1. http://cqx.sagepub.com/
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
http://cqx.sagepub.com/content/51/4/483
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1938965510378574
2010 51: 483 originally published online 11 August
2010Cornell Hospitality Quarterly
Ioannis S. Pantelidis
Electronic Meal Experience: A Content Analysis of Online
Restaurant Comments
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
The Center for Hospitality Research of Cornell University
can be found at:Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyAdditional
services and information for
4. economic conditions and times of economic recession.
Keywords
restaurant management; consumer satisfaction; online consumer
guides; word of mouth; referrals; social media; Alexa.com;
www.london-eating.co.uk
The complexity of the restaurant business, together with the
intricacies of customers’ expectations, makes it difficult for
a restaurateur to predict how each customer will react to a
particular dining experience. The difficulties of ensuring
customer satisfaction are amplified by the fact that, as Davis
et al. (2008, 339) remind us, “The consumer becomes part
of the product which adds to the challenge of how to market
the product effectively.”
Although restaurant operators do their best to focus on
the strength of their brand as part of the effort to ensure
customers’ satisfaction, marketing efforts to create a brand
can become expensive. On top of that, guests can be delighted
with the food but dislike the atmosphere (or the other way
around). When a guest fails to return, the restaurateur risks
never knowing the reason.
While online restaurant review sites and social media
reviews add to the existing complications for restaurant
operators, they also can point to areas in need of improvement
for restaurateurs who pay attention. Many consumers now
consult not only friends and relatives when they are seeking
a restaurant, but they consult online guides and social media
sites. Thus, favorable word of mouth has been for many years
the best friend of the small and medium-size restaurant. Espe-
cially during times of economic crisis, word of mouth and
other person-to-person communication may be a restaurant’s
5. chief means of promotion.
Word of Mouth
Marketers value word of mouth and have attempted to influ-
ence it in many ways, but word of mouth is not a commodity
that can be manufactured, and it is difficult to alter. Because
word of mouth is a by-product of a solid business that provides
a great meal experience to the customer, seeking to generate
word of mouth without ensuring that the product on offer
is of good quality is an act of futility. With the rise of social
media and online forums of various types, word of mouth
has transcended the traditional format and has become a
critical element in many consumers’ patronage decision. The
practice of passing a marketing message through online media
has become known as “word of mouse,” but the literature
also refers to it as “electronic word of mouth” or “word of
keyboard” (Helm 2000; Gelb and Sundaram 2002; Riedl,
Konstan, and Vrooman 2002; Henning-Thurau et al. 2004).
If word of mouth was an important element of a restaurant’s
marketing strategy, then “word of mouse” may be more so.
One reason for the growing importance of online forums is
that younger customers, often called “Generation Y,” constantly
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
484 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)
rely on chat rooms, texting, and video messaging—thereby
rapidly passing along their opinions and experiences. For this
reason, restaurants need to establish their online identity and
remain in touch with the market.
6. While it is common to believe that such forums are the
province of younger customers, the fact is that they are used
by people of all ages. The number of consumers who utilize
online restaurant guides or travel guides such as tripadvisor.
com is fast on the increase. As Gelb and Sundaram (2002)
argue, the relative anonymity of online posting empowers
people to express their feelings about a product or service
with speed and ease not available in the past. Dobele, Toleman,
and Beverland (2005) argue that the best strategy is for mar-
keters to target opinion leaders to ensure a believable referral
strategy. Thompson (2003) in an article in the New York Times
argued that companies now pay considerable attention to
reputation on social media. He points, for example, to the
case of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which achieved box office
success through early favorable reviews on websites, despite
a small advertising budget.
Those who overlook the strength of electronic media should
be reminded of the sad case of Casa Flamenco, a Spanish-theme
restaurant in Brisbane, Australia (Casa Flamenco 2008). I will
review that situation in the next section.
Although all internet-related activities are of interest,
including emails, blogging, and social networking sites, the
literature tends to focus on websites and on the effects of
viral marketing (Helm 2000; Dobele, Toleman, and Beverland
2005). However, in this article, I look only at comments and
reviews posted by genuine customers and not obvious activi-
ties of marketers. Consumers are discriminating in this regard.
For example, Teasdale (2007) reports that when it comes to
trust, almost twice as many travelers rely on sites with visi-
tors reviews as opposed to travel agent websites. Considering
restaurant advertising, the message is controlled by the res-
taurateur in viral marketing, while the message is controlled
by the consumer in most social media sites. As Teasdale
7. suggests, consumers are more likely to trust the latter.
The Role of Restaurant Websites
The rapid expansion of technological advancements, par-
ticularly those relating to the internet, provides an incredible
challenge to independent and small and medium-size restau-
rants that cannot afford to hire the expertise to keep up with
the changes. Camilo, Connolly, and Woo (2008, 377) identi-
fied the failure to keep up with technological changes as a
chief reason for the failure of independent restaurants. Cer-
tainly it is important to maintain an effective electronic mar-
keting strategy, as highlighted by Kasavana (2002), but the
key is to effectively manage the restaurant’s online brand.
This is where working with social media and other sites is
important to restaurants’ electronic marketing strategies.
Kimes (2008) points out that effective websites can contribute
to a positive dining experience, as well as convince customers
to patronize a restaurant. Consumers who look for online
reviews of restaurants are likely to also search the web for
the restaurant’s website, and they will often expect to see a
menu, as well as pictures and possibly videos relating to the
restaurant’s meal experience. Restaurateurs who fully com-
prehend the importance of interactivity on their websites as
a tool of creating a loyal customer base will also understand
the importance of tracking and monitoring customer online
reviews.
Hotels seem to have embraced this interactive strategy more
than restaurants, so far. When I interviewed the product man-
ager of Review Analyst, the tool I used to collect reviews,
media, and statistics from top travel review sites and social
media sites (see www.reviewanalyst.com), it became appar-
ent that the majority of their clients are hotel companies.
Customer Satisfaction in Restaurants
8. Let us return to the case of Casa Flamenco, the Australian
restaurant that is famously no longer in business due to elec-
tronic word of mouth. This is a classic situation of a failure
to satisfy a guest both during and after the meal. On Monday,
February 11, 2008, Lorraine Pacey received an email from
this restaurant in response to her complaint about a meal expe-
rience she had had in the restaurant. The restaurateur’s response
to her constructive criticism was as follows: “Dear Lorraine,
your are an idiot we dont need your feedback” (Exhibit 1). She
forwarded the email to a few friends, and the story went viral,
resulting in news coverage in the conventional press. Eventually
the restaurant was forced to close. With well over twenty thou-
sand hits on the websites that posted the now-legendary email,
the proprietor may have missed an opportunity for free adver-
tising, but it seems that a full recovery for the business was
unlikely, given the extent of negative publicity.
In their examination of twenty-eight expectations that cus-
tomers seek to satisfy when dining out, Kivela, Inbakaran,
and Reece (2000) reported a positive correlation between
satisfaction of expectations and willingness to return. Although
the study did not address word of mouth, willingness to return
should be a reliable indicator of favorable comments. Interest-
ingly, the expectations that were least met in the study were
privacy, innovation, menu variety, noise levels, and the han-
dling of reservations.
Several other studies have been conducted on customer
expectations. However, efforts to prioritize expectations or
set them in a hierarchy have been inconclusive. Andaleeb and
Conway (2006) suggest that to satisfy customer expectations,
restaurateurs ought to focus their efforts on service quality,
price, and food quality, in that order. However, one may argue
that this order is part induced by the design of their methodol-
ogy. Gupta McLaughlin, and Gomez (2007) eloquently and
9. at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
Pantelidis 485
with an impressive set of data argue that the order of signifi-
cance to the consumer is food quality, price, greeting, and
service. Young and Jang (2008) also put food first, followed
by the physical environment and service. However, this study
failed to consider price—an unfortunate omission in the midst
of an economic recession, given the likelihood that restaurant
guests would have greater price sensitivity.
Methodology
To conduct this study, I analyzed consumer comments on the
online restaurant guide www.london-eating.co.uk, which
listed 791 London-based restaurants on its webpages in March
2007. I selected this particular guide for three reasons. First,
this was one of the first online guides to attempt to ensure
genuine reviews by asking reviewers for a valid email address
or by having them register to post a review. Although this
format can still be manipulated, it is much better than the
blogs and forums that allow the anonymous postings of either
malicious or inappropriately favorable comments. Second,
the guide features a ten-point star rating system for restaurants,
making it easier to spot negative comments. Third, it was the
most-used such site, having gained popularity fast since its
launch in 2001 with Alexa.com. For example, Hardens.com
(the website of the eponymous London restaurant guide, which
began publication in 1991) is ranked by Alexa.com at 379,981,
while london-eating.co.uk was ranked 51,027.
The notion that restaurant proprietors may be influencing
10. positive comments is always a danger, although all effort was
taken to ensure that any blips in the data were eliminated. In
addition to the website’s controls, I eliminated obvious prob-
lems. An example of such a case was one restaurant that had
only two comments from July ’05 to February ’07, and then
suddenly had twelve positive comments within two days in
January ’09. After calling the restaurant to confirm whether
there was a change of management, I deleted those twelve
comments from the analysis.
The primary aim of the research was to capture the key
variables consumers consider in their online reviews. Regard-
less of whether the review is positive or negative, we can
identify key elements of the meal experience as cited by a
substantial number of individuals. This alone provides a posi-
tive contribution to the body of knowledge and understanding
of consumer behavior in relation to restaurant patronage.
I randomly selected 300 full-service restaurants from the
791 restaurants on the London-eating site. Selection criteria
were that the restaurant either had an online presence so that
I could determine the style of service, or it had online articles
that could serve the same purpose. I applied the Davis et al.
(2008, 42) classification of full-service restaurants to include
their fine-dining and popular-catering categories. Although
they do not offer a finite definition of each, they give a descrip-
tion of general characteristics of each restaurant category.
I compiled the original set of data of 2,292 comments
during March 2007. With a content analysis, I hoped to iden-
tify key factors in the consumers’ reflective commentaries
and thus suggest the key values in consumers’ restaurant pref-
erence structure model. The project was temporarily sus-
pended in 2007 and most of 2008 due to lack of resources.
This provided a serendipitous outcome. With the economic
11. recession reaching its nadir in December 2008, I had an oppor-
tunity to test the model against a set of data that reflected
customers’ views during a time of unfavorable economic
conditions, notably, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, as
reported by the media on September 15, 2008. I allowed a
lag time of 2.5 months from the Lehman case to December
2008 for the effects to be felt, so that the research would show
any changes in consumers’ evaluation criteria.
Thus, the content analysis (Krippendorff 1980) included
a total of 2,471 comments (the original 2,292 plus 179 during
the recession). The original data of 2,292 comments from
twenty months (July 2005 to February 2007) were analyzed
separately from the 179 comments retrieved for the same
three hundred restaurants for the months of December 2008
and January 2009. By this time, thirty-four of the original
restaurants had closed, but I was able to convert the frequen-
cies of key variables to percentages to make meaningful
comparisons.
I note the gap in the data from March ’07 to November ’08.
This was a transitional period from what can be considered
a favorable economic climate to a time of major economic
issues. I tested the reliability of the methodology by recoding
data twenty-one months after the first data collection. I con-
firmed that there were no significant issues with the coding.
The validity of the categories was confirmed by triangulating
the results to similar categories reported in the literature.
Findings and Discussion
The demographics of this guide’s users are hard to determine,
but from analyzing the names it can be determined that the
gender proportion of reviewers is approximately 52 percent
male and 48 percent female. It appears that reviewers of all
ages post on this site. According to Alexa.com, 78.6 percent
12. Exhibit 1. The Legendary Casa Flamenco E-Mail
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
486 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)
of the site traffic comes from the United Kingdom, 3.5 percent
from the United States, 2.6 percent from India, 1.2 percent
from Germany, and 1.2 percent from Italy. The remaining
12.8 percent comes from such countries as Norway, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain.
I found that positive comments outweighed negative ones
in both time periods (see Exhibit 2). The fact that the anonym-
ity of this site does not unleash a negative tsunami and instead
allows satisfied customers to give a positive restaurant review
is a message of great hope to restaurateurs who might be
concerned about such sites. I observe that restaurants that are
doing their best to offer a good meal experience are acknowl-
edged by the users of this site.
Although both periods saw a much higher percentage of
positive comments, I note that the relative percentage of
negative comments rose in period 2, perhaps suggesting that
customers are looking for a better value for money during
unfavorable economic conditions. It is also possible that
London restaurants attempted to cut costs by offering a lower
quality of product during the recession, thus spurring more
dissatisfaction. Camilo, Connolly, and Woo (2008) explored
this issue in their study.
An interesting result in Exhibit 3 is that price ranks fourth
13. in the list of most frequently mentioned factors, with food
and service at the top. Finding food as the primary variable
is congruent with the studies I mentioned above (e.g., Gupta,
McLaughlin, and Gomez 2007; Young and Jang 2007, 2008).
The majority of commentaries had at least two or three
factors within the review, which is why the numbers attrib-
uted to the factors exceeds the number of comments. Thus,
although I established a preference structure model based on
factor frequency per comment, it is the interrelation of the
factors that would require further research. For example, in
comments where the price was far beyond what the consumer
expected to pay, the conclusion of the comment was often
that the customers would not return even if they were satis-
fied with food and service. Note that the model remains
constant for period 2.
Although food is at the top of the agenda when consumers
reflect on their experiences, the chef is not often discussed—
except when the restaurant is operated by a celebrity chef, a
circumstance that accounts for 119 of the total 136 comments
relating to the chef in both periods. The qualities of the waiter
or waitress are discussed far more often, along with the notion
of friendliness. I note that for period 2, the discussion about
consumption of drinks overtakes discussions of friendliness,
for whatever reason. Exhibit 7 refers to a memorable type
of drink; these categories (wine and beer) were not added to
the number of discussions about drink (a category seen in
Exhibit 4). They were differentiated as an expression of pref-
erence to a particular type of product as opposed to a more
general reflection about drinking.
From the comments that specifically discussed a menu
category (Exhibit 5), it becomes evident that the largest per-
centage of customers will remember the main course, as
opposed to the starter or dessert. However, on closer inspec-
14. tion, I note that people are most likely to order only one course
(that is, the entrée only). Logically, those people have only
the main course to discuss. Yet starters also show up strongly,
although not as many people order them. To address this issue,
I contacted ten experts with a long history of restaurant man-
agement in the London restaurant business, averaging their
estimates of the percentage of guests who order an appetizer
and those who just order the main course. This calculation
suggests that for lunch, around 39 percent of customers will
not order a starter; while for dinner, the figure drops to around
22 percent. Therefore, if on average three out of ten customers
are not having starter, one may argue that statistically the
starter
Exhibit 2. Positive versus Negative Comments
Type of Comment July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage
December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage
Positive 1,779 77.62 113 63.13
Negative 513 22.38 66 36.87
Total comments 2,292 100.00 179 100.00
Exhibit 3. Customer Satisfaction Factors Mentioned Most
Frequently in Commentaries on London-eating.co.uk
Top Talked-About Factors July 2005 to February 2007
Percentage of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage
of 179
Food 2,195 95.77 176 98.32
Service 2,116 92.32 132 73.74
Atmosphere or ambience 1,160 50.61 94 52.51
Price 669 29.19 49 27.37
Menu 609 26.57 48 26.82
Design or decor 231 10.08 15 8.38
15. Total comments 2,292 100.00 179 100.00
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
Pantelidis 487
may be as important in delivering a memorable experience
as is the main course. This is an area that could be further
researched.
Although the significance of the findings in Exhibit 6 may
be minimal, it is worth noting that fish appears to be the most
memorable type of food with chicken second. This, together
with findings from Exhibits 5 and 7, highlights the necessity
to focus not only on main course but invest equal consider-
ation in other parts of the meal experience. It also highlights
the importance of good wine selection to complement specific
dishes. In that regard, one of every four customers who left
a comment on the website mentioned the wine in their review.
Only a small number mentioned beer or any other type of
drink. It would greatly depend on the type of restaurant, but
it is clear that a well-chosen wine from a good wine list ought
to be part of the “weaponry” of any restaurant.
To further assess any trend in the number of reviews per
month, I compared the total number of comments for the month
of January in each of four years (2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009)
for the same 300 restaurants (Exhibit 8). The total number of
comments for January 2008 were added for comparative
purposes only, as the data from that period were not analyzed.
As indicated above, I defined those data as part of the “tran-
16. sitional period” between the economically favorable and unfa-
vorable periods. Of the 34 restaurants that closed during the
study, just 9 had closed by January ’08, with a further 25 closed
by January ’09. The blue column shows the comments for the
original 300 hundred restaurants in the study. A more meaning-
ful comparison is that of the red columns, which show that the
total number of comments for the 266 restaurants that remained
open from January ’06 to January ’09 dropped in January 2009.
The discrepancy between January ’09, as compared with the
other three, amounted to a 26 to 30 percent reduction in com-
ment activity for the surviving restaurants. This can be inter-
preted as a validation of the reduced patronage of London
restaurants reported by the media.
Conclusions
This study examines consumer-generated internet content,
often called “word of mouse,” which has already become a
critical element in guests’ determination of whether to visit
Exhibit 4. Factors Cited Less Frequently in Restaurant Reviews
Other Keywords July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage of
2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179
Waiter or waitress 496 21.64 56 31.28
Friendly 455 19.85 27 15.08
Drink 356 15.53 32 17.88
Chef 121 5.28 15 8.38
Total comments 2,292 100.00 179 100.00
Exhibit 5. Most Talked-About Menu Category
Menu Category July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage of 2,292
December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179
Main course 522 22.77 38 21.23
17. Starter 385 16.80 29 16.20
Dessert 194 8.46 10 5.59
Exhibit 6. Memorable Food Types
Memorable Food Type July 2005 to February 2007 Percentage
of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage of 179
Fish 223 9.73 20 11.17
Chicken 157 6.85 15 8.38
Beef 111 4.84 3 1.68
Vegetarian 74 3.23 3 1.68
Pork 52 2.27 1 0.56
Exhibit 7. Type of Drink Discussed
Memorable Type of Drink July 2005 to February 2007
Percentage of 2,292 December 2008 to January 2009 Percentage
of 179
Wine 583 25.44 51 28.49
Beer 72 3.14 4 2.23
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
488 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)
a restaurant. The old concept of viral marketing, as generated
by the operator, has become meaningless with the shift in
power from marketer to consumer—indeed, consumers will
be suspicious or even offended when restaurateurs attempt
to influence the content of social media sites.
18. The research evidence suggests that in both favorable and
unfavorable economic periods, the preference structure model
of restaurant consumers remains relatively similar. The good
news for restaurateurs is that the majority of online reviews
examined in this article were generally positive, which means
delivering a good product and service is often rewarded by
customers in terms of word of mouse. In this research, food
appears as the top factor for customer satisfaction, followed
by service and atmosphere. While the entrée was mentioned
most often across all reviews, I must note that for those who
order an appetizer, the study suggests that the starter is an
influential course when it comes to what people remember
and talk about after they leave a restaurant. I also found some
evidence that consumers sought more value for money during
the recession of 2008 and 2009. The article also establishes
a methodological approach that could be replicated in alter-
native major cities around the world to give a better picture
of the restaurant industry across cultural barriers.
Becoming Memory Weavers
Having analyzed the results of the research, I offer some spe-
cific meaningful conclusions and suggestions that can find
practical applications to a strategic approach for the restau-
rateur dealing with the economic crisis. First, the most impor-
tant way to influence electronic reviews and comments in
social media remains the same as ever—serve excellent food
in a way that makes it memorable. Even though food is the
number-one topic of the restaurant reviews I examined,
remember that a wonderful shared experience—rather than
hunger—is the primary reason why people dine out in a
full-service restaurant. More than 65 percent of all reviews
analyzed in this research start with a phrase such as, “My
husband and I . . . ,” ”My girlfriend and I . . . ,” or “My friends
and I. . . .” Ensuring that the meal experience is a memorable
19. one should result in positive comments in chat rooms, forums,
and review websites.
You should monitor the comments on restaurant review
sites. Although your guests will not appreciate attempts to
insert false positive comments, your guests are also voluntarily
and freely offering you advice on how to improve your res-
taurant. Thus, a proactive strategy would see proprietors surf
the web to find comments about their restaurant. Negative
comments can be used to improve the areas highlighted by
the customers. Social media present an opportunity for genu-
ine interaction between the proprietor and guests on the forum.
Thus, if there is a problem, you can offer an explanation (not
an excuse) and demonstrate how you are attempting to recover
the service failure. This goes a long way in creating the feeling
that the restaurateur cares about his or her reputation.
The findings of this research suggest that guests’ expectations
are a key point in whether they are satisfied. Exceeding those
expectations in an enjoyable manner can be achieved if the
focus
is on specific elements of the meal experience. Finding that
unique selling point and enhancing it is the key to ensure your
restaurant stands out from the rest of the competition.
Food is King
Even though your guests are seeking an experience at your
restaurant, it is clear from this research (and many other stud-
ies) that food truly is king. It is the primary variable that will
influence a customer’s memory and subsequently his or her
behavioral intentions—whether that includes returning or
sharing reviews on various internet sites. No matter how good
the service or how well priced the menu may be, if the res-
taurant fails to deliver its primary product, the experience will
be tainted, and subsequent comments will be negative.
20. There is No King without Loyal Subjects
It was clear that some restaurants sought to control costs during
the recession. Guests noticed, as reflected in such comments
as “good food but really slow service” and “fire the chef, hire
more waiters.” In times of economic volatility, the training
budget is often the first budget to go. Camilo, Connolly, and
Woo (2008) report excessive cost cutting as one of the major
traits contributing to restaurant operations’ failure. Restaura-
teurs who value their employees will ensure that motivation
is kept high and that the best employees do not go to work
for the competitor because they feel undervalued. With a
minimum staff-to-customer ratio, or with undertrained staff,
both food and service will suffer—and this will be reflected
in customer comments.
Exhibit 8. Comparison of Number of Comments for the
Month of January in Four Years
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
Pantelidis 489
Keep an Eye on the Big Picture
Although this article’s preference structure modeling puts
price as the fourth most discussed variable, that does not mean
it is the fourth most memorable. People tend to feel less com-
fortable talking about money than other elements of the meal
experience. As Monroe (1989) suggests, pricing can entice
or repel a customer. One must not forget that certain customers
are attracted to high-price menu items, as they may relate
high price to better quality or status. So pricing can entice or
21. repel at either of its polar ends.
Although food is at the top of the list, a brilliant meal
followed by a huge bill may cause guests to think twice about
returning to your restaurant. Other factors also influence
guests’ satisfaction, including a badly handled reservation
call or an unkempt restaurant exterior.
Having a vision and being proactive may appear as the last
contributing factor to a successful restaurant operation in the
Camilo, Connolly, and Woo (2008) study, but in times of eco-
nomic volatility, this trait should be at the top. Without vision
there can be no unique selling point, and in times of economic
recession a unique selling point will make all the difference.
Search engines and online restaurant guides aggregate con-
sumer feedback from a number of sources. The Hardens.com
restaurant guide, for example, which has been available to
mobile phone for more than five years, reported higher sales
from their online services than from the restaurant guide hard
copies. This is further evidence that restaurant visits are heav-
ily influenced by web content. Attempting to control the flow
of communication may become impossible for the small-size
restaurant, but having a vision and sticking to it will ensure
that no matter what, the message will always be positive in
the long run, as long as the vision is well executed.
Taking Advantage of Opportunities
The internet is a loud megaphone, and if your restaurant has
gained some form of celebrity, you should consider how to
take advantage of it. For example, it would have been a long
shot, but the owner of Casa Flamenco might have been able
to parlay the negative publicity into a market position of
“the abusive-Spanish-theme restaurant,” with the idea that
Brisbane tourists would want to pay a visit to a place that
had gained such notoriety.
22. That situation was probably too far gone, and only the
bravest entrepreneur would see that as an opportunity. How-
ever, the point remains that negative comments could be seen
as an opportunity to enhance your product. One way to do this
is to seek out dissatisfied customers and win them back. One
reviewer in my sample posted this: “I wrote the review below
about being asked to leave within two minutes. After my dining
experience, I sent an email to their customer services. Hats
off to them, they responded within 24 hours and sent me a
£20 gift voucher as an apology and said they do have a policy
of 1 hour 45 table turn around and that they would take my
feedback on board and train their staff and managers about
how to enforce this correctly with customers.” The reviewer
continues with a further 350 words describing his experience,
concluding that he would definitely visit the restaurant again.
Another reviewer wrote, “I wrote a critical review of this res-
taurant on this website a few months ago, highlighting their
shortcomings on an evening I spent there with my husband;
the main of these being the terrible service. The day after the
review was posted I was tracked down (the review was anony-
mous so they really had to match up all the orders that evening
to the food I described in the review, which is quite impres-
sive!) and asked to come to the restaurant again to see if I
would change my mind. My husband and I finally got around
to going again last night. . . . It truly was like stepping into a
new restaurant, so when the chef came out to see us I could
honestly tell him that the evening was faultless.” Such favor-
able follow-up commentaries are priceless. They show that
restaurants are listening and acting to correct problems.
Managing Social Media and Internet Posts
This study shows the importance of monitoring and managing
electronic communications. Not only can restaurateurs achieve
a better understanding of what consumers want and how they
perceive their restaurant, but customers’ comments can also
23. highlight areas of improvement and enable restaurateurs to pro-
tect their brand online. Although there are a number of compa-
nies that can monitor a number of blogs, social sites, and review
sites for any business, most of this can be easily achieved by
independent restaurateurs who may not have the budget to
invest
to a large company. Google alerts, for example, is an easy way
of getting emails based on selected topics and keywords. Every
time Google’s bots find a comment, article, or review about
your restaurant, you can view it and choose whether to respond.
Above, I gave two examples where restaurateurs responded to
unsatisfied customers with favorable results. Such a strategy
has two effects. First, it allows you to win back a dissatisfied
customer; and second, it allows your restaurant to stand out as
one that will make it right if something goes wrong.
Finally, if guests repeatedly offer positive comments about
a particular aspect of the restaurant, this aspect can be used
as a criterion for rewarding and further motivating employees.
If, on the other hand, a particular area consistently receives
negative comments, then the restaurateur can investigate the
reasons behind this underperformance. Keeping track of com-
ment patterns over long periods of time can also act as a key
performance indicator for restaurateurs. Especially when
review sites operate a star rating system, a restaurateur can
easily track his or her restaurant rating over periods of time.
at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
490 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51(4)
The Next Stage: Word of Video
24. It is just a matter of time before “word of mouse” becomes
“word of video” and restaurateurs and other hospitality opera-
tors find themselves the subjects of videos posted on YouTube,
Facebook, or elsewhere. The technology is already easily
available. Although the bulk of comments on the London
eating site were favorable, I again note that it is easy to become
an internet restaurant fatality. On Facebook, the keywords
“worst restaurant” resulted in 244 interest groups. Having a
Facebook group for your restaurant, on the other hand, costs
you little time and could generate a good sense of community
for your customers.
A Google search on the keywords “terrible restaurant” on
February 9, 2009, yielded 7,150,000 hits globally and 720,000
in the United Kingdom. Likewise, the keywords “worst res-
taurant” resulted 6,100,000 global hits and 209,000 U.K.
results. The top page results emanate from websites such as
tripadvisor.com, answers.yahoo, and youtube.com. Consumers
are not shy about using their mobile phone cameras and videos
to depict undesirable back-of-house areas or dirty kitchens or
toilets. Instead of describing them, they will simply post them.
Needless to say, mobile phones can work in your restau-
rant’s favor, since consumers can use one of many apps to
connect to a map online (Exhibit 9), locate a restaurant, and
download data that their GPS software will translate to direc-
tions to the restaurant. Bear in mind that most of the images
and videos featured in such services are consumer-generated.
Large businesses are already taking advantage of the consumer-
driven imagery, but a big budget is not necessary. What is
needed is a clear, concise, and unique message.
Limitations and Recommendations
for Further Research
25. Although every care has been taken to minimize coding
errors, the coding was performed manually and it is not pos-
sible to totally eliminate errors. I must also caution that the
results presented here may apply only to full-service restau-
rants. I see no reason that the results cannot be generalized
beyond London, but I note that the survey is limited by geog-
raphy. I would have liked to have analyzed comments from
all 791 restaurants, but resource limitations did not permit.
I cut my second research period short to submit this paper
to a Cornell Quarterly special issue, in 2009. I suspect that
the succeeding months may have shown a greater consumer
willingness to discuss pricing. Finally, the research could
easily be replicated with other websites that feature consumer
reviews, and the preference structure model suggested in this
article could be tested in other cultures.
Disclosures
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
References
Andaleeb, Syed Saad, and Carolyn Conway. 2006. Customer
satisfac-
tion in the restaurant industry: An examination of the
transaction-
specific model. Journal of Services Marketing 20 (1): 3-11.
Exhibit 9. Seamless Integrated Technology and Consumer-
Generated Content
26. at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
Pantelidis 491
Camilo, Angelo, A. Connolly, J. Daniel, and Gon Kim Woo.
2008.
Success and failure in northern Carolina: Critical success
factors
for independent restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 49 (4): 364-80.
Casa Flamenco. 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v-GeEq
VMEgfNc (accessed February 7, 2009).
Davis, Bernard, Andrew Lockwood, Ioannis Pantelidis, and
Peter Alcott. 2008. Food and beverage management. 4th ed.
London, UK: Elsevier.
Dobele, Angela, David Toleman, and Michael Beverland. 2005.
Controlled infection! Spreading the brand message through
viral marketing. Business Horizons 48:143-49.
Gelb, Betsy D., and Suresh Sundaram. 2002. Adapting to word
of
mouse. Business Horizons 45 (4): 21-25.
Gupta, Sachin, Edward McLaughlin, and Miguel Gomez. 2007.
Guest satisfaction and restaurant performance. Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48 (3): 284-98.
Helm, Sabrina. 2000. Viral marketing—Establishing customer
27. relation-
ships by “word-of-mouse.” Electronic Markets 10 (3): 158-61.
Henning-Thurau, Thorsten, Kevin Gwinner, Giannfranco Walsh,
and Dwayne Gremler. 2004. Electronic word-of-mouth via
consumer-opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to
articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive
Marketing 18 (1): 38-52.
Kasavana, Michael L. 2002. eMarketing: Restaurant websites
that
click. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing 9 (3/4): 161-
78.
Kimes, Sheryl E. 2008. The role of technology in restaurant
revenue
management. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 49:297-309.
Kivela, Jaksïa, Robert Inbakaran, and John Reece. 2000.
Consumer
research in the restaurant environment. Part 3: Analysis, find-
ings and conclusions. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 12 (1): 13-30.
Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content analysis: An introduction to
its
methodology. London, UK: Sage.
Monroe, K. 1989. The pricing of services. In Handbook of
services
marketing, ed. C. A. Congram and M. L. Friedman, 20-31.
New York, NY: AMACOM.
Riedl, John, Joseph Konstan, and Eric Vrooman. 2002. Word of
mouse: The power of collaborative filtering. New York, NY:
Warner Books.
28. Teasdale, Mike. 2007. Establishing trust online. Harvest digital
report. Nielsen/Netratings, http://www.harvestdigital.com/
uploads/assets/pdfs/a06e872df8d658b9c6ad0f48ea5c2d98.pdf
(accessed July, 2010).
Thompson, Nicholas. 2003. Technology; more companies pay
heed
to their “word of mouse” reputation. New York Times, June 23.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E3DB143
BF930A15755C0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
(accessed February 7, 2009).
Young, Namkung, and SooCheong Jang. 2007. Does food
quality
really matter in restaurants? Its impact on customer satisfaction
and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research 31 (3): 387-409.
Young, Namkung, and SooCheong Jang. 2008. Are highly
satisfied
restaurant customers really different? A quality perception per-
spective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
management 20 (2): 142-55.
Bio
Ioannis S. Pantelidis is a Ph.D. candidate, senior lecturer in
hos-
pitality and tourism management, and program leader in interna-
tional hotel and restaurant management at the London
Metropolitan
Business School of London Metropolitan University
([email protected]
londonmet.ac.uk).
29. at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 11,
2011cqx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cqx.sagepub.com/
Running Head: Relationships and Expectations 1
OBESITY 6
Nurse Manager
Jaydin Davis
Trident University International
BHE414 Cross Cultural Health Perspectives
Module 2 Relationships and Expectations SLP
Dr. Leandra Hernandez
October 28, 2018
Obesity
Obesity is a disorder characterized by excessive accumulation
30. of body fat that increases the risks of other health problems. In
the American situation, the Hispanic populations along with the
other minority groups are highly affected by such lifestyle
disorders. The primary reasons behind the incidence and
prevalence of obesity among the Hispanics are mainly
associated with their cultural inclinations, dietary adaptations
and behavioral factors such as low levels of education as well as
the lack of health cover and insurance (Flegal et al., 2016). It is
also critical to note that the Hispanics are characterized by
culturally infused diets, portion control, learned dietary
behaviors, life events and mental disorders such as depression.
These behaviors are critical in establishing the reasons for
obesity. This paper explores the relationships and expectations
of the PEN-3 model factors for the Hispanic population.
Relationship and Expectation
In order to achieve a successful application of cultural
enablement, ecological and social inclinations must be properly
assessed and evaluated among the Hispanics. This is because it
can affect how the family or the society functions as a whole
and the interventions to implement (Flegal et al., 2016). To
address this, an effective program must be implemented to
primarily focus on education and training to encourage the use
of the interventions and available services to remedy the obesity
situation. To address relationships and expectations the factors
of the PEN-3 model are analyzed below.
Perceptions
Perceptions refer to the way that something that is regarded
interpreted and understood by society. For example, people’s
views of the “perfect” weight and shape of the body are critical
culturally factors. This means that the process of weight loss is
affected by the cultural and societal inclination of a good or
perfect body. This affects the health concerns that are aimed to
reduce the obesity epidemic among the Hispanics (Flegal et al.,
2016). However, there is evidence that Hispanic women
specifically chose a fat body type as the best thing for their
children as it portrays overall health and vitality. This myth
31. also associates being thin with poverty and increased
vulnerability to disease (Lindberg, 2013). The cultural
inclination and association of plumb bodies with healthy
individuals. This association is misinformed and can result in
more serious health problems.
Enablers
In the case of obesity interventions, the primary enablers
include factors associated with cultural identity such as the
family relationships which are established with the providers. It
is important to note that provider-patient interactions and
communications are extremely valuable in aiding patients to
adhere to any of the given guidelines that foster weight loss
related remedies and strategies.
These guidelines are not specifically designed to address weight
loss they are also designed to help people achieve better or
healthier lifestyles and make good lifestyle choices. This is
because addressing weight loss alone does not provide a way to
manage the obesity problem from the root. In other words with
weight loss, emerging cases are not handled until they are
noticed. Another critical enabler is accessibility to healthcare
facilities; most Hispanics face the accessibility problem mainly
because the majority of Hispanics are not well-educated while
others are immigrants without proper documentation which
affects their ability to acquire proper insurance covers.
Nurtures
Nurturers can be categorized into many divisions due to the
culture. For instance, the family structure among the Hispanics
is a critical component of society. The Hispanics are
characterized as a close-knit population. Sometimes members of
a family look upon a member of the family who suffers from
obesity or risks of obesity. Sometimes these members suffer
from other chronic implicated by obesity such as heart problems
and high blood pressure. In this context, the affected members
are considered a support group (Adams et al., 2016). In the
same context, the Hispanic communities have strong spiritual
inclinations. Therefore people can rely on guidance from the
32. spiritual leaders who are educated on the issue. This allows for
the members of the family to have a point of reference and
advice when faced by such problems. Lastly, on nurtures, the
family or members of the family can be turned to a highly
effective support group for therapy and adherence. In Hispanic
cultures, the older males are considered heads of the other
members and are required to make or offer their opinion when it
comes to health-related issues. The other members must follow
the guidance given (Adams et al., 2016).
The adherence to a given healthy diets challenges the
interventions this is because the majority of the Hispanics are
culturally inclined to consume culturally infused diets and most
important the adaptation of new diets (Adams et al., 2016). A
good example is a trend for the majority of young adults to
adopt the consumption of large quantities of processed
American foods. These foods are also regarded as junk food.
The consumption of these foods increases the cholesterol and
fat levels in the body. This results in other obesity-related
implications. Considering that Hispanics are immigrants the
adaptation of these diets can be used as an educating point. The
interventions should consider the provision of educational
demonstrations of why the Latinos such as the Mexicans have a
higher risk incidence for diabetes and health complications such
as unstable blood pressure due to obesity (Adams et al., 2016).
The consideration of the PEN-3 factors stated and explained
above gives the program an upper hand in finding long-lasting
solutions to address the increasing rates of obesity among the
Hispanics. It is therefore critical to try and address the Hispanic
obesity problem by putting these factors into consideration.
33. References
Adams, J., Mytton, O., White, M., & Monsivais, P. (2016). Why
are some population interventions for diet and obesity more
equitable and effective than others? The role of the individual
agency. PLoS medicine, 13(4), e1001990.
Flegal, K. M., Kruszon-Moran, D., Carroll, M. D., Fryar, C. D.,
& Ogden, C. L. (2016). Trends in obesity among adults in the
United States, 2005 to 2014. Jama, 315(21), 2284-2291.
Lindberg, N. M., Stevens, V. J., & Halperin, R. O. (2013).
Weight-Loss Interventions for Hispanic Populations: The Role
of Culture. Journal of Obesity, 2013, 542736
Instructions
1. Summarize a hypothesis/research question from the reading
34. (1-2 sentences).
2. Explain how data was coded to address this question (2-3
sentences).
3. Identify a problem with the content analysis coding of this
paper (2-3 sentences). The focus is on something to do with the
coding (e.g., the coding definitions) and not the paper as a
whole. For example: Do you disagree with their definitions? Did
they code the wrong thing, or if they had coded something else
would there results have been very different?
