Presentation done by Thimothy Lee, Sung-Byung Yang, Chulmo Koo and Namho Chung, during "Online reviews" workshop, of the ENTER2015 eTourism conference.

1. How Does Restaurant Attribute Importance Differ
by the Type of Customer and Restaurant? Exploring
TripAdviser Reviews
February 6, 2015
Thimothy Lee
Sung-Byung Yang
Chulmo Koo (helmetgu@khu.ac.kr)
Namho Chung
College of Hotel & Tourism Management
Kyung Hee University, South Korea

2. Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Literature Review
III. Research Methodology
IV. Results
V. Discussion and Propositions
VI. Conclusion
2/27

3. Research Background
• Three important Criteria for Travelers
– Hotels
– Restaurants
– Shopping
• Travelers search restaurant reviews via internet:
– Popular, famous places
– Inexpensive places
– Attributes: value, service, atmosphere, food, etc.
• Restaurant Managers’ Desire
– Increase customer satisfaction
– Increase customer loyalty; Keep coming back
– Customers may be satisfied but may not return;
Need to understand this problem
I. Introduction
3/27

4. OPRs & e-WOM
• OPRs (online product reviews)
– Consumers now rely on OPRs to help them to make
a purchase decision.
– Products: Amazon.com, Epinions.com
– Food: Yelp.com, Zagat.com
– Travel: Tripadvisor.com, Expedia.com
– etc.
• e-WOM (electronic word-of-mouth)
– Online words disseminate faster than offline words
– Negative words diffuse faster than positive words
I. Introduction
4/27

5. #5 (unique monthly visitor, 12/1/2013)
#4
#3
#2
#1
5/27

6. TripAdvisor’s Restaurant Reviews
I. Introduction
Ratings on
Restaurant
Attributes
Country-of-
residence
Overall
Rating on
Restaurant
Restaurant
Type
6/27

7. Our Research
• Study 1: examines the different importance of each restaurant
attribute by overall travelers group using a conjoint analysis
• Study 2: examines differences in restaurant attribute importance by
country-of-residence groups using a conjoint analysis
• Study 3: examines differences in restaurant attribute importance by
different types of restaurants using a conjoint analysis
7/27
Study4:
Studies 2 & 3
are combined!
I. Introduction

8. Prior Research on Restaurant
Attributes
• Dube et al., 1994
• Koo et al., 1999
– Most important attributes: taste of food, service, uniqueness, and price
• Tse, 2001
– Female: importance difference smaller than that of male
– The higher the education level, the greater the importance of price
• Not a single study that evaluates restaurant attributes by adopting a
conjoint analysis using online secondary data!
Pleasure Business
Tasty food
Attentive server
Helpful server Atmosphere
Atmosphere Consistent food
Consistent food Helpful server
II. Literature Review
8/27

9. Wow! The price is really low!
The price is sort of on a high-end, but the food is really
delicious and the ingredients are so fresh.
The service is impeccable and the ambience is so cozy and
luxurious.
The food is so delicious!
The ingredients are so fresh.
The menus are so original.
The assortment of desserts are amazing.
The wine list is extensive.
Restaurant Attributes (1/2)
Food
Value
9/27
II. Literature Review

10. Really professional: know the menus; able to answer
questions.
Friendly and caring! Have a nice smile.
Attentive: they know exactly when we need their service.
The interior decoration is nice and beautiful.
What an amazing view!
Music is peaceful or exciting.
Something smells yummy!
I feel really comfortable.
It is a little bit too dark.
Restaurant Attributes (2/2)
Service
Atmosphere
10/27
II. Literature Review

11. Restaurant Attributes: Food
• Food: pertains to taste and quality of ingredients
- Sub-attributes:
- Presentation
- Tastiness
- Menu item variety
- Temperature of food when served
- Food quality: healthy options and freshness
(Namkung and Jang, 2007; Kivela et al., 1999)
II. Literature Review
11/27

12. Restaurant Attributes: Value
• Value: net benefit gained after total costs incurred
– Net benefit could be greater or less depending on which
attributes are more important to individual
– E.g., customers may feel price of restaurant is high, but feel
like getting good value due to high food quality and nice
atmosphere
– Customers compare one’s value with competitors’ value
– Price fairness is judged by:
• Price of last transaction
• Most frequently occurring price point
• Market price in comparable transaction
(Bolton et al., 2003; Woodruff, 1997; Holbrook, 1994;
Zeithaml, 1988)
II. Literature Review
112/27

13. Restaurant Attributes: Service
• Service: restaurant service could be sub-categorized
into variety of attributes
– Tangibles: customers’ detections of restaurant’s appearance,
cleanliness, comfortable seating area, attractive and legible
menu
– Reliability: restaurant’s dependable operation (e.g., food is
correctly served on time; mistake is corrected immediately)
– Responsiveness: staff’s attentiveness and expeditious action in
serving customers
– Assurance: professional mannerism, knowledge of menu items
– Empathy: staff’s sensitivity and sincere caring of customers
(Landhari et al., 2008)
II. Literature Review
13/27

14. Restaurant Attributes: Atmosphere
• Atmosphere: surrounding area and its overall quality
– Including cleanliness and comfortableness
– Interior design
– Music, lighting, color, scent
II. Literature Review
14/27

15. Research Design
• Exploratory case study (Baxter & Jack, 2008)
• Subject of study: 3 famous restaurants serving great
hamburgers in NYC, USA
– Hamburger: quintessential food with mass appeal
• Crawled data on each restaurant review from
TripAdvisor.com
• A conjoint analysis was used to calculate relative
importance values of four attributes
– Study 1: Overall
– Study 2: According to different groups of country-of-residence
– Study 3: According to different types of restaurant
– Study 4: Studies 2 & 3 are combined
III. Research Methodology
15/27

16. • Conjoint Analysis: relative importance of each attribute is
determined (Green & Srinivasan, 1978).
• In our study, we adopted the same concept and applied to the
traveler’ online ratings of restaurant attribute that reflect their
staying experiences.
16/27
III. Research Methodology
Research Design

17. Subject Restaurants Summary
Category Shake Shack Burger Joint The Spotted Pig
Overview A large-sized food stance
located in the park
A small-sized restaurant
located in the hotel lobby
An upscale European
casual dining restaurant;
serving British & Italian
dishes; operated by a
renowned chef, April
Bloomfiled
Locations Between the mid and
downtown (Madison
Square Park) area of NYC
In the midtown area of
NYC
In the downtown
(Greenwich Village) area
of NYC
Signature menu Hamburger (Shackburger
cheeseburger)
$4.75
Hamburger
(Cheeseburger)
$8.27
Hamburger (Chargrilled
cheeseburger)
includingFrench fries
$21
Menu price range
(excluding dessert and
drinks)
$2.85 ~ 8.95 $3.90 ~ 8.27 $4.00 ~ 36.00
Seating capacity Outdoor seating only
inside the park
20-25; a limited seating
area
100; bar and dining area
Wait staff No No Yes
Payment All major credit cards Cash only All major credit cards
III. Research Methodology
17/27

18. Data
Category Sub-category Shake Shack Burger Joint The Spotted Pig
Freq. Pct. Freq. Pct. Freq. Pct.
Review Date
2013.10 ~ 2013.12 45 21.23 29 22.14 33 25.78
2013.7 ~ 2013.9 64 30.19 39 29.77 32 25.00
2013.4~ 2013.6 54 25.47 36 27.48 33 25.78
2013.1 ~ 2013. 3 49 23.11 27 20.61 30 23.44
Sub-total 212 100 131 100 128 100
Country-of-
residence
Domestic travelers 76 35.85 51 38.93 41 32.03
Foreign travelers 136 64.15 80 61.07 87 67.97
Sub-total 212 100 131 100 128 100
Overall Ratings
5 112 52.83 62 47.33 50 39.06
4 66 31.13 46 35.11 45 35.16
3 22 10.38 12 9.16 18 14.06
2 5 2.36 6 4.58 12 9.38
1 7 3.30 5 3.82 3 2.34
Sub-total 212 100 131 100 128 100
III. Research Methodology
18/27

19. Study 1: Overall diners group
Importance values of the overall restaurant customers for three restaurants
combined
19/27
IV. Results

20. Study 2: Domestic vs. foreign diners
for all the restaurants
Importance values of the domestic vs. foreign travelers for three restaurants
combined
20/27
IV. Results

21. Study 3: Overall restaurant diners for
each restaurantAttribute rankings of the overall restaurant customers for each restaurant
Importance values of the overall restaurant customers
21/27
Attributes Shake Shack Burger Joint The Spotted Pig
Importance Rank Importance Rank Importance Rank
Value 0.266 2 0.269 2 0.243 3
Service 0.257 3 0.159 4 0.193 4
Atmosphere 0.198 4 0.255 3 0.272 2
Food 0.279 1 0.317 1 0.292 1
IV. Results

22. Study 4: Domestic vs. foreign diners for
each restaurantAttribute rankings of the domestic versus foreign diners at The Spotted Pig
Importance values of the domestic versus foreign diners at The Spotted Pig
22/27
Attributes Domestic customers Foreign customers
Importance Rank Importance Rank
Value 0.321 1 0.231 3
Service 0.234 3 0.180 4
Atmosphere 0.158 4 0.281 2
Food 0.287 2 0.308 1
IV. Results

23. Developed Propositions (1/2)
• Proposition 1: Travelers would place different importance on each of many
restaurant attributes.
– Proposition 1a: Among four restaurant attributes, travelers would place the highest
importance on the food attribute.
– Proposition 1b: Among four restaurant attributes, travelers would place the lowest
importance on the service attribute.
• Proposition 2: Both domestic and foreign travelers would place four
restaurant attributes in a concurrent order of importance.
– Proposition 2a: In examining only the service attribute, domestic travelers would convey
higher importance than foreign travelers.
– Proposition 2b: In examining the atmosphere and food attributes, foreign travelers would
convey higher importance than domestic travelers.
• Proposition 3: Regardless of the restaurant types, travelers would place the
utmost importance on the food attribute among all attributes.
– Proposition 3a: In examining the value attribute among different price-ranged
restaurants, travelers would covey higher importance for the value in low-priced
restaurants.
– Proposition 3b: In examining the service attribute among different set-up types of
restaurants, travelers would convey higher importance for the service at a food stance.
– Proposition 3c: In examining the atmosphere attribute among different set-up types of
restaurants, travelers would convey higher importance for the atmosphere in indoor
restaurants.
V. Discussion and Propositions
23/27

24. • Proposition 4: For specific restaurant types, domestic and foreign
travelers would convey discrepant importance priority on
attributes.
– Proposition 4a: In using low-priced food stances, foreign travelers would
place higher importance on the value and atmosphere attributes among
than domestic travelers.
– Proposition 4b: In using low-priced food stances, domestic travelers
would place higher importance on the food attribute than foreign
travelers.
– Proposition 4c: In using low-priced indoor restaurants, foreign travelers
would place higher importance on the value and service attributes than
domestic travelers.
– Proposition 4d: In using low-priced indoor restaurants, domestic travelers
would place higher importance on the atmosphere and food attributes
than foreign travelers.
– Proposition 4e: In using high-priced indoor restaurants, foreign travelers
would place higher importance on the atmosphere and food attributes
than domestic travelers.
– Proposition 4f: In using high-priced indoor restaurants, domestic travelers
would place higher importance on the value and service attributes than
domestic travelers.
V. Discussion and Propositions
Developed Propositions (2/2)
24/27

25. Research Contributions
• Managerial Implications
– Restaurant management is able to evaluate importance of each attribute.
– By comparing total importance with importance of each attribute,
restaurant management could efficiently allocate resources.
– For general travelers, food attribute is more important than service
attribute.
– Restaurant managers must realize foreign and domestic travelers
emphasize different attributes when dining.
– “Food stance” type of restaurants must make sure to serve customers
expeditiously and professionally.
• Theoretical Implications
– A conjoint analysis was used on voluntary data (restaurant customers
willingly expressing their opinions) for evaluation of 4 attributes (value,
service, atmosphere, and food) of restaurants.
– Compared to survey questionnaire and scenario based experiments, OPRs
better represent real thinking and intentions of customers.
– Unlike survey questionnaire which causes social desirability effect and
CMB (common method bias), OPR data does not have to deal with this
type of problem.
VI. Conclusion
25/27

26. Limitations & Future Research
• Limitations
– Only 1 particular food (i.e., burger) data was collected for each
of 3 types of restaurants.
– Subject restaurants are popular and famous.
– More positive than negative responses regarding attributes
– An exploratory approach (theory-building approach)
• Future Research
– Number of restaurants should be increased.
– Include different locations of restaurants.
– Comparative study between well-operated and mismanaged
restaurants
– Method triangulation: conjoint analysis (ratings) + content
analysis (review itself)
– An empirical approach (theory-testing approach)
VI. Conclusion
26/27

27. Thank You for Your Attention!