen72.3 Ajisen Ramen 72.3 Nando’s 72.0 TungLok Signatures 72.0 Swensen’s71.4 Imperial Treasure Noodle & Congee 71.4 Seoul Garden71.2 Sakae Sushi71.1 Fish & Co 71.1 Pizza Hut 70.6 Crystal Jade La Mian Xiao Long Bao 70.6 Manhattan Fish Market 69.9 Dian Xiao Er 69.6 Xin Wang Hong Kong Cafe 70.9 Other restaurants

INSTITUTE OF


Food & Beverages Sector Results

F&B Sector CSISG Trends 70

F&B Sector

58

68

78Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

2007 2017

Cafes & Coffee Houses

Fast Food Restaurants Restaurants

▲▼ Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence ◼ No statistically significant change between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence

▲◼

13

Scores Generally Statistically Similar Across Restaurants (Restaurants)

14

Thai ExpressBoon Tong Kee

AstonsDin Tai Fung

Sushi TeiJack's Place

Crystal Jade KitchenAjisen Ramen

Nando'sTungLok Signatures

Swensen'sImperial Treasure Noodle & Congee

Seoul GardenSakae Sushi

Fish & CoPizza Hut

Crystal Jade La Mian Xiao Long BaoManhattan Fish Market

Dian Xiao ErXin Wang HK CaféOther restaurants

CSISG Scores (0 to 100 scale)

50 60 70 80

Restaurants Sub-sector CSISG: 71.5

No statistically significant

year-on-year change in

scores

No Statistically Significant Score Movements (Fast Food Restaurants)

McDonalds 72.3

KFC 70.4

Burger King 71.0

Mos Burger 69.5

Subway 68.8

Other fast food restaurants 67.9

72.7 McDonalds

70.4 KFC

72.9 Burger King

71.6 Mos Burger

70.7 Subway

70.3 Other fast food restaurants

CSISG

2016

CSISG

2017

15

2007 201758

68

78Fast Food Restaurants

E.g. of other fast food includes Popeyes, Carl’s Junior, Long John Silver’s

71.7

70

78

Food & Beverage Sector

Starbucks 72.7

Ya Kun 70.1

Toast Box 69.6

73.2 Starbucks

70.2 Ya Kun 70.3 Toast Box

72.2 Other cafes & coffee houses

CSISG

2016

CSISG

2017

58

68

78

No Statistically Significant Score Movements (Cafes & Coffee Houses)

16

2007 2017

Cafes & Coffee Houses 71.9

Food & Beverage Sector

E.g. of other cafes & coffee houses includes Delifrance, Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, TCC

Scores Statistically Similar To Each Other (Snack Bars & Food Kiosks)

17

(E.g. includes KOI, Dunkin Donuts, LiHo)

Old Chang Kee

Jollibean

Other snack bars & food kiosks

CSISG Scores (0 to 100 scale)

50 60 70 80

Snack Bars & Food Kiosks Sub-sector CSISG: 73.6





Perceived Value CSISG

Snack Bars & Food Kiosks* 75.2 75.5 74.9 73.6

Cafes & Coffee Houses* 74.0 74.3 73.2 71.9

Fast Food Restaurants 74.7 73.7 73.6 ▲ 71.7

(+1.8%) (+2.4%) (+2.7%) (+1.3%)

Restaurants 73.7 ▲ 73.7 ▲ 73.4 ▲ 71.5 ▲(+2.4%) (+3.5%) (+4.7%) (+2.5%)

▲▼ Statistically significant year-on-year increase/drop at 90% confidence ◼ No statistically significant year-on-year change at 90% confidence

*Note: No year-on-year comparison for Snack Bars & Food Kiosks, and Cafes & Coffee Houses

Service Quality

Product Quality

Customer Expectations

Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

18

CSISG & All Drivers For Restaurants Saw Upticks (Drivers of Satisfaction)

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84

Expect-ations

Quality Value Expect-ations



Quality Value

Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

19

Locals Tourists

CSISG 71.1 76.6


Locals Tourists

70.9 73.1

Fast Food RestaurantsLocals Tourists

71.4 72.3

Restaurants

Locals Tourists

70.1 73.9

GREEN/RED scores indicate Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance

Locals Score Significantly

Lower

Locals Score Significantly

Lower

Tourists More Satisfied Than Locals For Restaurants And Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84

Expect-ations




Quality Value


20

Locals Tourists

CSISG 71.1 76.6


Locals Tourists

70.9 73.1


71.4 72.3

Restaurants

Locals Tourists

70.1 73.9

Locals Scored Significantly

Lower

Locals Scored Significantly

Lower

Tourists More Satisfied Than Locals For Restaurants And Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

GREEN/RED scores indicate Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

66

72

78

84

Expect-ations




Quality Value

▲


21

Locals Tourists

CSISG 71.1 76.6


Locals Tourists

70.9 73.1


71.4 72.3

Restaurants

Locals Tourists

70.1 ▲ 73.9

▲▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲▼ Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidenceNote: No year-on-year comparison for Snack Bars & Food Kiosks, and Cafes & Coffee Houses

But Locals More Satisfied Y-O-Y with All Drivers of Satisfaction

22

Satisfaction Rating (Scale of 1 to 10)

7.0 7.6 8.2


8.2 7.6 7.0

Ease of making reservations

Waiting time to be seated

Menu options to suit your needs

Attentiveness of service staff

Ability to accommodate to your needs

Time taken to receive the food

Serving portions

Quality of food

Quality of beverage

Payment process

LocalsTourists

▲▼ Statistically significant year-on-year IMPROVEMENT/DECLINE at 90% confidence

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲▲

▲

Increase In All But One Of Locals’ Attribute Ratings (Restaurants Attributes Which Are Comparable Year-on-Year)

23


7.0 7.6 8.2


8.2 7.6 7.0

Menu options to suit your needs

Time taken to queue and receive order


Payment process

Serving portions

Quality of food

Quality of beverage

Ease of finding a seat

LocalsTourists

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

Locals More Satisfied with Most Attributes (Fast Food Attributes Which Are Comparable Year-on-Year)


INSTITUTE OF


Reasons for satisfaction rating Verbatim (F&B Sector)

25

Respondents With CSISG 0 - 50 PointsRespondents With CSISG 75 - 100 points

staffservicedelicioustasty

fresh nice

chicken

taste

quality

fast

order

variety

friendly

menu

wide

choose

served

pricetender

meat

affordable

eatfish

love

mealpolite

reasonable

clean

ingredients

rice

offer

portion

coffee

staffs

efficientexcellent

generous

juicy

comfortable

crispy

dishes

drinksserving

ambiencenoodles

prepared

big

money

quickly

enjoy

enjoyedchoices

set

attentive

eatingsushiburgers

cooked

soup

flavour

thick

burger

dineeasy

ramen

tea

fried

pizza

curry

feel

lotoily soft

thai

crew

hot

rich

ice

seafood

authentic

beef

toast

counter

kaya

chinesemilk

skin

dim

dish

aromatic

find

items

peri

sum

top

loved

mouth

size sold

wait

stafftastelong

chicken

feel

meat

order

service

eatstaffs

price

slow

dry

oily

bland

eating

salty

queue

rude

small

expensivehard

soggy

bad

overpriced

portion

bread

cookedmade

money

poor

sauce

served

bit

burgercoffee

customers

fish

fresh

ordered

rice

servingsmell

tasteless

toughworth

cold

fried

friendly

make

noodles

quality

smile

F&B: Reason for Overall Satisfaction Rating (Verbatim Word Clouds Segmented by CSISG Score)

Restaurants Fast Food Restaurants Cafes & Coffee Houses Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

Quality Loyalty Quality Loyalty Quality Loyalty Quality Loyalty

Quality of food

Quality of food

Serving portions

Efficiency of the order-

taking process

Time taken to queue and

receive order


receive order

Serving portions

Staff's ability to

communicate professionally

Time taken to receive the

food


Attentiveness of staff


Staff's ability to understand

your needs


receive order

Payment process


your needs

Ambience of restaurant


receive order


Quality of the food

Menu options to suit your

needs


Quality of beverage


needs

Serving portions

Cleanliness and

orderliness of restaurants

Staff's ability to


Quality of beverage


food

Quality of food

Quality of food

Staff's ability to



your needs

26

Top 5 Differentiators of Quality & Loyalty (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality & Loyalty)

Note: Attributes ordered by descending order of impact



Quality of food

Quality of food

Serving portions


taking process


receive order


receive order

Serving portions

Staff's ability to



food





your needs


receive order

Payment process


your needs



receive order


Quality of the food


needs


Quality of beverage


needs

Serving portions

Cleanliness and


Staff's ability to


Quality of beverage


food

Quality of food

Quality of food

Staff's ability to



your needs

27Service ProcessLegend: Product EnvironmentService Staff




Quality of food

Quality of food

Serving portions


taking process


receive order


receive order

Serving portions

Staff's ability to



food





your needs


receive order

Payment process


your needs



receive order


Quality of the food


needs


Quality of beverage


needs

Serving portions

Cleanliness and


Staff's ability to


Quality of beverage


food

Quality of food

Quality of food

Staff's ability to



your needs

28

Time to Receive Order A Common Differentiator (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality & Loyalty)


Fast Food Restaurants Cafes & Coffee Houses Snack Bars & Food Kiosks

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min

Percentage of Respondents in each Wait Category

Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min*

29

Perceived Time Taken to Queue & Receive Order

* denotes that the sample size is too small (n<30).


% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min

Percentage of Respondents CSISG

Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min

Sco

res

(0 t

o 1

00

)

64

71

78

Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min*

30

Lower Satisfaction For More Than 10 Minutes Wait (Perceived Time Taken to Queue & Receive Order)

* denotes that the sample size is too small (n<30). Hence, no scores are shown.


Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min

Sco

res

(0 t

o 1

00

)

64

71

78

Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min*

31

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Lessthan

5 mins

5 to <10 mins

≥10 min

Percentage of Respondents CSISG Loyalty Score

StatisticallySignificantly

Lower Scores

Similar Trend for Loyalty (Perceived Time Taken to Queue & Receive Order)


Lower Scores

* denotes that the sample size is too small (n<30). Hence, no scores are shown.

32

48

63

78

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

50%

100%

Less than5 mins

5 to <10 mins

10 to <20 min ≥20 mins

Percentage of Respondents CSISG Loyalty Score

Similar Trend for Restaurants for More Than 20 Minutes (Perceived Waiting Time To Receive Food)


Lower Scores

INSTITUTE OF


Tourism Sector Results

60

70

80

60

70

80Attractions

Hotels

2007 2017

70

78

Tourism Sector

34

▲▼ Statistically significant increase/drop between 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence ◼ No statistically significant change between 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence

▲

◼

Tourism Sector CSISG Trends






Hotels 74.1 ▲ 75.4 ▲ 73.0 74.4 ▲(+1.4%) (+2.2%) (+0.3%) (+2.6%)

Attractions 73.2 74.5 73.4 73.3(+0.2%) (+0.4%) (+0.4%) (+0.6%)


Service Quality

Product Quality


Perceived Quality


Complaints

Customer Loyalty

35

Significant Increases Y-O-Y In Satisfaction & Most Drivers For Hotels

Note: Only Tourists are measured in the Hotels sub-sector

36

Perceived Product Quality

Perceived Service Quality


Hotels 74.8 ▲ 76.1 ▲ 75.4 ▲(+2.2%) (+2.2%) (+2.2%)

Attractions 73.9 75.0 74.5(+0.4%) (+0.4%) (+0.4%)

Service Quality

Product Quality

Perceived Quality


Perceived Quality Up For Hotels

Note: Only Tourists are measured in the Hotels sub-sector

INSTITUTE OF


Hotel Findings

No Statistically Significant Score Movements (Luxury & Upscale Hotels)

Grand Hyatt 73.0

Marina Mandarin 73.9

Mandarin Orchard 73.3

Pan Pacific Hotel 73.9

Shangri-La Hotel 75.6

Swissotel The Stamford 73.6

Ritz Carlton 74.9

Marina Bay Sands 77.2

74.2 Grand Hyatt

72.1 Marina Mandarin 72.2 Mandarin Orchard

73.5 Pan Pacific Hotel 72.8 Shangri-La Hotel

73.7 Hotel Michael

75.1 Ritz Carlton 74.6 Marina Bay Sands

CSISG2016

CSISG2017

60

70

80

38

Hotels

New hotel measured in 2017: Hotel Michael

74.4

70

78

Tourism Sector

2007 2017

Economy Hotels: Statistically Significant Increase in CSISG For Fragrance Hotel

Fragrance Hotel 66.8

Hotel 81 67.8

70.6 Fragrance Hotel

69.5 Hotel 81

CSISG2016

CSISG2017

60

70

80

39

Hotels 74.4

70

78

Tourism Sector

2007 2017

Luxury & Upscale Hotels Economy Hotels

Quality Loyalty Quality Loyalty

Maintenance of the hotel's public area

(e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts)Cleanliness of the room


(e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts)

Staff's ability to communicate professionally

Ambience of the room Hotel facilities Ambience of the roomAbility of the hotel to accommodate to your

needs or requests

Ability of the hotel to accommodate to your

needs or requestsResponsiveness of staff Reliability of the

internet connectionHotel ambience

Efficiency of the check-in process


needs or requestsComfort of the room Efficiency of the check-

out process

Cleanliness of the roomMaintenance of the hotel's public area


Amenities in the room such as TV, air-con, and

hair-dryer

Staff's ability to provide local recommendations

and information

40



Luxury & Upscale Hotels Economy Hotels



(e.g. lobby, corridors, lifts)Cleanliness of the room



Staff's ability to communicate professionally

Ambience of the room Hotel facilities Ambience of the roomAbility of the hotel to accommodate to your

needs or requests


needs or requestsResponsiveness of staff Reliability of the

internet connectionHotel ambience



needs or requestsComfort of the room Efficiency of the check-

out process

Cleanliness of the roomMaintenance of the hotel's public area


Amenities in the room such as TV, air-con, and

hair-dryer

Staff's ability to provide local recommendations

and information

41

Service ProcessLegend: ProductService Staff


INSTITUTE OF


Attraction Findings

No Statistically Significant Score Movements (Attractions)

Sentosa 74.3

Jurong Bird Park 72.6

Singapore Zoo 73.3

Night Safari 72.2 River Safari 72.3

Universal Studios 73.1

Singapore Discovery Centre 70.1

Adventure Cove 71.1 MBS SkyPark 71.2

Gardens By The Bay 72.1

S.E.A Aquarium 72.8

Other attractions 70.5

74.9 Sentosa

73.9 Jurong Bird Park

74.5 Singapore Zoo

71.1 Night Safari

72.8 River Safari

71.9 Universal Studios

70.4 Singapore Discovery Centre

71.8 Adventure Cove

73.2 Singapore Flyer 73.2 Gardens By The Bay

73.4 S.E.A Aquarium

71.2 Other attractions

CSISG

2016

CSISG

2017

43

Attractions

60

70

80

New attraction measured in 2017:Singapore Flyer E.g. of other attractions includes ArtScience Museum, Wild Wild Wet, MBS Skypark

73.3

70

78

Tourism Sector2007 2017

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

65

70

75

80

Expectations Quality Value

▲

44

AttractionsLocals Tourists

CSISG 70.1 73.9

▲

GREEN/RED scores indicates Local performed BETTER/WORSE than Tourist respondents with statistical significance

Tourists More Satisfied Than Locals (Drivers of Satisfaction for Attractions)

Sco

re (

0 t

o 1

00

)

60

65

70

75

80

Expectations Quality Value

▲

45

AttractionsLocals Tourists

CSISG 70.1 ▲ 73.9

▲


Rise in Drivers of Satisfaction Amongst Locals (Drivers of Satisfaction for Attractions)

46


7.0 7.6 8.2


8.2 7.6 7.0

Ease of getting to the attraction

Waiting time to get into the attraction

Clarity of directions within the attraction

Ease of getting around the attraction

Friendliness and courtesy of the staff

Staff knowledge about the attraction

Amenities within the attraction

Cleanliness of the attraction

Entertainment and/or educational value of the attraction

Food and beverage options

Quality of food and beverage given the prices

LocalsTourists


▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

Locals More Satisfied with Most Attributes (Attraction Attributes Which Are Comparable Year-on-Year)

Locals Tourists

% R

espo

nden

ts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Family LocalFriends

TouristFriends

Others Family LocalFriends

TouristFriends

Others

2016 2017

47

Visiting With Families A Key Segment For Attractions (With Whom Did You Visit the Attraction With?)

65

70

75

80


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value

CSISG CustomerLoyalty

2016 2017

48


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value


▲▼ Statistically significant increase/drop between the 2017 and 2016 scores at 90% confidence

Locals Who Visited with Family Tourists Who Visited with Family

Rise in Satisfaction Amongst Locals Who Visited With Family (With Whom Did You Visit the Attraction With?)

65

70

75

80


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value


2016 2017

49


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value


Locals Who Visited with Family Locals Who Visited with All Others (Visited With Anyone Other Than Family)

Comparing Locals Who Visited with Family vs. Others (With Whom Did You Visit the Attraction With?)


Higher Perceived Value & Loyalty Amongst Locals Who Visited With Family (With Whom Did You Visit the Attraction With?)

65

70

75

80


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value


50


Perceived Quality

Perceived Value


Locals Who Visited with Family Locals Who Visited with All Others (Visited With Anyone Other Than Family)

Locals who visited with Family have higher scores compared to

those who visited with All Others


Attractions Hotels


Ease of finding information within the

attraction

Range of activities/ exhibits




needs or requests

Safety and security measures within the

attraction

Entertainment and/or educational value of the

attractionAmbience of the room Efficiency of the check-

in process




needs or requestsHelpfulness of staff


attraction


Efficiency of the check-in process Cleanliness of the room



Hotel ambience Hotel ambience

51



Attractions Hotels


Ease of finding information within the

attraction





needs or requests

Safety and security measures within the

attraction


attractionAmbience of the room Efficiency of the check-

in process




needs or requestsHelpfulness of staff


attraction



Cleanliness of the room



Hotel ambience Hotel ambience

52

Service ProcessLegend: ProductService Staff

Beyond Product, Service Remains A Key Differentiator (Top 5 Attributes with Impact on Quality & Loyalty)

53

• Overall, Food & Beverage and Tourism saw increases in satisfaction in 2017.

• Food & Beverage:

• Scores rose driven by more satisfied locals, especially in the Restaurants and Fast Food sub-sectors.

• As with last year both product and service elements were key differentiators of quality and loyalty.

• Generally, time taken to receive the order was a common differentiator in F&B with wait time of more than 10 minutes (20 minutes for Restaurants) seeing a marked decrease in satisfaction and loyalty.

Summary

54

• Tourism Sector:

• Rise coming from more satisfied Hotel customers with increase in perceived service and product quality.

• Attractions wise, locals were more satisfied in 2017, especially amongst the Family segment.

• Similar to F&B, generally, service elements remains a key differentiator of quality and loyalty.

Summary

INSTITUTE OF


ISE INDUSTRY FORUM CSISG 2017 Q3 RESULTS Announcement

csisg 2017 q3 final 2017 q3_final.pdffish & co pizza hut crystal jade la mian xiao long bao...

Documents