More Related Content What's hot 4. hapzi ali, et al., 2016, customer satisfaction, ijbcnet, mercu buana univv... 4. hapzi ali, et al., 2016, customer satisfaction, ijbcnet, mercu buana univv... Hapzi Ali
Similar to Finished Dissertation Similar to Finished Dissertation (20) 3. 3
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION 5
2.0 RESEARCH AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 6
3.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
3.1 EXPLORING LOYALTY 7
3.2 DEFINING A BRAND 8
3.3 BRAND EQUITY 10
3.4 THE SOCIAL MEDIA EFFECT 12
3.5 CONCLUSION 13
4.0 METHODOLOGY 13
4.1 RESEARCH COLLECTION METHOD 13
4.1.1 QUESTIONNAIRE 13
4.1.2 INTERVIEW 14
4.1.3 MIXED METHODS APPROACH 14
4.2 PARTICIPANTS 15
4.2.1 SAMPLING 15
4.2.2 ETHICAL ISSUES 15
4.3 PROCEDURE 16
4.3.1 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY 16
4.3.2 DATA COLLECTION DETAILS 16
4.3.3 DATA ANALYSIS 16
5.0 FINDINGS 17
5.1 QUANTITATIVE DATA 17
5.1.1 LOYALTY BASED FINDINGS 17
5.1.2 BRANDING BASED FINDINGS 18
5.1.3 SOCIAL MEDIA FINDINGS 21
5.2 QUALITATIVE DATA 22
5.3 GAINING QUANTITATIVE DATA FROM QUALITATIVE 27
6.0 DISCUSSION 28
6.1 IF LOWER PRICES AND HIGHER QUALITY DO INCREASE CUSTOMER LOYALTY, WHY
DO CUSTOMERS STILL GO ELSEWHERE? 28
6.2 DO CUSTOMERS SEE THEMSELVES AS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE BRANDING OF A
RESTAURANT? 29
6.3 ARE CUSTOMERS MORE LIKELY TO REMAIN LOYAL TO A COMPANY BRANDED IN A
POSITIVE WAY? 31
6.4 HAS SOCIAL MEDIA HAD AN IMPACT ON EATING HABITS? 32
6.5 OTHER FINDINGS OF INTEREST 33
6.6 “DOES BRANDING NOW HAVE AS BIG AN IMPACT ON CUSTOMER LOYALTY AS PRICE
AND QUALITY WITHIN THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY?” 33
6.7 FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS 34
7.0 REFERENCES 35
5. 5
1.0 Introduction
The creation and maintenance of long-term customer relationships is something
that all restaurants strive to achieve (Liu et al, 2014). For a long-term
relationship between a consumer and a restaurant to exist, the consumer must
feel some form of loyalty towards the restaurant. This creation of loyalty will, in
turn lead to repeat custom and positive word of mouth needed for a potentially
successful venture (Sun & Lin, 2010). It makes sense therefore, for restaurants
to do all they can to maximize the levels of loyalty their customers feel towards
them.
The restaurant sectors turnover increased to £21.6bn in 2014, an enormous
increase of 39% since 2010’s figure of £15.5bn (Shubber, 2015). This growth in
the sector can be attributed to many things; changes in lifestyle habits, fast
growth in disposable income, a boom in ‘fast casual’ restaurants, and a feel good
feeling that’s beginning to emanate across the country (Shubber, 2015). Changes
in lifestyle habits have seen a massive 75% of families eat out in restaurants
together more frequently than they did five years ago (Eversham, 2015)
This report will explore the common themes associated with building customer
loyalty and also look at new trends in consumer behavior relating to loyalty. The
purpose of this research is to identify the true basis of customer loyalty in
modern society, whether price and quality are all important or whether branding
is a dominant force.
Cost and quality have long been associated as the key drivers in customer loyalty
in the restaurant industry, this is due to ‘the level of satisfaction/ dissatisfaction
experienced’ a customer feels after weighing up the ‘perceived value’ after taking
into the ‘quality’ and ‘price’ (Iglesias & Guillen, 2004). This perceived value and
satisfaction would then, in theory, determine the customer’s likelihood of
returning and becoming a loyal customer. However, it could be argued that in the
modern world, branding has an equal impact on customer loyalty, and it is this
that will be explored in this research project.
To explore the impact of branding we must also explore the impact of social
media on the branding and success of restaurants. Social media is becoming an
increasingly important issue for restaurants to consider, this is due to a ‘positive
correlation’ ‘found between a restaurant’s revenues and its social media reviews’
(Windels, 2012). This impact is measurable, as an increase of rating by just one
star on review sites such as Yelp have been found to lead to an increase in
revenue of ‘between 5 and 9 percent’ (Weber, 2011). From this we can begin to
understand the growing importance of social media for the restaurant industry
and how it can affect a brand.
The reason for this research is primarily derived from the growth of ‘fast casual’
restaurants in the UK such as Nando’s, Gourmet Burger Kitchen, and Frankie and
Benny’s. The premise of these restaurants is to deliver sit down restaurant
quality with the speed of fast food (Shubber, 2015). Nando’s, in particular is the
most successful in this market, and have created an incredibly loyal customer
6. 6
base through specific and targeted social media marketing. ‘Restaurants in the
'”fast casual sector” have an average “revisit intent” (definitely or will probably
go again) of 69 per cent. Nando’s has a 'revisit intent’ of 80 per cent’ (Brown,
2013). The speed at which Nando’s have grown within the last 15 years from a
loss making take away restaurant, into a successful fast casual restaurant that is
almost ingrained in teenage culture is impressive. The key to their success hasn’t
just been about traditional restaurant loyalty factors such as quality and price,
but also heavily reliant on an incredibly strong brand image. (Brown, 2013). It is
this impressive branding that has gained Nando’s such a loyal following, and it
begs the question as to whether brand now has as big an impact on loyalty as the
product provided.
With the restaurant industry growing at such a pace, it is important that loyalty
is formed to capitalise on the expanding market. In order to do this, chain
restaurants need to understand the key factors that can increase the likelihood
of customers forming a positive long-term relationship with them. With branding
potentially being a large factor in this formation, research needs to be conducted
in order to establish the true causes of loyalty amongst customers.
2.0 Research Aims and Objectives
Based upon the academic literature available and lack of research surrounding
this area, the following research question has been devised:
“Does branding now have as big an impact on customer loyalty as price and
quality within the restaurant industry?”
This question can be broken down into a series of sub-questions, which will help
to organise and focus the research. These are as follows
• If lower prices and higher quality do increase customer loyalty, why do
customers still go elsewhere?
• Do customers see themselves as directly affected by the branding of a
restaurant?
• Are customers more likely to remain loyal to a company branded in a
positive way?
• Has social media had an impact on eating habits?
These research objectives will be achieved through a review of the current
available literature surrounding the topic in focus and through the collection of
primary data. Analysis of the literature and the primary data will be performed
to establish any patterns and variances within the data, and conclusions to the
research objectives will then be applied.
7. 7
3.0 Literature Review
The available academic research has been evaluated below to gain a deeper
insight into the contrasting theories surrounding the chosen research objectives.
A thematic approach has been taken within this literature review to allow each
relevant topic to be analysed clearly and concisely, in order to build a strong
understanding of, and establish links between, the literature. The key topics to
be addressed within the review have been drawn from the research objectives
previously stated.
3.1 Exploring Loyalty
Customer loyalty is a topic that is incredibly important to any business reliant on
repeat custom, however there are many trains of thought on what exactly causes
customers to show such faithfulness to a company. To understand what causes
customer loyalty, we must first establish what customer loyalty is.
Jacoby and Chestnut formulated one concept of loyalty in 1978; they believed
that loyalty was simply ‘biased behavioural response expressed over time by
some decision-making unit with respect to one or more alternative brands out of
a set of such brands’ (p. 80). Newman and Werbel took a similar stance on
loyalty by describing ‘loyal customers as those who rebought a brand,
considered only that brand, and did no brand-related information seeking’
(1973, p. 404-409). However, both of these descriptions of loyalty only take into
the affects of loyalty on the customer’s behaviour and do not take into account
the psychological causes and effects of loyalty. It could also be unwise to judge
loyalty purely based repetitive purchases because of ‘happenstance buying or a
preference for convenience and that inconsistent purchasing could mask loyalty
if consumers were multibrand loyal’ (Oliver, 1999).
Oliver’s (1997) framework describes 4 separate stages that customers display
when building a sense of loyalty toward a product or service. The first stage is
Cognitive loyalty; this phase is based purely on brand belief and the knowledge
that using that brand is in some way preferable to using others. It could be this
stage of loyalty that could be all important in deciding whether branding is as
important as other key loyalty factors. Affective loyalty is the second phase
described by Oliver, it is formed by the satisfaction of prior usage of the service
or product, this is where the quality of the product and whether the price paid
represented value is so important. Oliver’s third phase of loyalty is conative
loyalty; this is influenced by repeated positive experiences with a product or
service. ‘Conation, by definition, implies a brand-specific commitment to
repurchase’, this stage is where both the desire and motivation to repurchase are
present. Oliver’s final phase is Action loyalty, this is where the motivation and
desire to repurchase are still present as with conative loyalty, however, the
consumer is now ready to overcome obstacles to ensure the repurchase of a
product (Oliver, 1997). This framework begins to explore the psychological
factors involved in customer loyalty, and also shows the importance of branding
in the initial loyalty stage. However, it does not explain the different factors that
8. 8
make customers feel as though they have received a positive experience from the
use of a product or service.
From Oliver’s research we can understand that initial satisfaction upon the first
use of the product is a necessity for any loyalty to form beyond it offering an
external advantage to the customer. Oliver also believes that loyalty is born out
of satisfaction, however, once loyalty is formed a customer cannot return to
‘mere satisfaction’ (1999). Other research backs up Oliver’s claims by suggesting
that ‘there is a threshold at which loyalty can revert to dissatisfaction in the face
of repeatedly unsatisfactory purchase episodes’, and there being no way of
loyalty reverting to satisfaction where the ‘consumer becomes open to
competitive advances’ again (Oliva et al, 1992). From this previous research we
can see that once loyalty has been gained, it can either be maintained through
further positive experiences, or lost completely. This is because a customer
cannot go back to the state of mind in which they began the process, with no
knowledge or opinion of the product or service.
This idea of loyalty must now be focussed in relation to the restaurant industry,
as loyalty within this industry can be considered differently to many other
markets. The restaurant industry is an industry that is seen by some as
‘antithetical to loyalty’ due to the enormous amount of variety in the style, cost
and quality of food available (Oliver, 1999). Consumer’s tend to naturally be
‘variety-seeking’ as the ‘lure of new experience will be too tempting to ignore’
(Oliver, 1999). Oliver believes that this problem will affect restaurants
throughout the first three stages on loyalty, cognitive, affective and conative.
Therefore, if customer’s will still switch brands even when in a conative loyalty
stage and still seek variety when satisfied with previous experiences with a
restaurant, it is vitally important to keep building loyalty until emotional
connections are made with the brand to an action loyalty level. Only at this
action level can true loyalty be found within the restaurant industry as at this
level customer’s will ‘overcome obstacles’ such as other brands to re-purchase
from the restaurant (Oliver, 1999).
3.2 Defining a Brand
There is a plethora of detailed research into what loyalty is and how it comes
about, however, there is not an enormous amount of written work about the
affect of branding on loyalty. The work that is available however, does highlight
the importance of the brand. Gregg Cebrzynski (2007) wrote about the ever-
changing demands that customers have for restaurants in his 2007 article ‘Strike
up the Brand’. He explained that in the late nineties customer satisfaction and
loyalty was driven by factors such as ‘price-value, service, food quality and fun’,
however, more recently customers demand a ‘one-of-a-kind guest experience’,
‘menu variety’, and ‘décor’ (Cebrzynski, 2007). Additionally, a survey conducted
in 2007 stated that ‘75% of all respondents viewed brand equity as very
important’, with a majority agreeing that ‘brand equity is the intangible
ingredient that differentiates’ one company from another (ANA, 2007). Although
9. 9
these responses were not directly aimed at restaurant branding, they show the
importance of a strong brand to differentiate and build loyalty.
‘The need to understand and leverage consumer-brand bonds has become
especially critical in a marketplace characterized by increasing unpredictability,
diminishing product differentiation, and heightened competitive pressures’
(Shocker et al., 1994). A brand can be considered in two different ways, either as
a way of identifying where a product has come from, or an emotional bond and
experiences with a product. Aaker follows the first train of thought saying that a
brand is simply a ‘distinguishing name and/or symbol’ designed to ‘identify the
goods or services of either one seller or a group of sellers, and to differentiate
those goods or services from those of competitors’ (Aaker, 1991:7). Although
this definition is true, it could be seen as limited as it fails to take into account the
intangible bonds and experiences that customers may have with products that
make up the products brand image. Weilbacher however, states that ‘brands
provide the basis upon which consumers can identify and bond with a product of
service’ (Weilbacher, 1995: 4). This expands slightly on Aaker’s idea as
Weilbacher still believes that brand to be a physical symbol of a product or
service, but he brings in awareness of the customers bond with a product or
service. Although Weilbacher’s definition comes closer to understanding the idea
of the brand, it still falls short of encompassing the external forces that can affect
a brand and its image.
Kapferer refers to a brand from the customer’s point of view, he explains that ‘a
brand can be defined as the total accumulation of all his/her experiences, and is
built at all points of contact with the customer’ (Kapferer, 2004). Keller also
looks at a brand from the customer’s point of view stating that a brand is ‘the
personal meaning’ attached to a brand ‘stored in the consumer memory’ (Keller,
2003). Keller expands on this by writing that ‘different sources and levels of
knowledge such as awareness, attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings,
attitudes, and experiences get linked to a brand and its understanding by the
consumer’ (Keller, 2003). These two definitions illustrate the more emotive side
to branding that the customer may feel, and they explain the external forces that
can affect a brand positively or negatively.
To finalise the idea of what a brand is, it is clear the both the external and
internal factors that affect what a brand is must be considered. A brand will be
defined by both the effort a company puts into cultivating the awareness and
image of it, and also the experiences that customers have with the brand and the
thoughts and feeling these evoke towards the brand. The diagram below, (figure
1), shows the relationship between the firm’s input and the customers’
perceptions in a simplified manor. It shows that a company can attempt to create
a brand to present to customers’, however, this branding will only be successful
if the customers’ perceptions equate to the same ideas.
Figure 1.1, Source: (Chernatony & Riley, 1998)
10. 10
3.3 Brand Equity
Brand equity can be looked at from two distinct perspectives, a financial market
point of view where the asset value of the brand is appraised, or from a customer
standpoint, evaluating a customer’s response to a brand name (Fayrene & Lee,
2011). Due to the emphasis on the impact of loyalty that this research project
contains, it makes sense to consider brand equity from the customer-based
approach.
Swait et al. suggested that brand equity is ‘the consumer’s implicit valuation of
the brand’ and that brands act as a ‘signal or cue regarding the nature of the
product’ (Swait et al, 1993). Kamakura & Russell expand on this definition by
proposing that brand equity ‘occurs when the consumer is familiar with the
brand and holds some favourable, strong, and unique brand associations in the
memory’ (1993). This expansion into the associations that consumers make
between the brand and the product links into the theory proposed by Lassar et
al. The idea developed by Lassar et al. was that brand equity was ‘The
consumers’ perception of the overall superiority of a product carrying that brand
name when compared to other brands’ (Lassar et al, 1995). They also suggested
that brand equity could be separated into five perceptual dimensions;
‘performance, social image, value, trustworthiness and attachment’ (Lassar et al,
1995). Obviously there is a vast range of opinions on how exactly to define a
topic as intangible as brand equity, as shown by just three, as shown above, of
the many available definitions. However, despite the range of opinions that are
available on the subject of brand equity, they do often contain one common
denominator. This common denominator is the usage of one or more dimension
of Aaker’s brand equity model.
Aaker devised one of the earliest concepts for brand equity in 1991. Aaker
defined brand equity as a set of ‘assets and liabilities linked to a brand’ that ‘add
to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or
that firm’s customers’ (Aaker, 1991). Aaker managed to combine both
perspectives of brand equity into one definition, he then separated the ‘assets
and liabilities’ into five distinct categories:
1. Brand Loyalty
2. Name Awareness
3. Perceived Quality
4. Brand Associations
5. Other Proprietary brand assets – trademarks, patents, etc.
(Aaker, 1991)
Aaker believes that these 5 dimensions can create value for the firm and for the
customers that they serve if managed in the correct way. Aaker’s model shown
below in figure 2 depicts the way in which value is created.
12. 12
It has become clear the brand equity could potentially have a substantial impact
on the initial stages of loyalty put forward by Oliver (1997). However, research
into this matter must be completed and that is something that this research
project will aim to complete.
3.4 The Social Media effect
Social media is a relatively new phenomenon that is having a profound affect on
the world around us. Due to the contemporary nature of social media there are a
limited number of specific, empirical studies relating to the topic. However, the
information that is available is incredible interesting and raises a variety of
questions regarding the role social media can play.
Social media can be defined as ‘the online technologies and practices which
people use to share knowledge and opinions’ (Laroche et al, 2012a). It is this
ability to share knowledge and opinions with anyone that has led to social media
being an enormous factor in ‘influencing customer perceptions and behaviour’
(Williams & Cothrell, 2000). This ability for online opinions to influence
customer behaviour is both a danger and a huge opportunity for businesses. The
largest danger factor for companies is through ‘post-purchase behaviour’ on
social media such as ‘dissatisfaction statements or behaviours’ (Mangold &
Faulds, 2009). These statements and behaviours on social media can quickly
garner large amounts of attention and damage brand equity.
However, the key part that social media can play for companies looking to
increase customer loyalty is through the medium of a less contemporary
concept, brand communities. Brand communities are made up of ‘like-minded
consumers who identify with a particular brand and share significant traits’
(Kalman, 2009). It is believed that customers’ join these brand communities ‘to
identify themselves with brands so that their social needs of being identified as
persons with appropriate self-identity are met’ (Laroche et al, 2012a).
Customer’s with this level of commitment to a brand are almost certain to be
entirely loyal to that particular brand, therefore company’s will see brand
communities as an immense powers for good in relation to their brand equity.
Research suggests that people join social media for similar reasons as those who
join brand communities. The explanation given by Gangadharbhatla for people
joining social media is to ‘fulfil their need for belongingness and their need for
cognition with those who have shared norms, values and interests’
(Gangadharbhatla, 2008). It seems that it is down to this reasoning that ‘social
media based brand communities’ are becoming increasingly common (Laroche
et al, 2012a). New lines of literature suggests that these consumers are no
longer ‘mere recipients of the products and values of the firm but as co-creators
of value, competitive strategy and the firm’s innovation processes’ (Franke &
Piller, 2004). Schau et al. went as far as identifying ‘four categories of practices
through which customers co-create value in brand communities: social
networking, impression management, community engagement, and brand use’
(Schau et al, 2009). These social media based brand communities therefore;
13. 13
improve ‘customers’ relationships with the brand, the product, the company and
other customers’ (Laroche et al, 2012b). These ‘enhanced relationships result in
enhanced brand loyalty’, and this is why social media can play such a large part
in improving brand loyalty.
3.5 Conclusion
The above literature has highlighted the distinct links between branding and
loyalty, the literature also sheds light on the increasing importance of social
media to gain customer loyalty and increase brand equity. The available
literature regarding loyalty has made it immensely clear that there are levels of
loyalty that a customer can feel towards a brand. It would initially appear that
branding would only have an impact on the early stages of loyalty, to draw in
customers and encourage them to try the brand. However, with further reading
into brand equity and brand communities it can be understood that branding
could potentially play a large role in every level of loyalty. Strong brand equity is
of enormous value to restaurants as it encourages increased loyalty and
encourages movements such as brand communities to take place and increase
loyalty further. The literature also demonstrates the importance that social
media can have on brand loyalty for the restaurant industry. Finally the
literature discusses the difficulties in obtaining absolute loyalty with the
restaurant industry due to the enormous variety available to consumers and the
desire that consumers have for the variety.
4.0 Methodology
4.1 Research Collection method
In order to collect both quantitative and qualitative data to answer this study’s
research question and objectives, both a questionnaire and interviews were
used. It is necessary to highlight that there was no particular target audience for
the data collection in either the questionnaire or interview format.
4.1.1 Questionnaire
Saunders and Lewis define a questionnaire as ‘a general term that includes all
methods of data collection in which each person is asked to answer the same set
of questions in the same order. Questionnaires can be distributed face to face by
an interviewer, by telephone, by hand, by post and by the web’ (Saunders &
Lewis, 2011: 141).
The survey itself was constructed using free data collection software Survey
Monkey, this software was selected as it was cost effective, simple to use and had
more than sufficient capabilities to construct a questionnaire to the standard
required. This particular software also allowed for easy distribution to
14. 14
respondents as it had direct links for sharing to social media sites, email and to
the Survey Monkey community. Survey Monkey also allows for easy interpretation
and analysis of the gathered data and displays the results in graphs and table to
view online. The questionnaire consisted of 10 statements given to respondents,
to each statement they must respond from five options ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. The statements themselves were devised using the
research objectives and the existing literature analysed in the literature review
in order to gain the most appropriate data for this project.
4.1.2 Interview
The key reason for using the interview technique to gather information was to
gain qualitative data from participants. In order to collect this data, semi-
structured interviews were held with 10 people. Within a semi-structure
interview ‘the researcher will have a list of themes and questions to be covered,
although these may vary from interview to interview’ and that ‘the order of
questions may also be varied depending on the flow of the conversation’
(Saunders et al. 2009:320). Therefore, the interviews conducted for this research
followed the flow of the conversation with the participant in order to gain the
best and most honest qualitative data possible.
The interviews consisted of five major questions that would be covered within
the conversation, these question were again devised from the research
objectives and literature review, and in particular focussed on topics that the
questionnaire could not cover.
4.1.3 Mixed Methods Approach
The primary data for this research project was collected using a mix of two
methods; this was so that clarity could be found by contrasting the qualitative
and quantitative data gathered (Gephart, 2004). A ‘mixed methods approach is
the general term for when both quantitative and qualitative data collection
techniques and analysis procedures are used in a research design’ (Saunders et
al, 2009:152). This approach to data collection can provide better opportunities
for a researcher to answer their research objectives and also determine whether
the research findings can be trusted (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). By collecting
quantitative data, a large amount of data can be recorded and easily analysed to
find trends, this can be done quickly and cheaply. Qualitative data however, will
often be more time consuming. On the other hand, it allows the researcher to
collect descriptive information to gain a much deeper understanding of
participant’s opinions. The combination of these two methods allows for a full
analysis of the subject matter to take place and gives the best opportunity for the
research question to be answered. Leeuw et al. who argue that a researcher ‘is
better advised to use more than one data collection mode’ support this argument
by stating that it is best to ‘conduct a multi-mode or mixed-mode’ (De Leeuw et
al. 2008).
15. 15
4.2 Participants
4.2.1 Sampling
The sampling style for this research cannot be described as random due to the
way the questionnaires and interviews were conducted. The questionnaires can
be best described as using ‘self-selection sampling’; self-selection sampling is
where you allow each participant ‘to identify their desire to take part in the
research’ (Saunders et al. 2009:241). This can be conducted through publicising
a need for participants on relevant media, and then collected the data from
people who respond (Saunders et al. 2009:241). The questionnaire created for
this research project was posted to several social media sites and some relevant
food forums, as well as being emailed to friends and family for participation.
However, the interview samples were conducted based on convenience to the
author. Convenience sampling involves selecting participants who are ‘easiest to
obtain for your sample’, such as friends and family members (Saunders et al.
2009:241). It has been said that this sampling technique can be ‘prone to bias
and influences that are beyond your control’, however, due to the nature of this
research it can be deemed suitable (Saunders et al. 2009:241). However, these
interviews have not specifically targeted people of any demographic and deal
with issues that almost everybody can relate to, therefore the unsuitability of
this sampling method is lessened.
4.2.2 Ethical Issues
Ethical considerations have to be made during any research project, as such;
several steps were made to ensure that this project remained as ethical as
possible. Initially the research proposal was subject to an ethical evaluation by
project tutors through the submission of an ethics form before any research
could begin. Once the project gained approval, the way in which the data
collection occurred had to be kept as ethical as possible. The first step taken was
to make all participants aware that they were taking part in a research project,
and that by participating they were giving consent for answers to be used within
the project. This was important to allow all participants to know why the
questions were being asked and in what context. Secondly, all participants have
had their anonymity preserved throughout the process. Numbers has replaced
the names of respondents in the interviews, and the software used for the
questionnaire records no data about the person answering. In addition to this
anybody wanting his or her contribution removed from the research could do so
by emailing me, this was made clear before the interviews commenced.
16. 16
4.3 Procedure
4.3.1 Reliability and Validity
Reliability is the ‘degree to which an assessment tool produces stable and
consistent results’ (Phelan & Wren, 2006). The participants of both the
questionnaire and interviews had a wide range of demographics. Participants
included students, young professionals, and members of older age groups. For
this reason it can be concluded that the participants gave a relatively good
representation of the general public, and therefore. For this reason it can be
assumed that the research contains a relatively good degree of reliability
‘Validity refers to how well a test measures what it is purported to measure’
(Phelan & Wren, 2006). Therefore, for this research all of the questions are
devised either from the research objectives or the theories displayed within the
literature review. For example, several of the questions within the questionnaire
are devised from Oliver’s theory regarding different levels of loyalty mentioned
within the literature review. Through this method the research should be able to
provide good answers to what is being measured within this project.
4.3.2 Data Collection Details
Within the context of the questionnaires, there was no specific instruction given
to the participants, as the process was self-explanatory. In order to ensure that
this was the case, the questionnaire was shown to several friends before the
release to confirm that it was fit for purpose. The feedback received from friends
helped to re-word one of the questions to make it easier to understand from the
reader’s perspective. Similarly, little instruction was given to the participant’s of
the interviews, as they the interviews were conducted in a relatively informal
manner and as previously mentioned were only semi-structured. Feedback from
the participant’s suggested that the more laid back approach to the interview
made them more comfortable to share opinions on the research matter.
The Questionnaire was live and gathering results between 21st March 2016 and
22nd April 2016. In this time the questionnaire received 78 responses, from
people of all walks of life. The interviews were conducted between 5th March
2016 and the 16th March 2016. Ten interviews were conducted in total
consisting of 5 questions per interview
4.3.3 Data Analysis
With regard to the quantitative data collected, the data was entered into
Microsoft Excel and sorted into categories of information. The raw data was then
28. 28
6.0 Discussion
Within this section of the research project, attempts will be made to answer the
key research objectives using the literature available and the data that has been
collected. Once the initial research questions have been answered and any other
findings have been noted, all of the available research will be used to answer the
key question for this project, which is as follows:
“Does branding now have as big an impact on customer loyalty as price and
quality within the restaurant industry?”
6.1 If lower prices and higher quality do increase
customer loyalty, why do customers still go
elsewhere?
To answer this question we must firstly ensure that lower prices and higher food
quality do increase loyalty within the restaurant industry. It is widely known
that Cost and quality are large factors in determining the satisfaction of a
customer (Cebrzynski, 2007). It is also believed that loyalty is born out of the
satisfaction a customer feels with a product or service, as without satisfaction no
initial attachment will be made (Oliver, 1999). So by this logic, lower prices and
higher quality should increase customer loyalty. This is reinforced by 54.54% of
people either agreeing or strongly agreeing that cheap, good quality food were
the two biggest factors for them to enjoy a restaurant, as seen in Figure 2.7.
Further reinforcement can be gained from Figure 3, as when participants were
asked: “what do you see as the most important factors that make you want to
revisit a restaurant?”, 6 out of 10 people gave answers relating to food quality
and 4 out of 10 gave answers relating to cost. Therefore, cost and quality do have
a large impact on loyalty within the restaurant industry, so what exactly is
making customers eat elsewhere.
As Oliver suggested, the restaurant industry can be seen as ‘antithetical to
loyalty’ due to the enormous amount of variety on offer for consumers at present
(Oliver, 1999). When this factor is combined with the thought that consumers
tend to be ‘variety-seeking’ as they search for a ‘new experience’, this explains
one reason for customers opting to change restaurants (Oliver, 1999). If taken as
fact then this would answer the question posed above, however, there are many
more motivational factors behind why consumers aren’t necessarily loyal to
cheap restaurants with good food quality. To disprove the idea that restaurants
cannot form an entirely loyal customer base, a statement was posed to the
participants of the questionnaire. The statement in Figure 2.3 read: “I would
remain loyal to a favoured restaurant, even if a new cheaper competitor
restaurant of similar quality opened”. Interestingly, 44.87% of people agreed
with this statement, which suggests that customers can still be loyal to a
restaurant when the financial benefit is removed. So if this stage of loyalty can be
29. 29
reached, it is vital to understand the factors that affect it and whether some
customers are more likely to be loyal than others.
In order to achieve a level of loyalty in which customers will ignore the
advantages of eating elsewhere, Oliver’s 4 stages of loyalty must be considered
(Oliver, 1999). Within the first three stages of Oliver’s framework, loyalty can be
present, however customers may still eat elsewhere. These stages are cognitive,
where the product/service is used due to a distinct benefit over purchasing other
brands, affective loyalty, based on the satisfaction received by previous usage of
the brand, and conative loyalty, based on repeated positive experiences with the
brand (Oliver, 1999). It is therefore only in the fourth stage of action loyalty,
where customers are willing to ‘overcome obstacles’ such as price to repurchase
that specific brand (Oliver, 1999). At the action loyalty stage, comes complete
loyalty, to answer the key question of this section we must find out what leads to
complete loyalty and what is missing from the other stages to allow customers to
deviate from the brand.
It can be suggested from what we have discussed already that loyalty will be
built from a number of factors, starting with satisfaction. Figure 2.6 shows that
51.28% of participants in the questionnaire believe the atmosphere and
environment to be important in their dining experience, with 15.38% of those
participants feeling strongly about it. This can be described as a satisfaction
factor, similar to the price and quality of the restaurants food. While it is the
origin to loyalty, mere satisfaction on its own can only drive customers into the
third stage of loyalty within Oliver’s framework. To achieve the fourth stage of
loyalty satisfaction is required to be in conjunction with strong brand equity.
As discussed within the literature review brand equity can be defined as ‘the
consumers’ perception of the overall superiority of a product carrying that brand
name when compared to other brands’ (Lassar et al, 1995). So brand equity is
the consumers perception of the brand, this perception can be altered by the
image put out by the brand itself and the reality of customer’s experiences with
the brand. The reason that branding can be so vital in driving loyalty is that it is
dictated by the customer’s ‘thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and experiences’ (Keller,
2003). These factors allow the customer to connect with the brand beyond a
pure satisfaction level and whenever they think of the brand it can stir some
form of emotion. This emotion combined with repeated satisfaction is what
drives complete loyalty, and without any of these factors it cannot be achieved.
When complete loyalty is not achieved that is when customers go elsewhere,
despite low prices and good quality.
6.2 Do customers see themselves as directly
affected by the branding of a restaurant?
The branding of a restaurant to a customer is ‘the total accumulation of all
his/her experiences, and is built at all points of contact with the customer’
(Kapferer, 2004). This experience could be as small as having heard of the
brand, or as large as being a regular customer. Therefore, people are
30. 30
usually in some way affected by the branding of restaurants. For this
reason it is interesting to discover how customers feel they are affected
by branding and whether they feel it alters their eating habits. In theory
the stronger the brand equity of the restaurant, the more likely it will be
for certain people to visit that restaurant.
The questionnaire results show that customers have an awareness and
appreciation for the affects of branding, as they seem more likely to eat
with brands that they know or restaurants that are branded positively.
Figure 2.3 shows that 54.55% of participants either agree or strongly
agree with the statement: “I am more likely to try a new restaurant if I
have heard of the brand name”. This is important, as it not only shows the
affect that brands have, but it displays the self-awareness of customers to
the impacts of branding. Participants also see the image and style of a
brand as important with 60.25% of people agreeing or strongly agreeing
that it plays a vital part in their enjoyment of a restaurant, as shown in
Figure 2.5. The importance that the participants placed on the brand
image of a restaurant is thought provoking, as it shows how aware they
are of the affects that different brand images will have on them.
The interview responses follow a similar pattern to the questionnaire.
The key question from the interview was: “Are you more comfortable
visiting a restaurant with strong branding than a restaurant that you have
never heard of? Why?” Participant 1 stated that they ‘definitely’ feel more
comfortable visiting a brand they have heard of, as ‘you know exactly
what you are going to get’. This is interesting as it at odds with Oliver’s
theory that customers are ‘variety-seeking’, and displays a comfort in the
knowledge of the restaurants brand (Oliver, 1999). However, some
responses differed from the norm, participant 6 stated that they will ‘eat
anywhere’ that ‘ticks the boxes’ of what they want ‘for a good meal’ and
that they are ‘not fussed by the branding’. This response is of particular
significance, as they clearly do not see themselves as affected by branding
at all. In general, the participants seem to be aware of the affects that
branding can have on them, with 7 of the 10 participants stating openly
that they are more comfortable visiting a brand of restaurant they have
heard of.
It seems as the in the most part, customers are aware of the branding
around them and know how it can influence them, however, it is fair to
say that different people may be affected by branding in different ways.
Although we can’t say that all customers see themselves as directly
affected by branding, a majority of the participants in our research seem
to be of this opinion. The participants awareness of how brands operate
and convey themselves may mean that brands have to find new ways to
get there image across to customers in the future.
31. 31
6.3 Are customers more likely to remain loyal to a
company branded in a positive way?
As mentioned previously, branding will affect every customer differently, and
what might be positive branding for one person could be negative to another.
Positive and strong branding towards a target customer base should lead to
strong brand equity, which in turn should lead to increased levels of loyalty
within said customer base. In theory strong brand equity leads to the creation of
value for both the firm and the customer, as discussed earlier in the literature
review (Aaker, 1991). When value is created for customers, it increases the
likelihood that they will become attached to the brand in an emotional way, this
can in turn lead to the creation of brand communities and improved loyalty,
which creates value for the firm.
The theory suggests that customers will be more loyal to a company that is
branded in a positive way; the data collected from the research will now be
compared with the theory to come to a conclusion for this research objective.
The results from the questionnaire overwhelmingly support the theory as 67.1%
of people agree or strongly agree that they would prefer to visit restaurants that
have a positive reputation within the community (Figure 2.4). The interviews
provided a similar overview of the subject when participants were asked the
question: “How would you say you are influenced by the way a restaurant’s
brand is presented to local or national media?” Participant 2 stated that ‘if you
hear good things about a restaurant it will make you interested in going’ and that
‘if you hear bad things it will do the opposite’. This belief highlights that
customers are likely to take the first step into to loyalty based of the branding of
the restaurant. However, to make a conclusion on this subject there has to be
evidence that the way a company is branded can have an effect throughout all
stages of loyalty. Participant 8 stated that they ‘like going to casual places where
you can have a laugh, so some restaurants are better than others’. This
participant goes onto explain how they ‘love’ a particular chain restaurant
‘because everything about the way they come across is quite chilled and casual.’
The way in which participant 8 talks displays an emotional connection to this
brand, which can definitely increase the loyalty they will show towards the
brand.
It would therefore seem, after studying the literature and analysing the collected
data that there is a distinct link between positive branding and customer loyalty
within the restaurant industry. The establishment of this link is vital as it means
that brand can tailor their own branding to best suit their target audience, this
should then, in theory, increase the levels of loyalty they will receive from
customers. This factor combined with the potential impact social media may
have on restaurant customers could be of particular use to restaurants.
32. 32
6.4 Has social media had an impact on eating
habits?
The term social media incorporates social networks such as Facebook and
twitter, but also includes review sites such as trip advisor. Social media is
defined as the online technologies and practices which people use to share
knowledge and opinions’ (Laroche et al, 2012a). It has the ability to alter
company performance, allow companies to communicate directly to customers
and allow instant sharing of opinions and experiences.
Social media sites like trip advisor have allowed customers to find out far more
information about a restaurant before their first visit. Before social media, critic
reviews and word of mouth were the best ways gaining information about a
restaurant; now most restaurants in the country have hundreds or thousands of
reviews written by real customers. We can establish the huge affect trip advisor
has had on eating habits by looking at some of the results of the questionnaire.
Within Figure 2.8, 56.41% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they
use social media sites, such as trip advisor to choose the restaurants they visit,
and to further this argument 48.71% of the participants agreed or strongly
agreed that they would choose a restaurant solely on social media reviews
(Figure 2.9). For a concept as contemporary as social media this is a staggering
set of results, however, it Is hardly surprising considering the amount of data
that it is possible to share instantly on social media for anyone to view.
The interview question relating to social media also brought up some interesting
comments, the question posed to participants was as follows: “How would you
say that social media impacts your choice of restaurant?” The majority of the
comments were relatively expected, such as participant 1 who said that they will
‘always check out the review and information on trip advisor before going
anywhere’. A majority of the participants said that they use social media in some
regard when choosing a restaurant, and this appears to have become the norm.
However, participant 8’s answer brought about intrigue by stating ‘I’ll find a
place to go on social media, arrange who I’m going with and when on social
media, and I’ll put pictures on my Instagram of us at the restaurant.’ This raised
the question that social media isn’t just changing eating habits within
restaurants; to some people it is redefining the restaurant experience. Social
media plays a part in almost every step of participant 8’s dining experience and
this participant is not alone. 49.35% of participants to the questionnaire say that
they agree or strongly agree with the statement featured in Figure 2.10, which
says they will regularly post pictures and/or information on social media sites
when visiting a restaurant. This figure is incredibly high, and has a massive
affect on the eating habits of not just the poster of the picture/information, but
anyone that sees the post too. This could have an affect on loyalty as several
interviewees echoed participant 3’s sentiment that ‘when people you know have
been somewhere and really enjoyed it that will always make me want to go.’
Social media is clearly having an enormous impact on the eating habits of
customers, it is changing the way people approach every aspect of a restaurant.
33. 33
What is most staggering is the impact that social media has made such an impact
in such a short period of time, and this impact seems set to grow with more and
more people adopting social media platforms every day. What will be interesting
is how brands approach social media in the coming years as it can pose an
enormous opportunity to them to increase loyalty through brand communities
and interaction with customers.
6.5 Other Findings of Interest
Although unrelated to the four research objectives, several other findings have
been uncovered that are of interest to this study. These findings will generally
consist of findings that were not expected before the research began. The main
finding of interest came once the qualitative data from question 5 of the
interview had been translated to quantitative data in Figure 3, it showed that
customers value certain factors as more important than first expected. Figure 3
showed that customers valued bother the service quality and the atmosphere or
environment of a restaurant as more important than the price. This was of
particular interest as price and loyalty have in the past been deemed to be the
largest drivers of loyalty (Cebrzynski, 2007), however, from this research,
pricing isn’t seen as overly important with just 4 out of 10 participants
considering it to be important.
6.6 “Does branding now have as big an impact on
customer loyalty as price and quality within
the restaurant industry?”
To come to a conclusion to the key question of this research project we must
look at all the factors involved. We have found answers to the four research
objectives that were laid out at the start of the research project and they must be
used to construct an answer to the key question.
From what we have discussed we can confidently say that price and quality still
have an enormous impact on loyalty, this is due to the role the play as key
satisfaction factors for customers in the restaurant industry. However,
favourable price and quality alone, cannot build any form higher form of loyalty
than the initial conative stage. To progress beyond this stage, all other
satisfaction factors must be met for each individual customer, these may include
the service customers receive from staff and the overall atmosphere created
inside the restaurant. It is without doubt nevertheless that price and quality are
two of the largest satisfaction factors for customer, as highlighted in Figure 2.7.
Due to this they will play a vital role in loyalty for most customers as, in effect
they represent the value for money that customers receive.
However, we have also established that satisfaction factors alone are not enough
to build loyalty to the desirable action stage that has been discussed throughout
this report. For this level of loyalty branding is also required, something which
we have established customers are affected by and are fully aware of it. Branding
allows for positive emotional ties to be made to a brand and when mixed with
34. 34
repeated satisfaction from the restaurant, loyalty can progress into the action
stage.
The role social media can play within customer loyalty is profound. It has the
ability to accentuate the effect of any branding efforts that company’s release, if
used in the correct way. This is due to the ability it gives brands to communicate
directly to individual customers quickly and easily. This will allow brands to get
a far better idea of exactly what their target audience requires to become loyal
customers. Social media can also build loyalty in every stage of Oliver’s
framework (1999), as when customers share positive reviews and images of
their visit online this will encourage otherwise uninterested people to try the
brand, putting them at a conative stage of loyalty. As social media continues to
grow in size and importance, these factors will only become a stronger force on
the success of restaurant brands.
Considering these factors and Oliver’s framework for loyalty. Price and quality as
satisfaction factors are as vital now as they ever have been, however, customers
are demanding more and more to be satisfied. As it stands, it seems as though,
branding plays a very similar size role in building loyalty as the aforementioned
satisfaction factors of price and quality. The reasoning behind this is that both
branding and satisfaction are required to be present at every level of loyalty, and
action loyalty in particular can only be reached with very strong levels of both.
However, going forward, with the expansion of social media and ever-increasing
competition, it is possible that branding will become the most important factor
before too long.
6.7 Further Research Recommendations
While researching this topic, a few other areas of research that could be of
particular interest to the restaurant industry have been uncovered. Firstly would
be an investigated into the full impact of social media going forward. A lack of up
to date research on social media was discovered during the review of available
literature and full study into the potential it may hold for the restaurant industry
would be of particular interest.
We have also discovered awareness from customers of branding and how it
affects them; this may be due to social media being saturated with brand related
information that they see everyday. However, it poses a question of whether this
will affect how customers are influenced by branding going forward, and
whether company’s will have to alter the way they present their brands for
customers to remain susceptible to them.
35. 35
7.0 References
Association of National Advertisers (2007) ANA/Guideline Study finds Brand
Equity a Top Line Objective for Marketers [Online] Available from:
https://www.ana.net/content/show/id/408. [Accessed 24 April 2016].
Brown, M (2013) ‘Nando’s nation: the chicken that conquered Britain’. The
Telegraph, [Online] Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/restaurants/9902231/Nandos-
nation-the-chicken-that-conquered-Britain.html. [Accessed 24 April 2016].
D.A Aaker (1991) Managing Brand Equity, The free press, New York
De Chernatony, L. and Riley, F.D. (1998), Defining a brand: Beyond the literature
with the experts’ interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management 14: 417-443.
De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J.J., and Dillman, D.A. (2008) The European Association of
Methodology: Mixed-mode Surveys: When and Why [Online] Available from:
http://joophox.net/papers/SurveyHandbookCRC.pdf. [Accessed 24 April 2016).
Eversham, E. (2015) ‘75% of families eating out in restaurants more regularly’.
Big Hospitality, [Online] Available from:
http://www.bighospitality.co.uk/Trends-Reports/75-of-families-eating-out-in-
restaurants-more-regularly. [Accessed 24 April 2016].
Fayrene Y.L., Goi Chai Lee. (2011) Customer-Based brand equity: A Literature
review. Journal of Arts Science & Commerce, 2 (1).
Franke, N., and Piller, F. (2004) Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and
design: The case of the watch market. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 21: 401–415.
Gangadharbhatla, H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong
and Internet self-efficacy as predictors of the I-generations attitudes toward
social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2): 5-15.
Gephart, R., (2004) Qualitative Research, Academy of Management Journal, 43
(4): 454- 462.
Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W. (1978) Brand loyalty: measurement and management.
Wiley, Chichester, New York.
Kalman D.M. (2009) Brand Communities, Marketing and Media [Online]
Available from: http://www.terrella.com/bcmarketingwp2.pdf [Accessed 24
April 2016].
Kamakura, A. W. and Russell G. J. (1993) measuring brand value with scanner
data. International Journal of Research in Marketing 10(March): 9-22.
36. 36
Kapferer, J.N. (2004) Brand NEW world, brand equity, The Economic Times, June
30, Mumbai.
Keller, K.L. (2003),Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand
knowledge”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M.R., Richard, M.O., and Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012) The
effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers,
value creation practices, brand trust and brand loyalty. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 28 (5): 1755–1767.
Lassar, W., Mittal B., and Sharma A. (1995) Measuring Customer-Based Brand
Equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing 12(4): 11-19.
Liu, C.M. Huang, C.J. Chen, M.L. (2014) Relational Benefits, Customer Satisfaction,
and Customer Loyalty in Chain Store Restaurants [Online] The International
Journal of Organizational Innovation. Available from:
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.bathspa.idm.oclc.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid
=12c4e4a8-7ccf-4c1e-b183-caeccc44710a%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=113.
[Accessed 24 April 2016].
Mangold, W.G., and Faulds, D.J. (2009) Social media: The new hybrid element of
the promotion mix, Business Horizons, 52: 357–365.
Newman, Joseph W. and Richard A. Werbel (1973), ‘Multivariate Analysis of
Brand Loyalty for Major Household Appliances.’ Journal of Marketing Research.
10 (November), 404-409.
Oliva, Terence A., Richard L. Oliver, and Ian C. MacMillan (1992). "A Catastrophe
Mixlel for Developing Service Satisfaction Strategies." Journal of Marketing. 56
(July), 83-95.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New
York: irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R.L. (1999) ‘Whence Consumer Loyalty’. Journal of Marketing Vol. 63
[Online] Available from:
http://www.uta.edu/faculty/richarme/MARK%205342/Articles/Oliver%20199
9.pdf. [Accessed 24 April 2016].
Phelan, C and Wren, J. (2006) Exploring reliability in academic assessment.
[Online] Available from: www.uni.edu/chfasoa/reliabilityandvalidity.htm
[Accessed 26 April 2016].
Roberts, P. Priest, H. Traynor, M. (2006) Reliability and Validity in Research,
Nursing Standard. [Online] Available from:
http://search.proquest.com/openview/3d4a3288ee02e614e09ec585c63ed52d
/1?pq-origsite=gscholar. [Accessed 24 April 2016].
37. 37
Saunders, M and Lewis, P. (2011) Doing Research in Business and Management:
An Essential guide to planning your project. Essex. Pearson Education Ltd.
Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2009) Research Methods for Business
Students. Fifth Edition. Essex. Pearson Education Ltd.
Schau, J.H., Muniz, M.A., and Arnould, J.E. (2009) How brand community practices
create value. Journal of Marketing, 73 (5): 30–51.
Shocker, A.D., Srivastava, R.K., Ruekert, R.W. (1994) Challenges and
opportunities facing brand management: an introduction to the special issue.
Journal of Marketing Research 31, 149-158.
Shubber, K. (2015) ‘Restaurant sector turnover up 39% since 2010’. Financial
Times, [Online] Available from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5524e324-fc7d-
11e4-800d-00144feabdc0.html. [Accessed 24 April 2016].
Sun, P. & Lin, C. (2010). Building customer trust and loyalty: an empirical study
in a retailing context. The Service Industries Journal, 30(9), 1439-1455.
Swait, J., Erdem T., Louviere J. & Dubelaar C. (1993) The equalization price: A
measure of consumer-perceived brand equity. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 10: 23-45.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and
Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weber, A. (2011) Quantifying Yelp’s impact on the restaurant industry. [Online]
Available from: https://www.aabacosmallbusiness.com/advisor/quantifying-
yelps-impact-restaurant-industry-140006991.html. [Accessed 26 April 2016].
Weilbacher, W.M. (1995), Brand Marketing, NTC Business Books, Chicago, IL.
Williams, L., and Cothrell, J. (2000) Four smart ways to run online communities.
Sloan Management Review, 41: 81–91.
Windels, J. (2012) How Social Media is Revolutionising the Restaurant Industry
[Online] Available from:
https://www.brandwatch.com/2012/02/socialmediaintherestaurant-industry/.
[Accessed 24 April 2016].
38. 38
8.0 Appendices
8.1 Questionnaire Layout
1. I regularly eat at the same restaurants when dining out.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
2. I am more likely to try a new restaurant if i have heard of the brand name
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
3. I would remain loyal to a favoured restaurant, even if a new cheaper competitor
restaurant of similar quality opened.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
4. I use social media platforms, such as trip advisor, to choose restaurants to visit.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
5. I would visit a restaurant solely due to social media reviews
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
6. I will regularly post pictures and/or information on social media sites when
visiting a restaurant.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
7. I would prefer to visit restaurants that have a reputation for having a positive
impact on the environment, community, etc
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
39. 39
8. I see the image and style of a restaurant as vital to whether i will return to the
restaurant.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
9. The atmosphere and environment provided at a restaurant are vital to my
enjoyment of a meal
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
10. Cheap, good quality food are the two biggest factors involved in me enjoying a
restaurant
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
Agree.
8.2 Interview Questions and responses
1. What would make you decide to visit a new restaurant over one you have
enjoyed visiting before?
P1. Personally I get bored of eating at the same places all the time, I like to try
new things. Sometimes you revert back to going to the same places but its nice to
mix it up sometimes.
P2. I think when friends and family have been somewhere and really enjoyed it,
it makes me really want to go, I suppose social media can play I part in that too
because you always see tweets of places people have been or people tagging
themselves in somewhere on Facebook
P3. I’d say that when people you know have been somewhere and really enjoyed
it that will always make me want to go.
P4. I’m away a lot on business so I will quite often just find the closest restaurant
I can find that will serve decent food, but when I can I’ll stick to restaurants I
know of and have tried before.
P5. Trip Advisor, I’ll always check restaurants out on there if they have good
reviews I’ll often go and try them
P6. I don’t want to eat the same thing every time I go out for food. I love variety
in my life and that starts with food.
40. 40
P7. If it’s cheap and healthy then I’ll try it out, it’s hard to find healthy food on a
budget and when I see somewhere that does I’ll jump on it.
P8. I like places that seem fun and sociable, I’m not a fan of stuffy restaurant’s
where everyone is really quiet.
P9. I tend to stick to the same restaurants in general so anywhere else has to be
pretty special. I suppose if a number of friends have had a wonderful meal there
then that would persuade me.
P10. We only have a few near us so to try somewhere new, far away, the reviews
would have to be pretty special.
2. How would you say that social media impacts your choice of restaurant?
P1. I’ll always check out the review and information on trip advisor before going
anywhere, if the majority of reviews are average to poor I will generally go
somewhere else.
P2. Like I said, if you see people talking about somewhere on social media, it
makes you want to go there. You will always see people going to Nando’s and
that become a massive thing on social media.
P3. I don’t really use it at all to choose a restaurant, that’s just not what I use
social media for.
P4. Occasionally I’ll use trip advisor to check a restaurant’s reviews if I’m going
somewhere for a special occasion, but generally it doesn’t impact me too much.
P5. Like I said I use trip advisor a lot, but sometimes I’ll go to trip advisor if I see
people talking about somewhere on Facebook or twitter.
P6. It doesn’t impact me too much because I’m generally willing to try anywhere,
but if I see a lot of people talking about somewhere I haven’t been on social
media then I might be more inclined to try it I suppose.
P7. I’m always on social media and you hear people talking about new places and
things like that, and that will always affect you. But I can’t say it’s the only way I
find out about new places.
P8. It does massively, I’ll find a place to go on social media, arrange who I’m
going with and when on social media, and I’ll put pictures on my Instagram of us
at the restaurant.
P9. I don’t use social media so not at all.
P10. It does to an extent, we only go off to new places for birthdays and
anniversaries, but when we do I’ll do a bit of research into the restaurant.
41. 41
3. How would you say you are influenced by the way a restaurant’s brand is
presented to local or national media?
P1. I think it’s difficult not to be nowadays, you see brands everywhere, and
chain restaurants dominate the market and are really active on social media. I
guess if I’m in a town or city I don’t know very well, I will tend to eat at brands I
know.
P2. I suppose if you hear positive things about somewhere it will always make
you want to try it if you can, likewise if you hear bad things it will do the
opposite.
P3. I think when a brand has a reputation for poor food or poor service that will
always put you off. I think sometimes there can be a stigma attached to certain
places, like MacDonald’s, that will put you off too.
P4. I tend to stick to brands I know when I can, on a day-to-day basis anyway. I
don’t have the time to look up every restaurant review to make sure it’s decent.
I’ll often eat at places like Nando’s because it’s more casual and I can sit and do
work.
P5. I like small sustainable places; I’m a vegan so I have to work quite hard to
find new places. So if it’s got a reputation for using local produce and trying new
things within vegan food then I will be interested straight away.
P6. I wouldn’t say that I am too much, but I suppose if you hear a brand name
enough you will eventually end up trying it whether you know realize its because
of the media or not.
P7. If I can get hold of voucher codes and discount deals then that helps. Other
than that I think everyone likes the idea of going to somewhere that is
fashionable and trendy if you can afford to.
P8. I like going to casual places where you can have a laugh, so some restaurants
are better than others. I love Nando’s and Turtle Bay because everything about
the way they come across is quite chilled and casual.
P9. I’m not really, I tend to only listen to the recommendations of my friends and
family because they know what I like and have similar standards.
P10. If you hear good things about a restaurant it will make you interested in
going, that’s just the way it works doesn’t it. Likewise if you hear bad stories it
will put you off.
4. Are you more comfortable visiting a restaurant with strong branding
than a restaurant that you have never heard of? Why?
42. 42
P1. Definitely, restaurants with strong brands tend to provide a feeling of, ‘you
know exactly what you’re going to get’. Some people may not like that but when
I’m spending money I prefer to know I will like what I’m spending it on.
P2. Yeah, I guess I would be, I always think if a lot of people know about it then
there must be a reason why, all those people can’t be wrong.
P3. When I’m at home I tend to go to restaurants I know because I know what I
will be getting, but when I visit new places I like to try new things and new
restaurants.
P4. Definitely, its much easier knowing exactly what you’ll get in a chain of
decent restaurants than risking it with somewhere you don’t know.
P5. Yes, as long as it’s the right kind of brand, some people might prefer quick
food etc. I always look for sustainable healthy places.
P6. No, I’ll eat anywhere, whether unknown or a massive chain restaurant, as
long as it ticks the boxes of what I want for a good meal I’m not fussed by the
branding.
P7. Yeah I guess so, I always assume that there is a reason people have heard of
some restaurants and not others, because they are better.
P8. Yeah I do, you can do more research on what the place is like, with small
unknown places you can find reviews on the food but not what its like as a
whole.
P9. No not really, like I said I would only choose somewhere new if someone I
know well has enjoyed it there.
P10. Yes I’d say so, a restaurant with a certain identity has got an appeal to it,
and it makes a change from the run of the mill restaurants that are so common.
5. What do you see as the most important factors that make you want to
revisit a restaurant?
P1. The food quality obviously is important, but I think that the service and
environment at the restaurant is just as important, the food can be great but if its
boring and the staff are rude it would put anyone off going again.
P2. The atmosphere, I will usually go out with my friends and we like to have a
laugh and be quite loud, so if we go somewhere very quiet we stick out like a
sore thumb. The food is important but when ever we go out its more as a social
thing.
P3 The quality of food is by far the most important for me, that’s why you go out
to eat at the end of the day, but I think the price plays a part, so maybe you could
43. 43
say the value for money. I also think convenience is important, I’ll order more
regularly through restaurants that are on deliveroo because they will bring
restaurant food to you.
P4. Wi-Fi Connection * laughter *. But seriously the food has to be decent, and I
don’t want to pay an arm and a leg because I eat out most days.
P5. The way they source their ingredients, it has to be local, and I like having staff
that know about the food because I tend to ask questions about the food.
P6. I eat at a lot of places and sometimes you realize the food isn’t the be all and
end all of a nice meal, as long as it’s at a decent standard it will be fine. The
restaurant has to be nicely decorated, have a buzzing atmosphere and lovely
staff. I think those are far more important.
P7. The cost and the food for sure, that why you go to a restaurant to be honest,
if the food is rubbish or its too expensive then I wouldn’t go back.
P8.; I like somewhere fun, where you can have a laugh with the waiters and
waitresses, and not be asked to be quiet. But cost is quite important; I’m a
student so I don’t have much money knocking about.
P9. The standard of food and the service I receive from the waiting staff.
P10. How close it is to us, we won’t drive an hour to a restaurant every weekend
no matter how good it is. Other than that, the quality of the food is important.
