upadhyay - do people differ in their preferences regarding restaurants - an exploritory study

8/9/2019 Upadhyay - Do People Differ in Their Preferences Regarding Restaurants - An Exploritory Study

1/17

DO PEOPLE DIFFER IN THEIR

PREFERENCES REGARDING RESTAURANTS?

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

Yogesh Upadhyay, Shiv Kumar Singh and George Thomas

Consumer decision making process has always been a subject of interest for marketers. The present study

examines the decision making process in respect of restaurant services in India. Restaurant sector is vibrant

due to changing life style of people and composition of Indian families. The study aims to augment the

understanding about preferences of selected cross-sections of consumers regarding restaurants and

differences within the selected cross-section. This exploratory study attempts to investigate the impact of

demographic and reason to visit variables on restaurants preferences. In order to assess the relative

importance of various aspects of restaurant selection, customers were asked to rate selected attributes like

location, less time in serving, convenient operating time, safety, parking facility etc. The study utilized a

self-administered questionnaire to a convenience sample of 300 respondents. The findings of the study

suggest how consumers from selected cross-sections evaluate intrinsic and extrinsic cues while evaluating

a restaurant. It finally presents the implications for researchers and managers of Indian restaurants.

Key Words : Restaurant, Restaurant Attributes, Consumer Decision Making, Eating Out, ServiceEnvironment.

INTRODUCTION

THE imprints of thrust in Indias development are

observable in changing life styles of consumer.

On the social plane, nuclear families are coming

up with gross high per head income. On the economic

side, rising income in India is leading to an overall growth

in consumption. This has a direct impact on spendingpatterns involving food. As India beckons the world with

its famed hospitality culture, eating out is being

increasingly looked upon as a cool habit. Out-of-home

dining is getting high popularity and its demanding its

fair share of the pie in a spiced-up economy.

According to a research project conducted by

Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India

(www.fhari.com, 2005) there are 10 million households

in India with average household income of Rs 46,000

per month and 2 million households with a household

income of Rs 115,000 per month. Eating out has emerged

as a trend, which is prevalent within this elite group. Two

out of every five households in this group eat out at least

once a month. There are 100 million 17-21 years old in

India, and six out of ten households have a child that

was born in the post-liberalization era and has grown up

with no guilt of consumption. It is estimated that there

are approximately 5,00,000 restaurants in the organised

sector and this figure is expected to increase in future.

A recent industry survey also indicates that while

1.7 per cent of Indians dine out more than once a week,

2.5 per cent do so once a week and around 2.1 per cent

once every fortnight. About 5.5 per cent eat out once

every month and 5.4 per cent once every 2-3 months.

Around 8 per cent say eating out is relegated only to

festivals. For 69.6 per cent, it is a rare affair, but not

entirely a forsaken habit (The Economic Times, 21 May,

2005). Quick meals and convenience, social occasions,

business necessity, and celebration are all reasons people

dine out (Kivela, 1997; Pedraja and Yage, 2001).


2/17VISIONThe Journal of Business Perspective Vol. 11 No. 2 AprilJune 2007

8 Upadhyay, Singh and Thomas

Food is one of the basic necessities on which the

very survival of human beings rests. But the desire or

motivation to eat a food (incentive motivation) may be

distinguished from its hedonic value (liking)(Berridge

KC, 2001). That is, the drive or desire to eat foods can

be distinct from the enjoyment derived from eating them

(Cardello, Schutz, Snow, Lesher, 2000). A restaurant

takes that basic drive - the simplest act of eating-and

transforms it into a civilized ritual involving hospitality,

imagination, satisfaction, graciousness, and warmth

(Gunasekeran, 1992).

Several research studies have been conducted that

focus on different aspects of the restaurant industry to

understand consumer behaviour in various parts of the

world (Andersson & Mossberg, 2004; Auty, 1992;

Beardsworth, 1997; Bitner, 1992; Finkelstein, 1989;Gunasekeran, 1992; Hing & Yun, 1995; Kivela, Reece,

& Inbakaran, 2000; Kivela, 1997; Kivela, Reece, &

Inbakaran, 1999; Mehta and Maniam, 2002; Oh, 1999,

Oh, 2000; Russell, 1979; Steadman, 1991).

Giventhe advancing phenomena of eating out and

in view of the scarcity of empirical research describing

the consumption behaviour of Indians especially

pertaining to restaurants, this study attempts to

investigate the variability, if any, in preferences regarding

various attributes of restaurants due to demographic and

other differences.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH

HYPOTHESES

Customers are looking for opportunities and experiences

that make their lives happier, richer and more rewarding

(Lewis and Chambers, 1998). They spend their time and

money in service environments looking for such

opportunities and experiences (Baker and Cameron,

1996; Hopkinson, Petterbridge, and Longmore, 1966;

Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Milliman, 1986;

Wakefield and Blodgett, 1994). In a way consumerspurchase such experiences when he shells out for services

(Bateson, 1995; Tseng et al., 1999). This emotional

experience could further be declassified as joy or by the

structural dimensions underlying emotional categories

such as relaxation/action, comfort/discomfort or

pleasantness/unpleasantness (Russell, 1979). In a way

such experiences are a source of certain intrinsic rewards,

such as a feeling of well being, comfort, contentedness,

and happiness. It enables the customers to briefly escape

monotonousness from their daily routine (Finkelstein,

1989). Restaurants also serve as sociology of modern

manners where customers imitate each other, in response

to fashions and act with artifice and pretence. The

conditions in the service environment (e.g., seating

arrangements, size and flexibility) are found to affect

the nature of social interaction in terms of duration of

interaction and the actual progression of events (Bitner,

1990).

The decision making process of people is always

under scanner in order to comprehend how people select

restaurants, weigh attributes in restaurant selection,

attributes that influence the selection of menu etc. Such

insight is helpful for marketers in order to serve

customers in a better style. Consumers perceptions and

evaluations of products are based on information such

as intrinsic cues (e.g., products design, performance) and

extrinsic cues (e.g., price, prestige); with the latterbecoming increasingly important when intrinsic cues are

difficult to assess (Han and Terpstra, 1988).

Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran (1999) studied the

difference in the ratings of restaurant attributes based

on the demographic characteristics of respondents. In

this exhaustive study on restaurants they divided the

restaurants into four categories based on their

differentiation in price, location, theme/ambience,

service level, cuisine and style. They argued that

determinants in restaurant selection vary across age

groups, income levels, and restaurant types. They foundambience factor as an important determining choice

variable for 25-34 year olds. Auty (1992), Bitner (1992),

and Finkelstein (1989) argued that this might be because

these 25-34 years age group tend to look for ambience

or atmosphere type restaurants because they provide a

more suitable social environment for them. But Kivela,

Reece, and Inbakaran (1999) draws its support from other

studies that focused on the restaurant interior in various

contexts (Aubert-Gamet, 1997; Baker 1986; Belk 1975;

Bitner 1992; Wakefield & Blodgett 1994, 1996) and it

has been proven that the interior is an important satisfier

when the customer stays for some time in theenvironment and when the motive is pleasure (Wakefield

& Blodgett 1994, 1996), which is the case for most

diners. Further, Andersson (1991) found interiors as an

essential factor influencing diners satisfaction both at

lunch and dinner.

Mehta and Maniam (2002) examined the

determinants of customers attitudes towards selecting

a restaurant either for leisure or for business. Various

factors such as service, product, location, physical

environment, promotion, price, and image attributes were

rated and analyzed on importance. The findings of this



Do People Differ in their Preferences Regarding Restaurants? 9

exploratory study supports that customers find food

quality, ambience factors, image, and friendly staff

important in selecting a fine dining restaurant. The

business sector wants availability of rooms for special

functions, seminars and banquets, while the leisure

segment wants discounts, buffets and prices less than

$30 a person. Yuksel and Yuksel (2002) studied

selection of restaurants by tourists in Turkey. They

worked on 42 restaurant selection items that converged

into nine orthogonal factor dimensions. They were

service quality, product quality, menu diversity, hygiene,

convenience and location, noise, service speed, price and

value, facilities and atmosphere. Andersson and

Mossberg (2004) showed dining experience is an

engrossing concept that includes much more than good

food. They used the model described as concentric rings(including the must and the satisfiers) to illustrate

what aspects influence a customers multidimensional

meal experience. The must is food in the center, and in

the adjacent ring there are five groups of satisfiers: (1)

service; (2) fine cuisine; (3) restaurant interior; (4) good

company and (5) other customers.

According to Steadman (1991), people do not go to

restaurants just to be fed, they can order, take away or

get delivered, if they do not want to cook. Customers at

fine dining restaurants want to be made to feel special.

Service quality is a critical component of customers

value perceptions that, in turn, become a determinant of

customer satisfaction, therefore, customers perceive

greater value for their money when they experience a

high level of quality (Oh, 2000). Lewis and Chamber

(1998) stated that the three components: goods, services,

and environment are concerns of customers when they

purchase the hospitality product. Tucci and Talaga

(1997) used conjoint analysis to determine the utility

consumers assign to restaurants that varied along

different levels of price, speed of service, quality of food,

courtesy of server and service guarantee. They concluded

that the presence of an explicit service guarantee is notuniformly desirable in the selection of a table service

restaurant.

It is felt that quality food items, impeccable service,

low prices, and well-planned menus may all contribute

to restaurant selection, but it has not been effective unless

the customer returns. Lowenberg et al. (1979), Wood(1995) and particularly Finkelstein (1989) concluded that

customers choice of restaurant and their subsequent

return is a result of dining satisfactions that are often

influenced by the customers psychological rather than

physical needs.

In the backdrop of the literature reviewed following

hypotheses are framed to put to test:

Hypothesis 1 : People do notdiffer inrating attributes

in restaurant selection when theybelong to different age groups.


in restaurant selection when they

belong to different gender.

Hypothesis 3 : People do notdiffer in rating attributes

in restaurant selection when they have

different occupations.


in restaurant selection when they visit

restaurants for different reasons.

VARIABLE OPERATIONALIZATION

Data Collection and Samples

As the study was explorative in nature, the sample of

the study was non-probabilistic convenience sample

comprising 300 respondents. Respondents from Gwalior

(India) were asked to complete and return the

questionnaires. The resulting sample was 35 per cent

female and 65 per cent male. The demographic profile

of the sample is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Profile of Sample

Characteristic Frequency Percent

Age

18 -30 130 43.3 %

Above 30 170 56.7 %

Occupation

Private 88 29.3%

Public 46 15.3%

Self Employed 59 19.7%Students 70 23.3%

Others 37 12.4%

Gender

Male 195 65 %

Female 105 35 %

Reason to Visit

Recreation 144 48.0 %

Work Related 55 18.3 %

Special Occasion 101 33.7%




Instrument

The disconfirmation theory is widely accepted as an

account of the process by which customers develop

feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction, that is, whencustomers compare new dining experiences with some

basis that they have developed from prior experiences.

On the other hand, the assumption that a customer will

weigh various restaurant attributes is based on

expectancy theory. In the majority of studies using

disconfirmation theory, expectations are formed

according to customers pre-experience beliefs and

standards that they use to measure their purchase

experience. These theories bring together the social,

psychological and cultural concepts into four distinct

groups of variables: input variables both internal and

external, process variables and output variables(Lowenberg et al., 1979; Finkelstein, 1989). The present

study aims to examine whether the rating of input

variables differ by virtue of demographic and other

differences.

The issue is to identify the attributes that play a

dominant role in selection of a restaurant. To sort out

the same the benchmarks lay down by Myers and Alpert

(1968) and Alpert (1971) were observed. Clarifying

further, Myers and Alpert (1968), citing Foote (1961)

underpins that being important means that the

consumer is extremely offended by the attributesabsence and its presence is highly evaluated or that

its presence provides the consumers much satisfaction

(Fishbein, 1972). Firstly, attributes considered while

evaluating restaurants by consumers were finalised with

the help of review of literature and focus groups

conducted for the purpose. The focus group included

consumers who frequently used restaurants. In all, fifteen

attributes were selected to collect the responses of

consumers. These attributes were used to develop a self-

administered, close-ended questionnaire consisting of

5-point bi-polar type scales (1=not at all important and

5=extremely important) concerning different attributes.

The respondents were asked to select a rating of 1 to 5

for each attribute based on their weighing of attributes

while selecting a restaurant. Following this portion of

the survey, were a series of demographic questions.

Reliability of the Scale

The scale showed a high level of internal consistency

(Cronbachs alpha of 0.81). All items were well above

the 0.70m - commonly accepted thresholds (DeVellis,

1991; Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Spector, 1992).

All individual scale items had statistically significant (at

p




Kruskal Wallis H-tests was used to analyse

Occupation and reason to visit (Table 3), as the data

did not comply with the prerequisites of normality

(Kolmogorov-Smirnov = 0.100, p




Table 4: Mann-WhitneyUTest Significance of Difference between Males and Females regarding their Importance Rating

of Selected Attributes of Restaurants

Gender N Mean Rank Mann-Whitney Asymp. Sig.

U (2-tailed)

Quality of food Male 195 147.90 9731.00 0.220

Female 105 155.32

Ambience Male 195 154.57 9444.00 0.202

Female 105 142.94

Location Male 195 152.78 9793.5 0.439

Female 105 146.27

Menu Male 195 150.33 10204.50 0.954

Female 105 150.81

Innovative recipe Male 194 151.38 9918.00 0.679

Female 105 147.46

Less time in serving Male 195 151.07 10125.50 0.847

Female 105 149.43

Separate place for family Male 195 149.78 10096.50 0.803

Female 105 151.84

Separate bar Male 195 148.89 9923.50 0.588

Female 105 153.49

Convenient operating time Male 195 152.14 9917.50 0.593

Female 105 147.45

Cuisine tariffs Male 195 149.82 10104.50 0.834

Female 105 151.77

Only vegetarian cuisine availability Male 195 147.34 9622.00 0.344

Female 105 156.36

Safety Male 195 147.18 9589.50 0.209

Female 105 156.67

Parking facility Male 195 150.82 10175.50 0.915

Female 105 149.91

Specialised cuisine facility Male 195 144.46 9059.00 0.083

Female 105 161.72

Popularity of chef Male 195 143.61 8893.50 0.050*

Female 105 163.30

* The mean rank difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Mann-Whitney U-Test shows that of the fifteen

variables rated by respondents concerning restaurants,

the difference between the mean ranks of four variables

i.e. Menu (W=9389.50, p




Table 5: Kruskal-Wallis Significance of Difference in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes of Restaurants among

Respondents Belonging to Varied Occupations

Occupation No. of Mean Rank Chi-square Degree of Asymp.

cases Freedom SigQuality of food Private 88 140.65 7.589 4 0.108

Public 46 156.32

Self Employed 59 148.63

Student 70 152.70

Others 37 165.53

Ambience Private 88 151.77 3.057 4 0.548

Public 46 152.09


Student 70 159.87

Others 37 134.01Location Private 88 150.20 11.050 4 0.026*

Public 46 159.88


Student 70 167.32

Others 37 141.43

Menu Private 88 143.48 12.962 4 0.011*

Public 46 161.95


Student 70 171.64

Others 37 141.27

Innovative recipe Private 87 134.14 23.999 4 0.000*

Public 46 167.93


Student 70 183.26

Others 37 130.41

Less time in serving Private 88 157.21 10.815 4 0.029*

Public 46 163.40


Student 70 156.99

Others 37 146.68

Separate place for family Private 88 146.27 11.460 4 0.022*

Public 46 155.41


Student 70 171.70

Others 37 139.69

Separate bar Private 88 147.32 12.395 4 0.015*

Public 46 158.74


Student 70 166.39

Others 37 157.89




Convenient operating time Private 88 151.39 10.817 4 0.029*

Public 46 153.66


Student 70 170.19

Others 37 140.11

Cuisine tariffs Private 88 134.19 21.766 4 0.000*

Public 46 173.49


Student 70 176.62

Others 37 121.55

Only vegetarian cuisine Private 88 129.31 20.846 4 0.000*

availability Public 46 163.75


Student 70 181.61

Others 37 150.12

Safety Private 88 150.90 21.041 4 0.000*

Public 46 140.55


Student 70 175.29

Others 37 153.34

Parking facility Private 88 148.84 16.088 4 0.003*

Public 46 155.70


Student 70 171.05Others 37 154.49

Specialised cuisine facility Private 88 133.89 28.000 4 0.000*

Public 46 140.32


Student 70 195.42

Others 37 145.38

Popularity of chef Private 88 123.84 36.219 4 0.000*

Public 46 170.13


Student 70 193.01Others 37 152.45


One way Anova (Kruskal Wallis H-test) showed that

impact of occupation on preferences of respondents was

significant in case of thirteen variables out of the fifteen

variables rated by respondents (Table 5). Quality of food

(H=7.59, p>0.05) and Ambiance (H=3.06, p>0.05)

showed immunity to this impact. Thus, Hypothesis 3 is

rejected in view of statistical evidence except in case of

the above referred two variables.

To look at the source of difference in case of

occupation, post-hoc analysis was conduced using

Dunnet-C test (unequal variance) in respect of cases that

reported the difference to be significant at 5 per cent level.




Table 6: Dunnet C Post-Hoc Analysis of the Source of Significant Differences in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes

of Restaurants among Respondents Belonging to Varied Occupations

Dependent Variable (I) Occupation (J) Occupation Mean Difference (I-J)

Location Student Private 0.23

Public 0.18

Self Employed 0.45(*)

Others 0.33

Menu Student Private 0.34(*)

Public 0.08


Others 0.25

Innovative recipe Student Private 0.59(*)

Public 0.16


Others 0.56(*)

Less time in serving Student Private -0.03

Public -0.07

Self Employed 0.35

Others 0.01

Separate place for family Student Private 0.35

Public 0.15


Others 0.54

Separate bar Student Private 0.39

Public 0.06


Others 0.21

Convenient operating time Student Private 0.22

Public 0.19


Others 0.30

Cuisine tariffs Student Private 0.52(*)

Public 0.09


Others 0.60(*)

Only vegetarian cuisine availability Student Private 0.97(*)

Public 0.30


Others 0.61

Safety Student Private 0.35(*)

Public 0.42(*)


Others 0.29

Parking facility Student Private 0.24

Public 0.20


Others 0.20

Specialised cuisine facility Student Private 0.83(*)

Public 0.73(*)


Others 0.61(*)

Popularity of chef Student Private 1.06(*)

Public 0.41


Others 0.64

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.




As envisaged, the Post-HocDunnet-C test (Table

6) reveals fine prints of the difference. Observation of

the Post-Hoc table revealed that among the five

categories of the respondents, only students exhibited

significant differences with other categories. Therefore,

the difference of students vis--vis other categories has

been displayed in the table. The table 6 demonstrates

that the major contribution to the significance of

difference has been the difference between student and

other categories. Further, in case of almost all variables

student and self-employed category display

significant differences. The category of student and

public showed the least differences. In case of about

half of the variables the category private also displayed

significant differences with student category. In case

of specialized cuisine facility, safety and cuisine

tariffs difference among all the categories contributed

to the significance of difference.

Table 7: Kruskal-Wallis Significance of Difference in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes of Restaurants among

Respondents Visiting Restaurant for Different Reasons

Occupation No of Mean Chi- Degree of Asymp.

cases Rank square Freedom Sig

Quality of food Recreation 144 153.80 7.632 2 0.022*

Work Related 55 133.69

Special Occasion 101 154.95

Ambience Recreation 144 143.31 3.025 2 0.220



Location Recreation 144 146.37 .986 2 0.611



Menu Recreation 144 141.50 5.978 2 0.050*



Innovative recipe Recreation 144 145.92 4.022 2 0.134



Less time in serving Recreation 144 149.24 .113 2 0.945



Separate place for family Recreation 144 146.38 1.397 2 0.497



Separate bar Recreation 144 153.55 1.250 2 0.535



Convenient operating time Recreation 144 146.18 1.833 2 0.400



Cuisine tariffs Recreation 144 147.52 3.987 2 0.136






One way Anova (Kruskal Wallis H-test) showed that

impact of reason to visit restaurant on preferences of

respondents was significant in case of only six variables

viz., Quality of food, Menu, Only vegetarian cuisine

availability, Parking facility, Specialised cuisine facility,and Popularity of chef out of the total fifteen variables

(Table 7). Rest of them did not display this impact. Thus,

Hypothesis 4 is rejected in case of the above identified

six variables and in case of the rest we do not reject them

in view of available statistical evidence.

In this case too post-hoc analysis was conduced

using Dunnet-C test (unequal variance) in respect ofcases that reported the difference to be significant at 5

per cent level.

Only vegetarian cuisine Recreation 144 128.76 21.110 2 0.000*

availability Work Related 55 171.53


Safety Recreation 144 149.02 4.430 2 0.109



Parking facility Recreation 144 147.42 10.019 2 0.007*



Specialised cuisine facility Recreation 144 139.30 7.992 2 0.018*



Popularity of chef Recreation 144 137.50 6.793 2 0.033*




Table 8: Dunnet C Post-Hoc Analysis of the Source of Significant Differences in Importance Rating of Selected Attributes

of Restaurants among Respondents Visiting Restaurant for Different Reasons

Dependent Variable (I) Reason (J) Reason Mean Difference (I-J)

Menu Recreation Work Related -0.07*

Special Occasion -0.17

Work Related Recreation 0.07*


Special Occasion Recreation 0.17

Work Related 0.10

Only vegetarian cuisine availability Recreation Work Related -0.92(*)

Special Occasion -0.77(*)

Work Related Recreation 0.92(*)

Special Occasion 0.14

Special Occasion Recreation 0.77(*)

Work Related -0.14




The post hoc conduced using Dunnet-C test

(Table 8) explores the source of significance of difference

in case of three categories of reason of visit. The test

was conducted in respect of six variables that exhibited

significant differences. In case of variable only

vegetarian cuisine availabilitythe significance of

difference among categories was contributed by

difference among the three categories. In rest of the casesthe difference was contributed any of the two of the

categories. The results are mixed as exhibited by Table

8 negating a chance of any clear-cut judgment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Consumer behaviour pertaining to one of the fast

growing service sector i.e., restaurants, has been

investigated in past as suggested by the review of

literature. However, lack of sufficient research in India

on this account, encouraged this research. The purpose

of this study was to advance the understanding about

selection of restaurants in India. This was done by

assessing: (1) whether persons with different occupations

differ in their preferences for selected attributes in

restaurant selection; (2) whether persons from different

age groups differ in their preferences for selected

attributes in restaurant selection; (3) whether persons

belonging to different gender differ in their preferencesfor selected attributes in restaurant selection; (4) whether

persons visiting restaurant for different reasons differ in

their preferences for selected attributes in restaurant

selection.

The results suggest that the highest rated attribute

by the consumers in choosing a restaurant is its core

product i.e., the quality of food. The marketers cannot

afford the risk of losing the sight of the core in view of

the increasing number of variables affecting restaurant

choice. The results find its support in the work of

Andersson and Mossberg (2004) who concluded that the

Parking facility Recreation Work Related 0.25


Work Related Recreation -0.25



Work Related 0.47(*)

Specialised cuisine facility Recreation Work Related -0.02


Work Related Recreation 0.02


Special Occasion Recreation 0.34(*)

Work Related 0.33

Popularity of chef Recreation Work Related -0.41


Work Related Recreation 0.41

Special Occasion 0.04*


Work Related -0.04*

Quality of food Recreation Work Related 0.20

Special Occasion -0.03*

Work Related Recreation -0.20


Special Occasion Recreation 0.03*

Work Related 0.23

* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.




must for restaurants is food which is at the center, and

others are supporting constituents that fall into the

adjacent ring. Further, the results tone with the finding

of Kokko, T. (2005) who also identified the quality of

restaurants product as the most important criteria in

the minds of customers while selecting a restaurant. But

it deviates from the results of Kivela, Reece, and

Inbakaran (1999) who concluded ambience as the most

preferred attribute in selection of restaurants in their

work. The position of menu as third preferred attribute

further augments the importance of core. Interestingly

safety positioned at second spot indicates the emerging

concerns amongst the diners and appears to be India

specific.

Location is one of the most important attributes in

choice criteria of customers. The restaurants such asApplebees, Blimpie Subs & Salads, Burger king,

McDonalds, Subway, and T.G.I. Fridays select the site

for franchisees. The old joke about the three most

important keys or prerequisite to success in the fashion

retailing businessThree L principle, or Location,

location, and locationis just as true of the restaurant

business (Mariani, 2001). The findings of the study

support above contentions as it is considered as the fourth

important choice criteria in selection of restaurants. The

findings well syncs with the results of Kokko, T. (2005)

who also places location as the fourth most important

criteria in the minds of customers while selecting a

restaurant. Parking facility at the seventh place

highlights the problem of increased congestion in cities.

Significantly the lowest rated attributes are related to

customization of cuisine. It is considered that the

restaurant business in the city is emerging one. At

present, people at large are only scouting for basic

products. With the time the sector will become more

buyer dominated. Broadly, the results vindicate the

findings by Andersson and Mossberg (2004) who

suggested dining experience is an engrossing concept

that includes much more than good food. Finally, theselection of attributes by respondents again buttress that

products are a combination of goods and services

(Rathmell, 1966; Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons, 2000;

Magnusson, 2003; Nickels and Wood, 1997; Vargo and

Lusch 2004a and 2004b).

The results of the study illustrate that only four

attributes rated by consumers concerning selection a

restaurant vary by selected age groups. The results do

not conform to the findings of Kivela, Reece, and

Inbakaran (1999) who argue that determinants in

restaurant selection vary by age groups. Whatever

differences between the age groups have come up, they

are largely related to the variety and creativity in cuisine.

Further, the results suggest that the preferences do not

differ significantly on the basis of gender. The

difference is significant only in respect of one variable,

thus indicating homogeneity of preferences across

genders. Broadly the insignificant impact of age and

gender on the preferences of consumers suggest that the

restaurant market is still nascent and consumers

preferences are still evolving. In case of occupations, it

is the category of students that is at significant deviation

with all other occupations like, private sector employees,

self employed and others. Overall what translates is that

the young generation is emerging as a separate cult

amongst the rest. Interestingly companies are also

recognising rising power of youth. It could be gaugedfrom the excerpts of Mr. S.V. Prasad, CEO, Birla Mutual

Fund (www.adityabirla.com, 2005) The fund intends

to take advantage of the large opportunity created by the

emergence of GenNext (The young generation) as the

largest population cohort in the country and its lavish

spending habits. It surfaces that the younger generation

has markedly different habits, lifestyle and attitudes in

comparison to other segments of the population.

Recognising and understanding GenNext will pave way

for harnessing this emerging sector in a profitable

manner.

As far as reason to visit is concerned it has also not

been able to emerge as a factor contributing to significant

differences among preferences. It further reinforces that

restaurant market is still maturing.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The study furnishes a preliminary view of state of

consumer behaviour with respect to difference among

selected cross sections of consumers regarding their

preferences concerning restaurant. It assesses the impact

of demographic variables and reasons to visit on thesepreferences. The results suggest that overall demographic

variables like, age and gender hardly contributes towards

difference in preferences. This bears out that restaurant

sector is an emerging sector and the consumption

preferences are yet evolving. It translates into excellent

opportunity for the marketers in shaping the preferences

of consumers through communication mix rather leaving

them in lurch to shape themselves. If effectively tapped,

this will give proactive business organisations a needed

head start in todays competitive sphere. The study also

heralds the rise of GenNext in the Indian market in




general and restaurant sector in particular. The sector

has to recognize their potential in terms of purchasing

power as well as the role played by them viz., influencer,

gatekeeper etc., to finally recognize their clout. It appears

to be quite challenging but rewarding for the restaurant

sector to serve this emerging subset of Indian consumers.

Knowing how potential clients make this information

search is fundamental for restaurant sector which will

provide help for marketing communications strategies

that facilitate the selection of their restaurant by potential

customers.

The study serves an unambiguous message by

suggesting to keep food at the core of their offerings

without loosing sight of other add-ons. Besides, extrinsic

clues like security, location, parking place etc. play a

significant role in selection of restaurants. The demandcurve of restaurants is not price elastic as consumers place

tariffs at the tenth spot. Therefore, the nature of

competition in the restaurant is a non-price one. The

study offers a right recipe to the sector regarding the areas

to focus in order to improve overall value of the offering.

In general the findings of the study serve as a guide post

for entrepreneurs in this sector to prioritize their focus

areas and appreciate the difference between the GenNext

and other segments.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study has not taken into consideration different types

of restaurants as has been done by earlier studies. A study

funded by Coca-Cola Foodservice & Hospitality (2005)

reveals that consumers group restaurants into five

categories that the authors of the study call Home

Comfort, Entertain n Unwind, Breads Abound,

Pizza and Quick Service. Those five categories are

then divided into 18 subgroups that further define each

restaurants identity in the consumers mind. For

example, the Entertain n Unwind category is subdivided

into Themed, Fun First, Food n Fun, Mexican

Grill, Social Comfort and Food Focus. Thedeterminants of these types may differ. One of the

important demographic variable i.e. income, could not

be included due to widespread skeptism in Indian genre

regarding revealing the correct income. Analysing

impact of income on the selection of restaurants could

have offered more insights. The selection of sample that

is more representative of the heterogeneous strata of

Indian society could fetch better results. The study was

conducted in the city Gwalior which is a B+ city having

a city population of about 6 lacs. The study may not be a

representative one for the larger cities.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

The service sector is leading the growth in India. The

stride towards opening of retail sector to the world is

opening up new opportunities to entrepreneurs,consumers, researchers etc. The present study,

explorative in nature, tries to discover the preferences

of consumers in selection of a restaurant in India. As the

study has been done in a city where the city belongs to

B+ category, the external validity of the study could also

be tested in cities belonging to other categories.

Consumer is the epic centre of marketing. They could

be served better when their needs are understood and

consumers are segmented accordingly. The socio-

demographic variables that were tested for the variance

could be further expanded by adding more variables. The

results will help marketers to offer a better mix tocustomers. As a guide to future research the linkage

between determinants of restaurants selection and

customer satisfaction and its consequents like customer

retention, word-of-mouth, perceived service quality etc.

could be studied in case of India. Finally, our analysis

revealed determinants of restaurant selection differ to

that of some other studies like Kivela, Reece, &

Inbakaran (1999). Hence, further research could take up

such variances.

REFERENCES

Alpert, M.I. (1971), Identification of Determinant Attributes: A

Comparison of Methods, Journal of Marketing Research,

8, May, pp. 184-191.

Andersson, T.D. and Mossberg, L. (2004), The Dining

Experience: Do Restaurants Satisfy Customer Needs?,

Food Service Technology, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 4(4),

Dec., pp. 171177.

Andersson, T.D. (1991), Dining Quality: Do Customers Get

Value for Money?, The Journal of Hospitality Financial

Management,1, pp. 314.

Aubert-Gamet, V. (1997), Twisting Servicescapes: Diversion of

the Physical Environment in a Re-appropriation Process,

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8,

pp. 2641.

Auty, S. (1992), Consumer Choice and Segmentation in the

Restaurant Industry, The Service Industries Journal, 12(8),

pp. 324-39.

Baker, J. (1986), The Role of the Environment in Marketing

Services: The Consumer Perspective, in The Services

Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, J

Czepiel, C Congram & J Shanahan (eds.), pp.7984,

American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Baker, J. and Cameron, M. (1996), The Effects of the Service




Environment on Affect and Consumer Perception of Waiting

Time: An Integrative Review and Research Propositions,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4),

pp. 338349.

Bateson, J. E. (1995),Managing Service Marketing, 3rd edition,Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York.

Beardsworth, A. and Keil, T. (1997), Sociology on the Menu.

Routledge, London.

Belk, R.W. (1975), Situational Variables and Consumer

Behaviour,Journal of Consumer Research,2, pp. 15764.

Berridge, K.C. (2001), Reward Learning: Reinforcement,

Incentives Expectations, Psychology Learn Motivation, 40,

pp. 22378.

Bitner, M.J. (1990), Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effect

of Physical Surrounding and Employee Responses,Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 6982.Bitner, M.J. (1992), Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical

Surroundings on Customers and Employees, Journal of

Marketing, 56, pp. 5771.

Cardello, A.V., Schutz, H., Snow, C. and Lesher, L. (2000),

Predictors of Food Acceptance, Consumption and

Satisfaction in Specific Eating Situations, Food Quality

Pref, 11, pp. 20116.

DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theory and

Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India

(online) (cited 04 June 2005) http://www.fhrai.com/Mag-

News/magIndianIndustry.asp

Finkelstein, J. (1989), Dining Out: A Sociology of Modern

Manners, Polity, Cambridge.

Fishbein, M. (1972), The Search for Attitudinal-Behavioral

Consistency, in Behavioral Science Foundations of

Consumer Behavior, Joel B. Cohen (ed.), Free Press, New

York.

Fitzsimmons, J.A. and Fitzsimmons, M.J. (2000), New Service

Development: Creating Memorable Experiences, Sage

Publications, Inc, London.

Foote, N.N. (1961), Introduction, In Household Decision

Making: Consumer Behavior, Vol. 4, Nelson N. Foote (ed.),New York University Press, New York.

Gunasekeran, R. (1992), Choice of Up-market (Fine Dining)

Restaurants by Young Professional and Business People,

National University of Singapore School of Business

Management. Unpublished.

Han, C. Min and Vern, T. (1988), Country-of-Origin Effects for

Uni-National and Bi-National Products, Journal of

International Business Studies, 19 (Summer), pp. 235-254.

Hing, N. and Yun, L. L. (1995), Measuring Quality in Restaurant

Operations: An Application of the SERVQUAL

Instrument, International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 14(3-4), pp. 293-310.

Hopkinson, R.G., Petterbridge, D. and Longmore, J. (1966),

Daylighting, Heinemann, London.

Kivela, J. (1997), Restaurant Marketing: Selection and

Segmentation on Hong Kong, International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(2-3), pp. 116-23.

Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J., (2000), Consumer

Research in the Restaurant Environment- Part 3: Analysis,

Findings and Conclusions, International Journal of

Contemporary Hospitality Management,12/1, pp. 13-30.

Kivela, J., Reece, J. and Inbakaran, R. (1999), Consumer

Research in the Restaurant Environment. Part 2: Research

Design and Analytical Methods, International Journal

of Contemporary Hospitality Management 199, 11(6),

pp. 269-286.

Kokko, T. (2005), Offering Development in the Restaurant

Sector - A Comparison between Customer Perceptions and

Management Beliefs, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,Finland: University of Helsinki, p. 182.

Kolmogorov, A.N. (1933), On the Empirical Determination of a

Distribution Function, (Italian) Giornale dellInstituto

Italiano degli Attuari, 4, pp. 83-91.

Kruskal, W.H., and Wallis, W.A. (1952), Use of Ranks in One-

criterion Variance Analysis, Journal of American

Statistical Association, 47, pp. 583621.

Levene, H. (1960), Contributions to Probability and Statistics,

Stanford University Press, CA, pp. 278292.

Lewis, R.C. and Chambers, R.E. (1998),Marketing Leadership

in Hospitality: Foundations and Practices, Van Nostrand

Reinhold, New York.

Lowenberg, M.E., Todhunter, E.N., Wilson, E.D., Savage, J.R.

and Lubawski, J.L. (1979), Food and People, Wiley, New

York, NY.

Magnusson, P.R. (2003), Customer-Orientated Product

DevelopmentExperiments Involving Users in Service

Innovation, Stockholm School of Economics, EFIThe

Economic Research Institute.

Mann, H.B. and Whitney, D.R. (1947), On a Test of Whether

One of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger Than

the Other,Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, pp. 50

Mariani, J. (2001), The Implications of Your Location,

Restaurant Hospitality, 85, pp. 20.

Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to

Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Mehta, S.S. and Maniam, B. (2002), Marketing Determinants of

Customers Attitude Towards Selecting a Restaurant,

Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 6(1), pp. 27-44.

Milliman, R.E. (1986), The Influence of Background Music on

the Behaviour of Restaurant Patrons,Journal of Consumer

Research, 13(9), pp. 286288.

Myers, J.H. and Alpert M.I. (1968), Determinant Buying

Attitudes: Meaning and Measurement, Journal of

Marketing, 32, October, pp. 13-20.




Nations Restaurant News, (2005), Study Reveals Consumers

Restaurant-selection Habits, March 21, 27.

Nickels, W.G. and Wood, M.B. (1997), Marketing:

Relationships, Quality, Value, Worth Publishers, New York.

Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory

(3rd Edition), McGraw-Hill Series in Psychology, McGraw-

Hill, Inc., New York, pp. 264-265.

Oh, H. (1999), The Effect of Brand Class, Brand Awareness, and

Price on Customer Value and Behavioral Intentions,

Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24(2), May,

pp. 136-162

Oh, H. (2000), Diners Perceptions of Quality, Value, and

Satisfaction: A Practical Viewpoint, Cornell Hotel and

Restaurant Administration Quarterly, pp. 58-66.

Pedraja, M. and Yage, J. (2001), What Information do

Customers Use When Choosing a Restaurant?,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 13(6), pp. 316-318.

Rathmell, J.R. (1966), What is Meant by Services?, Journal of

Marketing, 30, Oct., pp. 32-36.

Russell, J.A. (1979), Affective Space is Bipolar, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37(4), pp. 345-56.

Spector, P.E. (1992), Summated Rating Scale Construction: An

Introduction, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative

Applications in the Social Sciences 07-082, Sage, Newbury

Park, CA.

Steadman, D. (1991),Restaurant Biz is Show Biz! Whittier Green

Publishing Co. Inc.,Greenlawn, New York.

The Aditya Birla Group (online) (cited 14 December, 2006).

Available at < http://www.adityabirla.com/media/press_

releases/200506june/birla_india_gennext_fund.htm>

The Economic Times, (2005), Dining out Hots up in India, April

27 (cited on 15 Dec, 2006) Available at < http://

economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1089677.cms>

Tseng, M., Ma, Q. and Su, C.J. (1999), Mapping Customers

Service Experience for Operations Improvement Business

Process Management, 5(1), pp. 50-64.

Tucci, L.A. and Talaga J. (1997), Service Guarantees and

Consumers Evaluation of Services Journal of Services

Marketing, 11(1), pp. 10-18.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004a), Evolving to a New

Dominant Logic for Marketing,Journal of Marketing, 68,

Jan., pp. 1-17.

Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004b), The Four Service

Marketing Myths : Remnants of a Goods-Based,Manufacturing Model, Journal of Service Research, 6(4),

May, pp. 324-335.

Wakefield, K. and Blodgett, J. (1996), The Effect of the

Servicescape on Customers Behavioral Intentions in

Leisure Service Settings, Journal of Services Marketing,

10, pp. 45-61.

Wakefield, L.K. and Blodgett, G.J. (1994), The Importance of

Servicescape in Leisure Service Settings, Journal of

Services Marketing, 8, pp. 66-76.

Wood, R.C. (1995), The Sociology of the Meal, Edinburgh

University Press, Edinburgh.

Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2002), Measurement of TouristSatisfaction with Restaurant Services: A Segment-Based

Approach,Journal of Vacation Marketing, 9(1), pp. 52-68.

Yogesh Upadhyay ([email protected]) is a Reader at the Institute of Commerce and Management, Jiwaji University,

Gwalior. He has 16 years of experience in teaching and research. His areas of interest are Social Marketing, Service Marketing

and International Marketing.

Shiv Kumar Singh([email protected]) is a Reader and Co-ordinator of MBA (Part-Time) Programme of Commerce

and Management, Jiwaji University, Gwalior. He has 16 years of experience in teaching and research . His areas of interest are

Consumer Behaviour, Model Building and Corporate Governance.

George Thomas([email protected]) is Reader and Heads the Department of Management Technology, ITM

Universe, Gwalior. He has 13 years of experience in teaching, research and industry. His areas of interest are Service

Marketing, Brand Management and Strategic Marketing.


17/17

upadhyay - do people differ in their preferences regarding restaurants - an exploritory study

Documents