تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف

1
Faculty of Tourism &Hotel Management
Hotel Management Department
EVALUATING THE EXPERIMENT OF LOCAL
RESTAURANT CHAINS COMPARED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAINS IN EGYPT
Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Helwan University for
Master of Science in Hotel Management
By
Hany Atef Kouzmal
B. Sc., Hotel Management, 2000
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Dr. Ahmed Nour El-Din Elias
Prof; Hotel Management Department
Faculty of Tourism & Hotel Management,
Helwan University.
Assistant prof. Rania Dinana
Assistant Prof; Hotel Management Department
Faculty of Tourism & Hotel Management,
Helwan University.
Dr. Mahmoud Roushdy El Maghraby
Regional Vice President of Finance Middle East,
Sonesta International
2009

2
APPROVAL SHEET
TITLE: EVALUATING THE EXPERIMENT OF LOCAL
RESTAURANT CHAINS COMPARED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL CHAINS IN EGYPT
NAME: Hany Ateef Kouzmal Mikhaiel
This Thesis for the M.Sc. in Hotel Management has
been approved by:
Prof. Dr. ---------------------------------
Prof. Dr.----------------------------------
Prof. Dr.---------------------------------
Committee in Charge
Degree Conferred in / / 2009

4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Primarily, I would like to express my deepest respect and
appreciation to Prof Dr Ahmed Nour El-Dein Elias Head of Hotel
Management and Ex Dean Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management,
Helwan University, for his guidance, cooperation, and also his valuable
advice which helped point me in the right direction. Therefore, because
of his time, effort, and continual assistance brought about by his
knowledge of this subject, I offer to him my sincerest gratitude, with
great thanks.
Also, I would like to thank Dr Rania Dinana, Assistant Prof; in
Hotel Management, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management
Department, Helwan University, for her supervision, guidance,
encouragement, assistance, and her support throughout the preparation
of this Thesis.
Also, I would like to express my deepest respect and gratitude to
Dr. Mahmoud Roushdy El Maghraby, Regional Vice President of
Finance Middle East, Sonesta International, and Visitor lecturer, Hotel
Management Department, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management,
Helwan University, for his continuous support and encouragement,
coupled with his invaluable advice.
Finally I would like to express my deepest thanks to my dear
family, and my friends, who supported me and encouraged me
throughout the work on this Thesis.

5
Table of Contents
Page
CHAPTER ONE:
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTINGS
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Organization of the Research 2
1.3. Abbreviations 3
1.4. Limitation of the Research 4
1.5. The Research Objectives 4
CHAPTER TWO:
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Overview on Fast-Food Operations
2.1.1 Fast Food Concept 5
2.1.2 Customers Perception on Fast-Food 8
2.1.3 Local and International Restaurant Chains 9
2.2. Quality of Food and Service
2.2.1 Quality Concept
2.2.2 Product Quality 11
2.2.3 Food Quality 12
2.2.4 Food Service Quality 14
2.3. Elements of Competition
2.3.1 Location 15
2.3.2 Pricing 16
2.3.3 Demand 16
2.3.4 Training 16
2.3.5 Operational Systems 17
2.3.6 The Element of Risk/Failure 18
2.3.7 Product Branding 21
2.3.8 Product Value 22
2.3.9 Marketing 24
2.3.10 Promotional Element 26

6
2.3.11 Services for Children 27
2.3.12 Atmosphere (Surroundings) 28
2.3.13 Customer Satisfaction 28
CHAPTER THREE:
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Materials
3.1.1 Population Survey 31
3.1.2 Samples 31
3.1.2.1 Samples from Independent Establishments
3.1.2.2 Samples from Local Establishments
3.1.2.3 Samples from International Establishments
3.2. Methods
3.2.1 Primary Data
3.2.1.1 Guest Questionnaire 34
3.2.1.2 In-depth Personal Interviews 35
3.2.1.3 Checklist 35
3.2.2. Secondary Sources 36
3.2.3. Pilot Study 36
3.2.4. Data Analysis 37
CHAPTER FOUR:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1. Introduction 38
4.2. Questionnaire Response Rate 39
4.3. Questionnaire Analysis Results and Discussion 39
4.4. Interview Response Rate 67
4.5. Interview Analysis Results and Discussion 67
4.6. Checklist Analysis Results and Discussion 94

7
CHAPTER FIVE:
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Summary 111
5.2. Conclusion 114
5.3. Recommendations 118
REFERENCES 119
APPENDICES
APPENDIX (A1) Guest Questionnaire Form 127
APPENDIX (A2) In-depth Personal Interviews Form 137
APPENDIX (A3) Checklist Form 143
ARABIC SUMMARY

8
List of Tables
Table Title Page
1 Abbreviations list 3
2 The main features of modern fast food concepts
3 Samples from the establishments 32
4 Menu specialty of the selected Quick Service
Restaurant QSR 33
5 Questionnaire response rate. 39
6 Customers' preferable meal 41
7 Statistics for customers' restaurants preferences 42
8 Statistics of important factors in QSR that attract
customer 44
9 Statistics for restaurants factors' evaluation 47
10 Restaurant categories factors' ranking 48
11 Personal data analysis 66
12 Interview's response rate 67
13 Statistics of restaurants factors' evaluation 75
14 Restaurant categories factors' ranking
according to their means 76
15 Checklist results 94
16 Exterior factors in independent restaurants 95
17 Interior factors in international chain restaurants 96
18 Interior factors in local chain restaurants 96
19 Interior factors in independent restaurants 97
20 Food quality factors in international
chain restaurants 98
21 Food quality factors in local chain restaurants 99
22 Food quality factors in independent restaurants 100
23 Guest service factors in international chain
restaurants 101
24 Guest service factors in local chain restaurants 102
25 Guest service factors in Independent restaurants 103

9
26 Employee appearance in international chain
restaurants 104
27 Employee appearance in local chain
restaurants 104
28 Employee appearance in independent
restaurants 105
29 Management behaviors/ functions in
International chain restaurants 106
30 Management behaviors/ functions in local
chain restaurants 107
31 Independent restaurants 108
32 Restaurant categories rating scale 107

11
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
1 Customer's preferences to eat fast food. 40
2 Customers' reasons for restaurants type
preferences. 44
3 Important factors in Quick Service Restaurant
QSR that attract customer (service quality,
consistence standard and atmosphere). 45
4 Important factors in QSR that attract customer
(brand name and menu variety). 46
5 Important factors in QSR that attract customer
(location and promotional activities). 46
6 Brand name factor's evaluation in QSRs. 50
7 Location factor's evaluation in QSRs. 51
8 Price factor's evaluation in QSRs. 52
9 Food quality factor's evaluation in QSRs. 53
10 Managers' evaluation for local fast food
operations. 54
11 Consistence standard factor's evaluation
in QSRs. 55
12 Menu variety factor's evaluation in QSRs. 56
13 Atmosphere factor's evaluation in QSRs. 57
14 Promotional activities factor's evaluation
in QSRs. 58
15 Customers' evaluation for the experiment of
Egyptian QSRs. 59
16 Customers' problems with Egyptian QSRs. 62
17 Managers evaluation for QSRs in Egypt. 68
18 Egyptian market expectations about fast
food concept. 69
19 Egyptian customers' needs and preferences. 70

11
20 Managers' ways to deal with customers' needs
and preferences. 71
21 International chain restaurants' attributes. 72
22 Managers' evaluation for local fast food
operations. 73
23 Managers' opinions in using international concept
by local fast food operations. 74
24 Managers' evaluation of brand name factor
in QSRs. 77
25 Managers' evaluation of location factor
in QSRs. 78
26 Managers' evaluation of price factor in QSRs. 79
27 Managers' evaluation of food quality factor
in QSRs 80
28 Managers' evaluation service quality factor
in QSRs. 81
29 Managers' evaluation consistence standard factor
in QSRs. 82
30 Managers' evaluation of atmosphere factor
in QSRs. 83
31 Managers' evaluation of promotional activities
factor in QSRs. 84
32 Labor turn over rate in QSRs . 85
33 Means to decrease turn over rate in QSRs. 86
34 Managers' evaluation of training level
in QSRs. 87
35 Managers' evaluation for marketing strategies
in QSRs. 88
36 Managers' evaluation for quality level
in QSRs. 89
37 The extent of product development to meet
customers' needs in QSRs. 90
38 Customers satisfaction measuring methods
in QSRs. 91

12
CHAPTER ONE
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTINGS

13
1.1 Introduction
Food service away from home is essential to tourism. Food
service industry becomes one of the fastest growing industries, because
of many social and commercial changes around the world. Most
modern industry requires that individual travel and work at a distance
from home; thus, food service industry plays a required supporting role
in providing food for these individuals. In addition to food and
beverage away from home, food service industry provides
convenience, communication settings and a wide variety of outputs
contributing to life's quality. Among the latter, entertainment /
diversions; and ambiances are contributing to variety in living
experiences. Food service industry is a major generator of jobs. The
group of firms providing food and restaurant supplies has been found a
substantial source of economic base in itself. Food service industry also
supports the community infrastructure through utility systems and local
taxes.
Recently, fast food restaurant chains have spread out,
blossoming all around the world. Such chains are based on some
factors for their success: such as cleanliness, food quality, value,
atmosphere, location, and speed of service. In Egypt there are many
of fast food restaurant chains; some of which are domestic in origin,
like Wessaya, Mo`Men, Cook Door, Felfela, Makani, and Gado, other
chains such as McDonald's, Burger King, Hardee's, and Kentucky
fried chicken (KFC), are international franchised operations.
These domestic chains are seeking to compete with the
international chains in quality, level of services offered, universal
reach and spreading around the Arab and foreign countries. This can
be achieved by a good reputation that will give better profits.
Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a comparative study to
evaluate the experiment of the local restaurant chains compared to the
international restaurant chains running in Egypt.

14
1.2. Organization of the Research
With regard to the organization of the paper, this thesis has been
developed over five chapters;
Chapter One: "the Problem and its Settings". This chapter sets
out the basic framework of the thesis. The components include an
introduction, organization, a definition of terms and abbreviations,
limitations, and objectives.
Chapter Two: "Review of Literature". This chapter looks at the
literature upon which the subject has been researched.
Chapter Three: "Materials and Methods". This shows the way in
which the data was collected. The information includes the population,
research, the design, treatment of the data and the instruments used for
the research.
Chapter Four: "Results and Discussion". This sets out the
analysis of the data in exactly the same way as chapter three
concerning the points of research.
Chapter Five: "Summary and Recommendations". This chapter
provides a summary based upon the information’s received or
suggested, the obtained results and recommendations of the study.

15
1.3. Abbreviations
Abbreviations used throughout the thesis are defined as follows:
Table 1: Abbreviations list
Professorprof
Quick Service RestaurantQSR
National Restaurant AssociationNRA
Information TechnologyIT
Quality ControlQC
Quality AssuranceQA
Total Quality ManagementTQM
Continuous Quality ImprovementCQI
NumberNO
Define - Measure - Analyze - Improve-
Control
DMAIC
Quality Function DevelopmentQFD
Product Life CyclePLC
Critical Control PointsCCPs
New Product DevelopmentNPD
Points of DistributionPODs
Hazard Analysis Critical Control PointHACCP
Designated Market AreaDMA
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and
Threats
SWOT
On the Job TrainingOJT
Skills Based PaySBP
Electronic Point-of-SalesEPOS
Target RestaurantTR
Public RelationsPR
Product, Price, Place, and Promotion4Ps
Unique Servicing ProportionUSP
Point of SalesPOS
Identification DataID
Other People DataOPD
Chamber of Tourism EstablishmentsCTE
Statistical Package for Social ScienceSPSS
Standardstd
X2
SignificationX2
sig

16
1.4. Limitations of Research
Study limitations are represented in the following points:-
1.4.1. Place limitation: Unfortunately, it was difficult to assess
many of the fast food chains in Egypt due to, costs, time involved, and
the accessibility to these chains. For these reasons, the ones which were
looked at were limited to four samples from the independent fast food
restaurants in Sharm El Sheikh, four from the famous local fast food
chains as well as four international chains in Sharm El-Sheikh.
1.4.2. Time limitation: The field study was implemented in the
period from September 2006 to August 2007.
1.5. Research Objectives
 This study is aimed at :
1. Evaluating the experiment of local restaurant chains as
compared with the international ones.
2. Defining the factors needed to development the local
restaurant chains to reach the international standard.
3. Evaluating international chains product developing.

17
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

18
2.1. Overview on Fast-Food Operations
2.1.1 Fast Food Concept
The National Restaurant Association (NRA) defines the food
service industry as "encompassing all meals and snacks prepared outside
the home". This definition therefore includes all take – out meals and
beverages. Khan (1991)
Ball (1992) agreed with Samle (1980) that the fast food restaurant, a
place where a customer should be served within five minutes of entering
the outlet even at peak periods. While Melaniphy (2005) classified fast
food according to the product as it is prepared and cooked quickly, with a
service delivery varying between 2 to 15 minutes, a low price, easily
consumed with fingers or disposable cutlery. Brymer (1995) defined a
quick service restaurant as a "firm with a mission to provide quicker
service and core technology geared towards this mission. However,
Walker (2006) considering that quick-service restaurants offer a quick
service. Negl (2002) identified that as fast service restaurants in
recognition of the fact that the service is fast, not the food.
Lane and Duper (1997) explained that in preference to fast food
restaurant tend to be located near highways, malls and down town areas
which offer a standard menu with limited choices that attempt to satisfy a
hungry audience. Moreover, Walker (2006) highlighted that quick-
service restaurants have increased in popularity because of their
location strategies. They are situated for convenience in every possible
area. Their menus are limited, which makes it easy for customers to
make quick decisions on what to purchase.
 Classification of fast food operations according to according
menu specialty
Walker (2006) agreed with Brymer (1995) in that classifying the
quick service restaurants segments is according to the menu specialty.
That specialty could be hamburger, pizza, chicken, snacks, sandwich,
Mexican, or seafood. They are the leaders for each segment according to
the spread, the popularity, and the volume of sales

19
 Classification of fast food operations according to restaurant
characterization
Traditional fast-food restaurants
Ball (1992) reported that the traditional fast food operations include
fish and chip shops, ethnic, take away and sandwich bar operations, they
are mostly owned by individuals. Scanlon (1998) stated that the
traditional fast - food restaurants are concentrated on items from the menu
such as hamburgers, pizza and chicken,
Modern fast food restaurants
These have been identified with fast food chains, which are designed
around systems of catering which have been linked to
manufacturing production lines with the design and layout of
restaurants, the scheduling and planning of a work place, etc.,
being systematically planned to produce consistently standardized
products. Simplified menus characterize these restaurants and
chains which dominate a high standard of service, training and
decor. Modern operations usually offer a combination of eat on the
premises, take away drive. The main features of modern fast food
concepts are shown in Table 2 as suggested by Ball (1992).

21
Table 2: The main features of modern fast food concepts
Features Description
Food
materials
Consistent and controllable quality, precisely specified,
equally portioned.
Type of
products
Suitable for quick and retention for short periods
without deterioration.
Organization Highly organized routines with precise job
specifications and procedures.
Operation Usually planned for large throughput and high sales
volume (including counter sales)
Cost control Prices portion and cost control, permitting relatively
small margins and competitive pricing.
Quality
control
Standard preparation, cooking and serving routines laid
down, including the discarding or sub-standard food
(e.g. maximum time for keeping food before serving).
Hygiene Exacting equipments emphasized as a part of product
reliability, including measures to reduce litter (in store
and neighborhood).
Packing Products distinctively packaged (disposables), easy to
handle (usually finger held, suitable for over-the-
counter or table meals).
Research Product research and consumer response testing
essential. On-going research into changing food
preference sand attitudes is necessary to develop
concepts.
Variety May be provided in product range offered or by
variations in one basic product (dressings, fillings,
supplements).
Markets Usually targeted at wide, classless society, primarily
young of family group.
Promotion Emphasis is given to value for money, consistent
quality and cleanliness. Particular products may be
differentiated by originality, size, cost competitiveness,
variety of choices or fillings, healthy eating, and
friendly service.
Source : Ball (1992)

21
2.1.2 Customer Perceptions
Johnson and Clark (2005) illustrated that while the expectation-
perception approach to understanding service quality is extremely useful
in focusing on the outcome of customer satisfaction and helps identity on
mismatches between operational and customer views of quality, which
does have some downsides.
 Service could be perceived to be 'good' when it is 'bad'.
 Service could be perceived to be 'bad' when it is 'good'
 Service that was 'good' last time may only be 'OK' this time.
 Satisfied customers may switch.
King and Ronald (2006) differentiated between quality in fact and in
perception and they stated that quality in fact relates to our internal
standard, we get what we expect, so set high expectations. Quality in
perception is how our customers perceive our service.
Customer differences
Foster (1993) highlighted that different people have different nations
about what type of food tastes good, but a successful food and beverage
operation is able to consistently satisfy the majority of its guests. Peppers
and Rogers (1997) argued that customers are different in two primary
ways: They need different things from the enterprise, and they have
different value to the enterprise. A customer's value will depend largely
on how long the customer remains loyal, and even small increases in the
state of customer retention add significantly to customer's value. Knowing
what different customers need involves much more than simply tallying
what they've bought, because two customers might buy the same product
for quite different reasons. Powers and Barrows (2006) illustrated that
the guest is also apart of the service transaction. A guest who is not
feeding well or who takes a dislike to member of the staff may have a bad
experience in spite of all efforts to please.

22
2.1.3 Local and International Restaurant Chains
Independents restaurants
King and Ronald (2006) declared that independent is one who is not
bound by or definitively committed to another, and it a particular brand or
company. While Walker (2006) highlighted that one or more owners,
usually involved in the day-to-day operation of the business, typically
own individual restaurants (also called Indies). Even if the owners have
more than one store, each functions independently. These restaurants are
not affiliated with any national brand or name. They offer the owner
independence, creativity and flexibility, but with an element of risk.
Wade (2006) mentioned that between the independent and chains lies
at least two other possibilities, some dependent operations are so
successful that they open additional units without, however, becoming as
large as to lose the hands on approach of the owner operator. Independent
group operators are not exactly chains, but more a longer single unit. The
other possibility and one that is pursued by thousands of business people
are franchise operations.
Chains restaurants
King and Ronald (2006) defined chain as a group of enterprises or
institutions of the same kind of function usually under a single
ownership, management or control. Walker (2006) stated that chain
restaurant comprises a group of restaurants, each identical in market,
concept, design, service, food and name. Part of the marketing strategy
of a chain restaurant is to remove uncertainty from the dining
experience. The same menu, food quality, level of service and
atmosphere can be found in any one of the restaurants, regardless of its
location. Family run teams or other entrepreneurs usually own them.
Wade (2006) agreed with Powers and Barrows (1999) in that chain
are playing a growing role in food service. Moreover, they are prominent
among the companies that recruit graduates for hospitality programs.

23
Chains have strengths of seven different areas:
(1) Marketing and brand recognition
(2) Site selection expertise
(3) Access to capital
(4) Purchasing economies
(5) Centrally administered control and information systems
(6) New product development
(7) Human-resource development
International versus local fast food chain
According to Lan, and Khan (1995) fast food operations are divided
into two categories; international chains and local chains where each have
a different approach to the operating and management.
The international fast food chains have a core product (hamburger,
chicken or pizza). They focus on image building through progressive
marketing which gains mass production and the central distribution
international fast food chains are expanding through franchising.
Meanwhile the local fast food chains are expanding through private
ownership and building their image through products. Local fast food
operations do not have mass production or central distribution; therefore,
they became labor intensive.

24
2.2. Quality of Food and Service
Quality Concept
Wyckoff (2001) highlighted that quality is the degree of excellence
for what is intended add to this a controlled variation in order to
achieve that excellence, where the end result is meeting customer
requirements. While Schroeder (2004) stated that quality is meeting
and exceed customer requirements now and in the future." This means
that the product or service is fit for the customer's use. Fitness for use
has related to benefits received by the customer and to customer
satisfaction. Only the customer, not the producer, can determine it.
Noel and Cullen (1996) mentioned that quality is a process, not a
procedure and as such is never finished. The culture of quality promotes
and sustains change. Stutts and Wortman (2006) added that quality
could be defined as "The consistent delivery of product and services
according to expected standards. King and Ronald (2006) stated that the
other half of the definition of quality is "doing things right." Doing things
right simply means meeting customers needs and expectations more
rapidly and at a reduced cost. It is customer orientation, innovation,
teamwork, and everyone's responsibility.
Quality importance
Field (1999) reported that quality is the major driver of overall
satisfaction, while price and service tied for second place. Sideman and
Johnson (2002) argued that providing consistent quality service has
become a challenge for the quick service industry. Schroeder (2004)
indicated that quality can both improve revenues and reduce costs. The
cost of quality measures the lack of conformance to customer
requirements. Quality costs can be convention or appraisal. Failure costs
may be due to internal or external failures.

25
2.2.2. Product Quality
Product concept
The actual good or service offered for sale. It could include all of the
features of the good or service as well as the packaging and brand name
of the good or service. Powers and Barrows (1999) illustrated that in a
restaurant, this involves not only the food service the way the server and
guest interact and the atmosphere of the place. Reid and Bojanic (2006)
agreed with Etzel (2004) in that product refers to all of the goods and
services that are bundled together and offered to consumers. Nearly, every
product sold includes tangible and intangible elements.
Product Quality and Customer Satisfaction
Peppers and Rogers (1997) indicated that there is, of course, no
substitute for quality. No customer will return for more of a bad product,
so having product quality at least on a par with the competition is
essential for 1:1 enterprise. Customer satisfaction is the opposite of
customer dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction is one sure route to defection.
Keep in mind, however, that customer satisfaction by itself is usually not
sufficient to generate loyalty. Wade (2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in
that customer feedback is vital to keep the menu fresh. Feedback from
customers helps to improve product quality, which in turn increases sales
and products higher profits.
2.2.3. Food Quality
Reay (1983) pinpointed that any food product specification involves
consideration of factors such as those set out below:
1. The quantity of goods – based on the standard recipe.
2. The quality and grade of ingredients.
3. The dimensions of the finished item, e.g. the thickness of the pastry
and the weight and type of filling.
4. The nature of the glaze.
5. The degree browning.

26
6. The type, size and shape of the garnish.
7. The type of packaging to be used
8. The layout and wording of labels
9. The product life
10.The storage requirements
Wiley and Sons (2006) illustrated that the quality of food depends on
two factors: the skill with which it's prepared, and the basic quality of the
foodstuffs use to this might be added the perception of novelty factor
Briggs (2000) stated that food, whether raw or cooked is a perishable
commodity and has a limited life and so caterers have to ensure that they
buy produce in the correct quality and quantity in relation to customer
demand and that it is correctly stored and processed. The choice of food
and drink revolves around the menu, which is limited or extensive, and
whether it concerns a particular product, if there is a varied choice, and
the quality of the product offered, and it is fresh or convenience. Other
factors include portion sizes and the availability of children's menus along
with consistency, range of tastes, textures, aromas, and colours and
presentation of the food and drink. Dharmaraj (2002) believes that poor
quality food can destroy the commercial credibility. Seidman and and
Johnson (2002) argued that keeping consistency of food quality is a
though task for all suick service restaurant QSR chains.

27
2.2.4 Food Service Quality
ConceptServiceFood
The service is all action and reactions that customers perceive
whichthey have purchased. In hospitality, service performed for the guest
by people or by systems. The emphasis in definition is on the guest's total
experience. Indeed, from the guest's point of view, service is the
performance of the organization and its staff. Schroeder (2004)
mentioned that most definitions of service stress the intangible and cannot
be easily quantified or defined. A better definition is that service is
produced and summed simultaneously, and consumption. Reid and
Bojanic (2006) defined a service as an intangible product that sold or
purchased in the marketplace.
Meanwhile Kotler and Armstrong (1996) stated that service means
"all features, acts, and information that augment the customer's ability to
realize the potential value of a product or service.
Powers and Barrows (2006) confirmed that the basis of service
strategy is market segmentation, largely on consumer service expectation.
Successful service companies develop a service culture cased on
commitment by top management. Consistency between policy and
practice and well developed channels of communication. Because service
people are a part of the product, a good service team is essential, service
teams based on careful selection, training, and on motivational programs
that include rewards and involvement in service planning. Because most
hospitality products are strikingly similar, service is the most significant
sustainable competitive advantage
Noel and Cullen (1996) stated that zero defects is the standard that
service organizations must set this very high standard, however, is set in
the context of customer expectations for a particular segment and
operation type. At a McDonald's waiting lines can expect during the rush
hour and will accept as long as they move with reasonable speed.
However, a dirty or cluttered McDonald's, even in a rush period, scents a
defect. Zero - defects committee should formed from members of the
quality improvement team.

28
2.3. Elements of Competition
2.3.1. Location
Powers and Barrows (2006) stated that marketing place refers to
the location, the place where the good or service is offered. Place refers
not only to the property's location, but also to the channels of distribution.
Reid and Bojanic (2006) agreed with Powers and Barrows (1999) in that
the place component refers to the manner in which the products and
services being delivered to consumers.
Ridgeway and Ridgeway (1994) indicated that location is, of course,
extremely important. All businesses are near potential customers but this
may be less important for an outside catering company than for a
restaurant. Moreover Briggs (2000) reported that the location of the food
service facility might said to be the most important feature. Services,
which are not appropriately located, may not successfully perform.
Powers and Barrows (1999) stated that the success of most
restaurants also enhanced by a location near the heart of major traffic
patterns. The technique for analyzing location potential requires a special
kind of knowledge, and chains can afford real estate departments that
possess that expertise.
Seidman and Johnson (2002) considered that location is an old
topic but with new content. Chinese QSR chains are entering various
non-traditional venues. These venues include shopping mall food
courts, leading supermarket, retail chains, neighborhood centers, key
intersections, university and college campuses, and airports, casinos,
and sports arenas. Powers and Barrows (2006) stated that restaurant
companies have developed downsized units for places where a traditional
unit will not fit. These units often take the form of a mobile cart requiring
minimal investment. The name given these new units is points of
distribution (PODs).
Wade (2006) argued that the presents of quick-service operations in
every market of any size is a key characteristic of quick service and one

29
of the main factors sporting its growth over the past 50 years. Because of
their many locations, they make eating out convenient.
2.3.2 Pricing
The price is the amount of money and/or other items with utility
needed to acquire a product. Recall that utility an attribute with the
potential to satisfy wants. The price has a tremendous impact on the
success or failure of a product.
Etzel (2004) mention that price is significant in economy, in the
costumer's mind, and in an individual firm let's consider each situation
some prospective customers are interested primarily in law prices,
whereas another segment is more concerned with other factors, such as
service, quality, value, and brand image. It is safe to say that few, if any
customers are attentive to price alone or are entirely oblivious to price.
Powers and Barrows (2006) confirmed that there is a risk in price
reduction, namely, that the lower price will denote a cheapened product to
the customer. As with virtually all marketing activities, the key is to keep
prices in line with customer expectations and to offer products that
perceived to be a good value to the customer.
2.3.3 Demand
The market demand is the demand for a product or service.
2.3.4. Training
Stutts and Wortman (2006) agreed with Noel and Cullen (1996) in
that training is the process of integrating personal and organizational
goals. Donnelly et al. (1998) indicated that inadequate training can be a
major barrier to quality. Hill and Jones (1998) found that a company that
employs individuals with high skills is likely to be more efficient than one
employing less skilled personnel.

31
2.3.5 Operational Systems
Powers (1995) declared that a standard exterior appearance gives
many chain operators a high recognition value. Hill and Jones (1998)
indicated that standardization refers to the degree to which a company
specifies how decisions are to been made so that employees' behaviour
becomes predictable. Gouville and Soman (2001) explained that the
hospitality industry commonly bundles goods and services. Firms
routinely offer single units of different products or multiple units of the
same product, for one price. Seidman and Johnson (2002) described that
the quick service industry is characterized by regular interaction between
customer and employee. Built around service encounters designed to be
consistent and predictable, the nations of reutilization and standardization
are central to the industry.
Donnelly et al. (1998) argued that once the quality characteristics
have defined, the next step is to determine the desired quality standards.
These standards quantify the specific quality requirements for the
organization's output. Quality standards serve as the reference point for
comparing what is "ideal" to what actually "is". Reid and Bojanic (2006)
considered that before you can evaluate the level of service provided by
employees within your organization, you must establish the standards by
which they will judge. Wade (2006) believes that the marketing plan
must specify the restaurant's standards for food quality and consistency,
beverage operations, cleanliness, and service. Clearly stating the
standards in the document provides management with a written document
to reference.
From point of view of Wade (2006) the broke bone of the operating
system is typicality a set of comprehensive operations manuals and a
complete set of recipes that cover all products on the menu. The operation
manual sets forth operating procedures from opening to closing and
nearly everything in between. All major equipment operations and routine
maintenance are been described in the operation manual or a separate
equipment manual. Define how things been done based on experience,
organization standards, and customer expectations. Organizational
systems also explain who is involved and why.

31
As the production is the process wherein the food is converted to the
state in which it will be served. Pepper et al. (1984) illustrated that fast
food operations handle huge amounts of food in a short time. They could
never keep up with their customer's demands if they did not use mass
production methods. Mass production means buying, preparing, and
serving in large quantities. Powers and Barrows (2006) confirmed that
some kinds of operations are ideally suited to the production-line
approach to service. Quick service restaurants amusement parks and
budget motels come to mind as having the need for the cost efficiency of
the production approach. Powers (1995) mentioned that all of the quick
service restaurants (QSR) operations try to simplify their production
processes and use self-service.
2.3.6 The Element of Risk and Failure
Risk concept
Wiley and Sons (2006) described that many people will tell that the
restaurant business is the highest-risk business in the retail spectrum. This
simply is not true. The failure rate for eating places in the general is
below the average business failure rate nationwide. Camera, furniture, and
apparel stores regularly top the failure list.
Powers and Barrows (1999) argued that franchising is not risk free.
The franchisee is generally completely dependent on the franchise
company for not only marketing but often or purchasing and other
operations-oriented assistance. Wade (2006) explained that failure is
much less common among franchised restaurants than among independent
operation.
Elements of restaurants success and failure
Powers and Barrows (1999) believed that all advertising will be
effective only if consumers get exactly what expect. Therefore, chains
concentrate on ensuring consistency of quality and service in operations.
Customers know what to expect in each of the units and, in an
increasingly mobile society that is important.

32
Parsa et al. (2005) pinpointed the elements of success and failure as
follows:
1. Elements of success
A. Have a distinctive concept that been well researched.
B. Ensure that all decision make long-term economic sense.
C. Adapt desirable technologies, especially for record keeping and
tracking customers.
D. Educate mangers through continuing education at trade shows and
workshops an environment that fosters professional growth has
better productivity
E. Effectively and regularly communicate values and objectives to
employees in one instance.
F. Maintain a clear vision, mission, and operation strategies, but be
willing to amend strategies as the situation changes.
G. Create a cost conscious culture, which includes stringent record
keeping.
H. Focus on one concentrated theme and develop it well.
I. Be willing to make a substantial time commitment both to the
restaurant and to family.
J. Create and build a positive organization culture through consistent
management.
K. Maintain management flexibility.
L. Choose the location carefully, although having a good location.
2. Elements of failure:
A. Lack of documented strategy; only informal or oral communication
of mission and vision; lack of an organizational culture fostering
success characteristics.
B. Inability or unwillingness to establish and formalize operational
standards; seat-of-the-pants management.
C. Frequent critical incidents; managing operations by "putting out
fires" appears to be a common practice.
D. Focusing on one aspect of the business at the expense of the others.
E. Poor choice of location.
F. Lack of match between restaurant concept and location.
G. Lack of business experience or knowledge of restaurant operations.
H. Poor communication with consumers. Negative consumer
perception of value price and product must match.

33
I. Inability to maintain operational standards leading to too many
service gaps. Poor sanitary standards are almost guaranteed to kill a
restaurant.
Wiley and Sons (2006) pointed out that the stark reasons for
business failure are worthy of study these include in competence,
lack of line experience, lack of managerial experience and quite
important, unbalanced experience. Inadequate funds run out of
money before the restaurant attracts enough customers to go into
profit. Poor management is a catchall phrase, but should not be
dismissed on those grounds.
The way to success
Hill and Jones (1998) considered that avoiding failure requires a
constant focus on the basic building blocks of competitive advantage,
continuous improvement, learning identification, adoption of the best
industrial practice, and victory over inertia. Huber and Pilmanis (2001)
mentioned that there are primarily five customer sale channels: delivery,
dining, takeout, pickup window and catering. In the QSR industry, IT has
been commonly used for order processing, accounting, purchasing,
marketing, consumer behavior and the location of new restaurants. Parsa
et al. (2005) explained that perhaps the key finding was that a successful
restaurant requires focus on a clear concept that drives all activities. In
this finding, concept is distinct from strategy. A remarkable outcome of
the interviews is that we found few differences in having a well-defined
strategy between successful and failed restaurants owners but
considerable differences in clarity
Negl (2002) believed that restaurants are been designed to serve a
basic meal quickly and affordably. Menus are usually limited and
kitchens are designed to produce high volume in short periods. The
customer expects quick service, low price, and consistency. Fast food
establishments are those that serve food for which there is little or no
waiting. From Wade (2006) point of view, the key to the success of quick
service, nevertheless, is its simplicity. A key simplification remains quick
services limited menu. Each item on the menu has been engineered to
simplify and standardize its purchasing, production and service.

34
Pepper et al. (1984) considered that a fast food operation has two
main aims: to please the customer and to make a profit. The giant fast
food chains were built on the belief that four things operating together
will bring them their success, these four things are:-
Limited menu
Fast service
Low price
High sales volume
Brian De Silva (2006) pointed the top tips of WOW success as follows:
 Research market and area.
 Establish budget.
 Brief designer: Make sure choose a good designer.
 Agree concept: What will be famous for?
 Recruit the right team.
 Inspire team and guests.
 Market restaurant: Public relation and collateral, guest and staff
incentives.
 Make changes when need to.
 Listen to staff and guests.
 Remember: you're only as good as your last drink.
2.3.7 Product Branding
Brand concept
According to King and Ronald (2006) image is a popular conception (as of a
person, institution, or nation) project especially through mass media importance of
brand. Martina (1958) defined image as "the way in which a store is
defined in the shopper's mined, partly by its functional qualities and partly
by an aural of psychological attributes. From this, two key elements in the
construction of image can be identified.
o Functional qualities such as the restaurant layout, menu range,
price levels and décor.
o Psychological attributes: The less tangible elements such as feeling
of friendliness or a sense of excitement.

35
Importance of brand
Blackett (2003) told that branding is a binary process. First the name,
logo, pack design, advertising and purchasing environment must create
the promise; and then the product or service concerned has to deliver. If
the brand lives up to expectations then trust been rewarded; if it does not
then the buyer will look elsewhere. So good brand management is all
about managing customer confidence so that he or she can buy without
fear of risk can be a source of strong cash flows
Brand marketing
Walker (2006) believed that brands are defined as unique that identify
a product and set it apart from those of other producers or service
providers. Today, brands are becoming a more and more important part of
a company's marketing strategy, mostly because having a well-known
brand tends to create brand identity. The most important considerations
when developing a brand are these:
 It must be easy to remember.
 Guests need to associate the brand with value.
 It must have a positive connotation.
Name selection and logo
Wade (2006) agreed with Ridgeway and Ridgway (1994) in that the
restaurant name and any subtitle it may use give people an immediate
impression as to the type of restaurant it is. A name must be memorable
and should be easy to pronounce, original, attractive, and easy to
remember and say. A logo is the restaurant's identifying mark that the
public will recognize. In restaurant industry, Mc Donald's has developed
its brand and logo-the golden arches - to be automatically identifiable
worldwide.

36
2.3.8 Product Value
Product value concept
Mattila (2001) mentioned that committed customers place a high
value on a restaurant's social benefits, such as friendship and familiarity,
in addition to good food and a fun atmosphere. Etzel (2004) defined that
value is the ratio of perceived benefits to price and any other incurred
costs. When we say a product has sample value, we do not necessarily
mean it is inexpensive nor has a very low price. Rather, good value
indicates that a particular product has the kinds and amounts of potential
benefits such as quality, image, and purchase convenience consumers
expect at a particular price level.
Foster (1993) believed that value is a customer's satisfaction with a
product in relation to the price. The value of a restaurant meal is a matter
of perception how the customer views the quality of the dining
experience. Johnson and Clark (2005) indicated that value is the
customer's assessment of the benefits of the service weighed against all
the costs involved. It is important to emphasis that the ultimate judge of
value is the customer.
Price value perception
Etzel (2004) reported that a product's price has been affected by
whether it is a new item or an established one. Over the course of a life
cycle, price changes are necessary to keep the product competitive. Wade
(2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in that price / value perception means
consumers believe that they are receiving value for the price that they are
paying, whether the customers are eating in a fast food restaurant or
dining in the finest restaurant in the area. The décor, ambience, and
service standards must all contribute to the customer's perception of the
dining experience.

37
2.3.9 Marketing
Marketing concept
Van Hoof et al. (1996) illustrated that marketing is all of activates
designed to move goods and services from the producer to the consumer.
Walker (2006) said that marketing is attracting guests and establishing a
relationship with the guests that ensure their continuous loyalty. Everyone
from the corporate executive to the line employee should be involved
with marketing.
Reid and Bojanic (2006) stated that:
 Marketing is the process of determining consumer needs, creating a
product service mix that satisfies these needs, and promoting the
product service mix in order to attain the goals and objectives of the
firm.
 Marketing concept is a framework for the marketing philosophy
that consists of three interrelated elements: an organization's basic
purpose is to satisfy customer needs; satisfying customer needs
requires integrated and coordinated efforts throughout the
organization; and organizations should focus on long-term success.
The marketing mix
Powers and Barrows (2006) agreed with Reid and Bojanic (2006) also
in that the marketing mix is conventionally though of as encompassing
the four Ps: product, price, place, and promotion. The researcher agree
with this opinion.
Ronald and Nykiel (2005) added that there are many different
perspectives on marketing and marketing strategy especially in ever-
changing environment. In the 1990s as we transitioned to a predominantly
service-oriented economy and marketing environment, marketing
strategies shifted to focus on the four Cs, as delineated by waterborne:
 Consumer wants and needs
 Cost to satisfy (want and needs)
 Convenience to buy
 Communication (creating a dialogue)

38
In the current decade, while marketing must still focus on the four Ps and
four Cs, marketing strategies appear to have shifted and are now more and
more based on the new five Ps:
 Preparation
 Positioning
 Perception
 Proclamation
 Power thrusts
Market segment
Walker (2006) defined that market segment is a smaller, identifiable
group that can be defined using any set of, such as moose found in
geographic, demographic, or psychographic.
Van Hoof, et al. (1996) indicated that marketers go through a process
called market segmentation and separate people into distinct group based
on their individual characteristics and buying habits.
The target market
Wade (2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in that the target market is the
type of customer who the restaurant is attempting to reach and entice to
frequent the establishment. Writing a menu requires understanding the
customer's wants, needs, and expectations. A customer will judge a
restaurant on several critical areas: food quality and presentation, service,
ambiance, cleanliness, and value. The menu informs customers of the
choices available to them. This is known as menu engineering. The goal
of menu engineering is not to force the customer to purchase an unwanted
item, but rather to place certain items in high visibility locations.
Marketing and selling
Reid and Bojanic (2006) agreed with Medik (1999) in that the
difference between selling and marketing is very simple. Selling focuses
mainly on the firm's desire to sell products for revenue. Marketing is
different from selling because marketing focuses on the needs of
consumers, whereas selling focuses on the needs of the seller. In addition,

39
the marketing concept advances the finical goals that the firm may have.
The concept holds that if the consumer's needs and wants are very
satisfied, then financial success will follow. The researcher agrees with
this opinion.
2.3.10 Promotional Element
Promotion concept
From Etzel (2004) point of view the extent to which the product is
promoted by the producer or intermediaries and the methods used are
added considerations in pricing if major promotional responsibility is
placed on retailers. Walker (2006) said that having an excellent
product at a good price and in the right place is not enough. Sales
goals will not be obtained unless the consumer is aware of the
product's existence. There are several ways of doing this with
promotion. Stutts and Wortman (2006) illustrated that have one
single overriding common purpose: to fulfill a marking need. This
need may be to build trial (new) business, develop a greater share of
existing business, keep businesses, or get repeat business regardless
of the type of promotion the objective is to help the overall
marketing effort.
Promotional mix
Reid and Bojanic (2006) agreed with Reid (1989) in that the
promotional mix elements include advertising, personal selling, sales
promotion, and public relations.
Sales promotion
Schultz et al. (1993) stated that sales promotion: usually short-term
tactical incentives offering something over and above the normal
product offering to encourage customers to act in particular ways.
Product-based sales promotions: sales promotions that centre on some
kind incentive connected with the product: extra product free, or
samples. In addition Reid (1989) agreed with Gottleb (1982) in that
sales promotion is a direct inducement offering an extra incentive to

41
take action. Sales promotions seek to accomplish several broad
objectives and can be used for several reasons:
 To increase consumer awareness
 To introduce new products and services
 To increase guest occupancy and customer counts.
 To combat competition
 To encourage present guests to purchase more.
 To stimulate demand in no peak periods.
2.3.11 Services for Children
Fast food restaurants and children
Spurlock (2005) said that fast food chains make no secret of the fact
that kids are their primary targets. Fast food restaurants are significantly
more likely to be visited by respondents with children than those without.
There is Happy Meal, launched nationally in 1979. It cost a buck in those
days. Inside a cardboard box with a circus theme, kids found a McDonald
stencil, a puzzle book, and a Mc Wrist wallet. The meal-plus-toys
packaging proved to be an instant hit with the first star trek Happy Meals
that very year.
Hahm and Khan (2001) considered that parents with young children
enjoy the conveniences of eating out, and they often take their young
families to quick serve restaurants. They especially like to take their
young families to those restaurants that are equipped with playgrounds or
play areas, and those that offer give – always to their children. From
Spurlock (2005) point of view, parents are their children's primary role
models kids learn their life habits, good and bad, from their parents.
Hahm and Khan (2001) stated that in the future healthy option for to
– go kids meals could include carrot sticks instead of French fires, hand
held yogurt stick such as Yoplait's Go-Curt, and flavored milks in
aseptically packaged containers, these options meet the demand for hand
held to – go food, but also provide a healthy alternative to traditional
quick service restaurant menu items.

41
2.3.12 Atmosphere (Surroundings)
Atmosphere
Briggs (2000) agreed with Pepper et al. (1984) in that atmosphere is
the overall effect created by a restaurant's lighting, color scheme,
furniture, and service. Wade (2006) highlighted that restaurant decor
should support the overall concept and not be a haphazard collection of
props, as the decor helps set the tone for the atmosphere.Wiley and Sons
(2006) declared that a restaurateur who is largely dependent upon
neighborhood business would do well to establish a friendly atmosphere,
maintain consistent standards, and offer good value. A friendly greeting is
the best possible start to a dining experience. People do not require heart,
soul, and internal devotion, just a smile and a cheerful greeting.
Cleanliness
Pepper et al. (1984) stated that customers would stop coming if they
feel a restaurant is not clean. Customers like to eat in clean surroundings.
Constant attention to cleanliness keeps luncheonettes and chain restaurant
dining areas attractive. Wade (2006) agreed with Negl (2002) in that the
incidence of food-borne illness has increased as the food service system
has become more complex and the number of operations has expanded.
One case of food poisoning can seriously injure a restaurant's reputation.
More than one can endanger an operation's survival.
2.3.13 Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
Johnson and Clark (2005) agreed with Cooper and Lawson (2004)
in that satisfaction is the outcome of the consumer's evaluation of a
service, which sometimes refer to as perceived service quality, and can be
represented on a continue from delight to extreme dissatisfaction.
Lillicrap et al. (2002) pinpointed the factors contributing to the meal
experience were summarized. Factors, which might affect the customer's

42
enjoyment of a specific meal experience in a particular operation, could
be:
 The welcome, the décor, and the ambience.
 Efficiency, has the booking been taken properly, using the
customer's name.
 Location of the table.
 Menu and drinks list (presentation and cleanliness).
 The order is been taken recognition of the host.
 Availability of dishes / items.
 Speed and efficiency of service.
 Quality of food and drink.
 Courteousness of staff.
 Obtrusive / attentiveness of staff.
 Ability to attract the attention of staff.
 Other customer's behaviour.
 Methods in which complaints are handled.
 Methods of presenting bill / recovery payment.
 Departure attentiveness.
Schroeder (2004) told that customer satisfaction is a relative
concept that varies from one customer to another. Also, a customer may
be satisfied with today's products but not satisfied in the future. For
example, while one customer may consider a Ford automobile perfectly
satisfactory, another may not. Seidman and Johnson (2002) argued that
customer satisfaction is regards as the highest mission by the chains.
Johnson and Clark (2005) described that customer satisfaction is
something that can be managed to some extent by influencing customers'
perceptions and expectations of service delivery. This demands in-depth
understanding of this subject. Pepper, et al. (1984) stated that satisfied
customers are return customers, which means good business.
Improving customer service and customer satisfaction
Bateson (1995) mentioned that customer satisfaction is depends on the
production of services as well as their consumption. Field (1999) pointed
out that a common five – step process for developing a customer
satisfaction program is:

43
 Identify the attributes of your product or service that are most
important to customers.
 Measure customer – satisfaction levels on these important
attributes.
 Link satisfactions levels to key customer behavior (use levels,
member retention).
 Identify and implement concrete actions that will improve
customer satisfaction and correspondingly, customer behavior.
 Track results.
Reid and Bojanic (2006) illustrated that improving customer service
should be a top priority of all managers working in the hospitality and
tourism industry. Walker (2006) said that we not only need to keep
guests happy during their stay, but also to keep them returning-with their
friends. It costs several times more to attract new guests than to retain
existing ones.
Employee satisfaction
Easerbrook (2006) agreed with Dube and Renaghan (1999) in
that the best way to drive growth and profit is by looking after the
company's staff. Healthy profit has to start with people, if you get the
people part right, the rest will follow. Gregory and Brieiter (2001) found
that satisfied employees are more likely to exhibit customer-oriented
behavior, which in turn will lead to guest satisfaction. Seidman and
Johnson (2002) agreed with Ghislli et al. (2001) in that job satisfaction
as one key to turnover seems to be a job's characteristics.

44
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS

45
Materials and Methods
Research methodology is the treatment that will be applied to the
data collected. This includes the population, instrument, and analysis of
the data.
The aim of this chapter is to assign and define the limits of the
sampling of the study, and to clarify the methods that will be used in
this research in order to collect the desired information and data.
3.1. Materials
3.1.1. Population survey:
The aim of this study is evaluating the experiment of the local
restaurant chains compared to the international ones in Egypt. To
obtain results representing enough the actual conditions. The research
conducted three groups’ four samples from each group. Four samples
from independent fast food restaurants in Sharm El Sheikh, four of the
famous local fast food restaurants chains as well as four international
chains in Sharm El Sheikh.
3.1.2. The Samples:
3.1.2.1. Samples from independent establishments
(Quick Meals, Sharmawy Sharm, El Sheikh, Naama)
3.1.2.2. Samples from local establishments
(Cook Door, Makani, Felfela, Gado)
3.1.2.3. Samples from international establishments (McDonald's,

46
Burger King, Hardee's, KFC)
Table 3: Samples from the establishments
Old Sharm Hadaba Marina
Samples from independent establishments
Quick Meals 1 - -
Sharmawy Sharm 1 1 -
El Sheikh 2 - -
Naama 1 - -
Samples from local establishments
Cook Door - 1 *
Makani - 1 1
Felfela 1 - -
Gado - 1 1
Samples from international establishments
McDonald's - 1 2
Burger King - 1 -
Hardee's - 1 1
KFC - 1 1
* Mean under preparation

47
According Menu Specialty of the selected QSR:
Table 4: Menu specialty of the selected QSR.
Restaurant
Burger
Pizza
Chicken
Snacks
Sandwich
Foul&
Falafel
Seafood
Independent restaurants
Quick Meals * - * * ** * *
Sharmawy
Sharm
* - * * ** - -
El Sheikh - - * * ** ** -
Naama * - * * ** ** -
Local restaurant chains
Cook Door * - * * ** - -
Makani - * * * ** - -
Felfela * - * * ** * *
Gado * - * * ** * *
International restaurant chains
McDonald's ** - * * ** - -
Burger King ** - * * ** - -
Hardee's ** - * * ** - -
KFC * - ** * * - -
- Not serving * Serving ** The core product
Walker (2006) agreed with Brymer (1995) in that classifying.

48
3.2. Methods
The collected data has been divided into primary sources and
secondary sources. Every type of this data will be illustrated and
discussed in some details.
3.2.1. Primary Data
Primary sources have been collected through the following
methods:
3.2.1.1. Guest Questionnaire
The guest questionnaire was designed and distributed at a sample of
fast food guests. This questionnaire form has been developed based
upon the relevant review of literature. The main purpose of this
questionnaire is to know
 How much does the guest like the fast food and at which meal
he prefers.
 The most important factor in a fast food restaurant which
attracts the guest to select fast food chains.
 Evaluation the local fast food restaurant chains experiment
compared to the international chains.
 The advantages and disadvantages in local fast food chains in
Egypt.
 Any problem has the guest ever met through his experiment
with the local fast food restaurant chains?
Questionnaire form distribution took nearly one year, starting at
15/9/2006 up till 1/8/2007. The questionnaire form was written and
distributed in Arabic and English languages. The questionnaire form
been shown in Appendix (A1).

49
3.2.1.2. In-depth Personal Interviews
In- depth interviews were been carried out with the restaurants
and chains managers under the investigation. The purposes of these
interviews were:-
 Identifying the guest evaluation for the fast food chains.
 Egyptian market expectations, needs, and preferences of the
Egyptian customer. And how do the chains deal with these needs
and preferences?
 Common attributes of local and international restaurant chains.
 Training strategy in fast food ones.
 Evaluating marketing strategies in fast food chains.
 Evaluating quality levels in fast food chains, and what is quality
assurance strategy in fast food chains.
 The extent of product development according to customer needs
in their chains.
 Customer satisfaction measuring methods in fast food chains.
 Strengths and weakness points in fast food chains.
The in-depth personal interview are been shown in appendix (A2).
3.2.1.3. Observation Checklist
The observation checklist has been designed to evaluate food
service quality, cleanliness, atmosphere, staff and management
performance. The checklist composed of six functional areas, which
are:
1- Exterior
2- Interior
3- Food Quality
4- Guest Service
5- Employee Appearance
6-Managament Functions

51
The observation checklist has been shown in Appendix (A3).
3.2.2. Secondary sources
All sources of secondary data been illustrated in the previous
chapter "Review of Literature".
The sources of secondary data include:
3.2.2.1. Government Publications
This source includes the data mentioned by the Egyptian
Ministry of Tourism and the Chamber of Tourism Establishments
(CTE).
3.2.2.2. Periodicals and Books
Books, theses, as well as periodicals such as, journal of food
service business research™, Cornell quarterly, restaurant hospitality,
and caterer and hotelkeeper and different articles from many sources.
1.2.2.3. Electronic Sources
Internet websites related to the subject of research have been
mentioned, illustrated and discussed.
3.2.3. Pilot study
The thesis shows a research questionnaire and an interview
which entailed three separate interviews with lecturer's and assistant
lecturers from Helwan University, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel
Management, Also entailed by McDonald's training consultancy team
and their training managers, Americana Company, Gulf Aria human
resource corporate manager, Cilantro, quality assurance managers and
Cinnabon training manager. This helped towards shaping the final
questionnaire and interviews.
The pilot study of questionnaire has been conducted on a limited

51
segment of guests from independent restaurants, local and international
fast food restaurant chains. The questionnaire form has been revised
and adopted according to the guest’s comments.
1.2.3. Data Analysis
Most data were then analyzed utilizing procedures of the SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Science) version 10.0 for windows.
Frequencies standard deviation, percentages and cross-tabulation were
calculated to determine which group differs significantly from each
other and correlation between variables.

52
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

53
4.1 Introduction
The business of food service deals with the preparation and
service of food for consumption by others, whether the food is made
from scratch or is convenience food products that are finished in
microwave or deep fryer, whether the service is over the counter or at
the table.
Food service is "the service of food and beverages to internal
and external guests in an efficient, safe and hygienic manner, and in a
way that will create guest satisfaction"
Food service may be defined as "that phase the food flow (that
is, from the purchasing of the foods to service to the guest) mainly
concerned with the delivery and presentation of the food to the guest,
after the completion of the food production". In some situations food
service may include an element of transportation due to the separation
of the service facilities from the food production, for example of a
centralized cook-freeze operation serving peripheral units.
Food service establishments are those engaged in providing food
service. These establishments include not only the obvious examples of
restaurants and college dining halls but also the salad bars and
sandwich counters in food markets and such" distant relations" as food
vending machines. Food service enterprises range from full-service
restaurants to self-service buffets, from fine restaurants to takeout
operations, and from company cafeterias to hamburger stands.
Quick service or fast food restaurant offer limited menus
featuring food such as hamburgers, fries, hot dogs, various finger foods
and other items for the convenience of people on to the go. Customers
order their food at a counter under a brightly lit menu featuring color
photographs of food items. Quick-service restaurants have increased in
popularity because of their locations. They can usually be found in
very convenient places in every possible area. Their menus are limited,
which makes it easier for customers to make quick decisions on what

54
to eat.
4.2 Questionnaire Response Rate
The research targeted 1500 customers randomly in fast food
operations. A total of 1248 usable replies were obtained, representing
an effective response rate of 83.2 percent.
Table 5: Questionnaire response rate
Category Customers
Number targeted 1500
Number shared 1248
Response rate 83.2 %
4.3 Questionnaire Analysis Results and Discussion
The next evaluation of the questions is ranking according to the
objectives of the questionnaire as follows.

55
Question NO. (1):- Customers’ preferences to deal with fast food
restaurants
The aim of this question is to illustrate customers’ preferences to
deal with fast food restaurants. Figure (1) shows this issue and
illustrated that out of 1248 respondents who dealing with fast food
restaurants; 16.3% of respondents deal with fast food restaurants
always, 24.1% are usually preferred to deal with fast food restaurants
usually. 45.2% of customers deal with fast food restaurants sometimes.
While 14.4% of respondents indicated that they deal with fast food
restaurants rarely.
16.3%
24.1%
45.2%
14.4%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
AlwaysUsuallySometimesFew
Figure 1: Customers preferences to eat fast foods.
Cross tabulation analysis showed that 52.4% of category "from 15 to
less than 25 years old" customers and 45.3% of category "from 25 to
40 years old " deal sometimes with fast food restaurants, while 33.3%
of category "over 40 years old" respondents rarely deal with fast food
restaurants. Also 44.4% of married with children customers and 47.4%
of single respondents deal with fast food restaurants sometimes,
besides 50% of female respondents and 43.1% of male respondents
deal with fast food restaurants.

56
Question NO. (2):- Customers' preferable meal
The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' preferable
meal. Data in table 6 show that most respondents prefer to have the
lunch meal in fast food restaurants by mean 1.77. Statistically,
X2
sig=0,000 showed a significant variances among respondent as (P<,
05) Finn et al. (2000). Breakfast meal came in the second position by
mean 2.22 and std. deviation .94, while dinner was the least preferable
meal to most of customers.
Table 6: Customers' preferable meal
Meal Mean Std. Error
Std.
Deviation
Lunch 1.77 0.02 .80
Breakfast 2.22 0.03 .94
Dinner 2.29 0.02 .77
Cross tabulation analysis indicated that 37.5% of male respondents,
42.1% of single respondents and 37% of Egyptian customers indicated
that breakfast was the most preferable meal to eat in QSRs. while
48.6% of male customers, 50% of married without children
respondents and 52.2% of foreigner customers ensured that lunch was
the most preferable meal. Finally, 31.3 of female customers, 25% of
married without children respondents and 22.2% of Egyptian
respondents enjoyed eating dinner in QSRs.

57
Question NO. (3):- Customers' restaurants preferences
The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' restaurants
preferences. From the tabulated data in table (7), it could be noticed
that local chain restaurants were the first category, which attracted
most of customers by a mean of 1.87, and a std. deviation of .72.
International chain restaurants came in the second position by a mean
of 1.95 and a std. deviation of .92. The mean 2.32 highlighted that
independent restaurants took the third place in the customers'
restaurants preferences.
Table 7: Statistics of customers' restaurants preferences
Restaurant
Mean Std.
Error
Std.
Deviation
Local chain restaurants 1.87 0.02 .72
International chain restaurants 1.95 0.03 .92
Independent restaurants 2.32 0.02 .84
Cross tabulation analysis indicated that 31.3% of female respondents,
25.9% of married with children respondents and 27.2% of Egyptian
customers indicated that independent restaurants was the most
preferable restaurants. In the other hand, 37.5% of male customers,
37% of married with children respondents and 35.8% of Egyptian
customers ensured that local chain restaurants were the most preferable
QSRs. Finally, 46.9 of female customers, 50% of married without
children respondents and 65.2% of foreigner respondents enjoyed
eating in international chain restaurants.
Question NO. (4):- Customers reasons for restaurant type
preference
The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' reasons for
restaurant type preference. From Figure (3), it could be noticed that
37% of respondents prefer international chain restaurants for the
following reasons:

58
 Safe
 Trust
 Cleanliness
 Good promotions
 Brand name
 New product
 Food quality
 Consistence standard
 Good location in every where
 Good quality
 Fast service
 Atmosphere
 Good price
Besides, 38% of customers highlighted that they prefer local chain
restaurants for the following reasons:
Egyptian investment
Know the source
Egyptian traditional taste
Trust
Halal
Quality
Good service
Good value
Good price
Safe
Atmosphere
Brand name
Menu variety
Only 25% of customers were satisfied with the independent
restaurants' food for the following reasons:
 Good price
 Fair value
 Egyptian taste
 Delicious
 Halal

59
 Fresh food
 Friendly service
 Good quality
 Atmosphere
25%
38%37%
0
10
20
30
40
Independent
resturants
Local chains
resturants
International
chain resturants
Figure 2: Customers' reasons for restaurants type preferences
This agreed Lan, and Khan (1995) with see page 10.
Question NO. (5):- Important factors in QSR that attract customer
The aim of this question is to show important factors in QSR that attract
customer. Data in Table (8) showed statistics (means, standard deviations, standard
error) of important factors in QSR that attract customer.
Table 8: Statistics of important factors in QSR that attract customer
Important factors
Mean Std.
Error
Std.
Deviation
X2
signification
Food quality 4.40 0.03 .95 0.00
price 4.11 0.03 .95 0.00
Service quality 3.90 0.03 1.01 0.00
Consistence
Standard
3.60 0.03 1.13 0.00
Atmosphere 3.48 0.04 1.25 0.00
Brand name 3.30 0.04 1.31 0.01
Menu variety 3.17 0.03 1.11 0.00
Location 3.11 0.03 1.00 0.00
Promotional 2.71 0.04 1.29 0.00

61
activities
Results indicated that the variables food quality, price and service
quality were the first three important factors in QSRs that attract
customers by means of 4.40, 4.11 and 3.90, respectively. Consistence
standard, atmosphere and brand name came in the second position by
means of 3.60, 3.48 and 3.30, respectively. The means of 3.17 and 3.11
highlighted that menu variety and location respectively took the third
place in the customers' restaurant preference, while promotional
activities were the last factor by a mean of 2.71 to choose restaurant.
Statistically X2
sig=0,000 showed a significant variation among
respondent as (P<, 05). This agreed with Ball (1992).see page 7.
However, the X2sig=0,000 for the other factors indicated that
there was a significant variation among respondents (P<, X2sig, 05) as
follow:
2.9%
3.8%
26.9%
32.7%33.7%
4.8%
11.5%
28.8%
28.8%
26.%
8.7%
11.5%
30.8%
21.2%
27.9%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
1 =Least
im portant
Low im portantIm portantHigh im portant5 =Most
im portant
Service quality Consistence Standard Atmosphere
Figure 3: Important factors in QSR that attract customer (service
Quality, consistence standard and atmosphere)
Figure 3 shows that 93.3% (Important, High important & most
important) of the respondents ranked service quality as an important
factor in QSR that attracts customers, 83.6% of them gave the same
rank to consistence standard variable and 79.9% (Important, High
important & most important) of customers indicated the above ranks to
atmosphere variable, while, only 6.7, 16.3 and 20.2% (Low important
& least important) of respondents ranked service quality, consistence

61
standard and atmosphere, respectively, as the lowest important factors.
Agreed with Noel and Cullen (1996), see, p.14.
Figure 4: Important factors in QSR that attract customer
(Brand name and menu variety)
Figure 4 highlighted that 74% (important, High important& most
important) of respondents indicated that brand name is an important
factor to chose a restaurant. 71.2% of them gave the same rank to menu
variety variable, While 26% and 28.9% (Low and Least important) of
respondents ranked brand name and menu variety respectively as the
lowest important factors.
4.8%
22.1%
39.4%
25%
8.7%
25%
16.3%
31.7%
16.3%
10.6%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Least
important
Low
important
ImportantHigh
important
Most
important
Location Promotional activities
Figure 5: Important factors in QSR that attract customer
(Location and promotional activities)
Figure 5 illustrates that 73.1% (Important, high important &
most important) of the respondents indicated that the location is an
important factor to choose a restaurant. While, 58.6% of them gave the
22.1%
14.4%
25%23.1%
26.9%
33.7%
12.5%
23.1%
13.5%
5.8%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
Least
important
Low
important
ImportantHigh
important
Most
important
Brand name Menu variety

62
same rank to promotional activities variable, 26.9, and 41.3% (Low
and least important) of the respondents are ranked the location and
promotional activities, respectively, as the lowest important factors.
Question NO. (6):- Restaurant important categories factors'
evaluation
The aim of this question is to illustrate Restaurant categories
factors' evaluation. From the table (9) it could be showed statistics of
different restaurant categories in the study.
Table 9: Statistics for restaurants factors' evaluation
Independent Local chain
International
chain
Important
factors
Mean Std.
Deviatio
n
Mean Std.
Deviati
on
Mean Std.
Deviat
ion
Brand name 2.32 1.30 3.63 0.93 4.19 1.09
Location 2.63 1.33 3.55 0.97 4.07 1.07
Price 3.91 1.33 3.73 1.06 3.37 1.37
Food quality 2.93 1.38 3.87 1.07 4.22 0.94
Service quality 2.68 1.27 3.56 0.97 3.95 1.03
Consistence
Standard 2.48 1.28 3.51 0.97 4.03 1.01
Menu variety 2.85 1.38 3.25 0.99 3.65 1.25
Atmosphere 2.27 1.18 3.12 1.04 3.80 1.16
Promotional
activities 1.57 1.00 2.85 1.03 3.78 1.30
All factors
statistics 2.63 0.28 3.5 0.09 3.89 0.34
Results proposed that the respondents evaluated all factors in
independent restaurants as neutral factors by a grand mean of 2.63,
while they evaluated the same factor in local chain restaurants and
international chain restaurants as high level factors by a grand means
3.5 & 3.89, respectively (see table 9).

63
From the tabulated data in Table (10) it could be illustrated
customers' ranking of preferable factors for different restaurant
categories according to their means.
Table 10: Restaurant categories factors' ranking
According to their means
Independent
factors
Mean
Local chain
factors
Mean
International
chain
factors
Mean
Price 3.91 Food quality 3.87 Food quality 4.22
Food quality 2.93 Price 3.73 Brand name 4.19
Menu variety 2.85 Brand name 3.63 Location 4.07
Service quality 2.68
Service
quality
3.56
Consistence
standard
4.03
Location 2.63 Location 3.55
Service
quality
3.95
Consistence
standard
2.5
Consistence
standard
3.51 Atmosphere 3.80
Brand name 2.32 Menu variety 3.25
Promotional
activities
3.78
Atmosphere 2.27 Atmosphere 3.12 Menu variety 3.65
Promotional
activities
1.57
Promotional
activities
2.85 Price 3.37
Results highlighted that price was the first preferable factor by
the respondents for independent restaurants and they ranked it as a high
level factor. Food quality, menu variety, service quality, location and
consistence standard were respectively the second preferable factors by
respondents in the independent restaurants, where customers ranked
them as neutral factors by means ranged from 2.5 to 2.93. Brand name,
atmosphere and promotional activities were the lowest level factors
indicated by the respondents for independents restaurants.
However the customers evaluated food quality, price, brand
name, service quality, and location and consistence standard
respectively, as high level factors to choose a local chain restaurant,
while they ranked menu variety, atmosphere and promotional activities
at the last position respectively, as neutral factors to eat in local chain
restaurants.

64
Finally, the respondents evaluated the most attractive factors in
international chain restaurants as follows; food quality, brand name,
location, consistence standard, service quality, atmosphere,
promotional activities and menu variety respectively. Price was the last
factor mentioned by customers; where they ranked it as a neutral
factor.
X2
sig=0,00 illustrated that there is a significant variation
between respondents' evaluation for restaurant categories' factors
according to (P<,05) as follows:

65
Brand name
From the Figure 6, it could be noticed that international chain
restaurants took the highest level among restaurant categories with that
factor by 79.8% (Highest level & high level) of respondents. While
local restaurant chains are in the second position by 54.8% (Highest
level & high level) of them. Only 21.2% (Highest level & high level)
of customers ranked brand name factor in independent restaurants as
high-level factor. In the other side, 59.6% (Low level & lowest level)
of respondents mentioned that independent restaurants had unknown
brand name
37.5%
7.7%
13.5%
19.2%
22.1%
1.9%
19.2%
35.6% 36.5%
6.7%
4.8%
52.9%
26.9%
11.5%
3.8%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Lowest levelLow levelNeutralHigh levelHighest level
Independent Local chains International chains
Figure 6: Brand name factor's evaluation in QSRs.
See Brand concept According to King and Ronald (2006), p.21.
From the researcher point of view brand name is very important to
built and to keep it.

66
Location
Figure 7 shows customers' evaluation of locations for different
restaurant categories.
27.9%
18.3%
27.9%
14.4%
11.5%
3.8%
6.7%
36.5%36.5%
16.3%
2.9%4.8%
22.1%23.1%
47.1%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Lowest levelLow levelNeutalHigh levelHighest level
Independent Local chains International chains'
Figure 7: Location factor's evaluation in QSRs.
Results illustrated that 70.2% (Highest level & high level) of
customers indicated that international chain restaurants had the most
attractive locations. While the local chain restaurants took the second
position by 52.8% (Highest level & high level) of them. Only 25.9%
(Highest level & high level) of the respondents evaluated independent
restaurants' locations as good places. In the other hand, 46.2% (Low
level & lowest level) of customers unaccepted independent restaurants'
locations. This agreed with Ridgeway and Ridgeway (1994). See page,
15.

67
9.6%
6.7%
15.4%
19.2%
49%
2.9%
9.6%
26.9%
32.7%27.9%
11.5%
16.3%
27.9%
12.5%
31.7%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Price
From the figure 8 it could indicate customers' evaluation of price
factor for different restaurant categories.
Figure 8: Price factor's evaluation in QSRs.
Results indicated that price was the most effective factor in
independent restaurants; 68.2% (Highest level & high level) of the
respondent proposed that the price in independent restaurant was
reasonable. 60.6% (Highest level & high level) of the customers
mentioned that local chain restaurants provide a logical price.
International chain restaurants were in the third position by 44.2%
(Highest level & high level) of the respondents expected that they
provide rational price. The researcher agreed that the price has a
tremendous impact on the success or failure of a product. Etzel (2004).
See page 16.

68
Food quality
Figure 9 shows customers' evaluation of food quality factor for
different restaurant categories.
Figure 9: Food quality factor's evaluation in QSRs.
Results illustrated that, 77.9% (Highest level & high level) of the
customers indicated that international chain restaurants had the
maximum food quality level. While the local chain restaurants took the
second position by 69.2% (Highest level & high level) of them.
Besides, 37.5% (Highest level & high level) of respondents evaluated
independent restaurants' food quality as a top level. In the other hand,
38.4% (Low level & lowest level) of customers disagreed with
independent restaurants' food quality level.
The researcher agree with that keeping consistency of food quality
is a though task for all service restaurant in QSR chains Seidman and
Johnson (2002). See page 13.
22.1%
16.3%
24.1%
21.2%
16.3%
4.8%4.8%
21.2%
37.5%
31.7%
1.9%1.9%
18.3%
27.9%
50%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0

69
Service quality
Figure 10 shows customers' evaluation of service quality factor
for different restaurant categories.
Figure 10: Service quality factor's evaluation in QSRs.
Results highlighted that, service quality was the most effective
factor in international chain restaurants by 64.4% (Highest level & high
level) of customers, While 50% (Highest level & high level) of the
respondents were satisfied with service quality in local chain
restaurants. Besides, 28.9% (Highest level & high level) of customers
agreed with service quality in independent restaurants. In the other
side, 45.2% (Low level & lowest level) of the respondents were
unsatisfied with the level of service quality offered in independent
restaurants. Service is an intangible product that sold or purchased in the
marketplace. Reid and Bojanic (2006). See page 14
24%
21.2%
26%
20.2%
8.7%
3.8%4.8%
41.3%
31.7%
18.3%
2.9%2.9%
29.8%
25%
39.4%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

71
Consistence standard
Figure 11 shows customers' evaluation of consistence standard
factor for different restaurant categories.
Figure 11: Consistence standard factor's evaluation in QSRs.
Results illustrated that, 71.1% (Highest level & high level) of the
customers ensured that international chain restaurants had a
consistence standard level for their products and services, 49% and
16.3% (Highest level & high level) of them claimed the same result for
local chain restaurants and independent restaurants respectively. But,
50% (Low level & lowest level) of the customers mentioned that
independent restaurants had no consistence standard level.
Zero defects is the standard that service organizations must set this
very high standard. Noel and Cullen (1996). See page 14.
29.8%
20.2%
33.7%
4.8%
11.5%
1.9%
11.5%
37.5%
31.7%
17.3%
1.9%5.8%
21.2%
29.8%
41.3%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0

71
Menu variety
Figure 12 shows customers' evaluation of menu variety factor for
different restaurant categories.
Figure 12: Menu variety factor's evaluation in QSRs.
Results indicated that, 51% (Highest level & high level) of the
customers claimed that international chain restaurants provide a variety
of choices in their menu, and 35.6 and 35.6% (Highest level & high
level) of them ensured the same results for local chain restaurants and
independent ones, respectively. But, 38.5 and 22.1% (Low level &
lowest level) of the customers were disagreed with the above result for
independent restaurants and local chain ones, respectively.
Walker (2006) highlighted that quick-service restaurant menus
are limited, which makes it easy for customers to make quick decisions
on what to purchase. While the researcher agree with Ball (1992) in
that QSRs may be provided in product range offered or by variations in
one basic product (dressings, fillings, supplements). See page 5, 7.
26%
12.5%
26%
22.1%
13.5%
1.9%
20.2%
42.3%
22.1%
13.5%
5.8%
11.5%
31.7%
13.5%
37.5%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45

72
Atmosphere
Figure 13 indicates that, 62.5% (Highest level & high level) of
the customers claimed that international chain restaurants had the most
attractive atmosphere, as 37.5 and 14.4% (Highest level & high level)
of them ensured the same results for local restaurant chains and
independent restaurants, respectively. On the other side, 53.8%, 28.9
and 13.5 (Low level & lowest level) of respondents were disagreed
with the above results for independent restaurants, local restaurant
chains and international restaurant chains, respectively.
Figure 13: Atmosphere factor's evaluation in QSRs.
The researcher agreed with Wiley and Sons (2006). that a friendly
atmosphere, maintain consistent standards, and offer good value. A
friendly greeting is the best possible start to a dining experience. See page
28.
37.5%
16.3%
31.7%
10.6%
3.8% 5.8%
23.1%
33.7%
28.8%
8.7%
4.8%
8.7%
24%
26.9%
35.6%
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0

73
Promotional activities
Figure 14 showed customers' evaluation of promotional
activities factor for different restaurant categories.
Figure 14: Promotional activities factor's evaluation in QSRs.
Results indicated that, 66.4% (Highest level & high level) of the
customers claimed that international chain restaurants had the most
attractive promotional activities, as 23 and 4.8% (Highest level & high
level) of them ensured the same result for local restaurant chains and
independent restaurants respectively. On the other hand, 80.8, 35.6 and
16.4 % (Low level & lowest level) of the respondents were disagreed
with the above results for independent restaurants, local chain
restaurants and international chain restaurants, respectively. The
researcher agrees with that having an excellent product at a good
price and in the right place is not enough. Sales goals will not be
obtained unless the consumer is aware of the product's existence.
There are several ways of doing this with promotion.Walker
(2006).see page 26.
70.2%
10.6%
14.4%
1.9%2.9%
9.6%
26%
41.3%
16.3%
6.7% 10.6%5.8%
17.3%
27.9%
38.5%
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0

74
Question NO. (7):- Customers' evaluation for the experiment of
local fast food restaurant chains.
The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' evaluation for
the experiment of local fast food restaurant chains. The mean of 1.4
and standard deviation of 0.49 proposed that the most of respondents
found the experiment of local fast food restaurants as successful.
Figure 15: Customers' evaluation for the experiment of Egyptian
QSRs.
Figure 15 shows that 59.6% of the customers indicated that the
experiment of local fast food restaurants is successful, while 40.4% of
them mentioned that the experiment is acceptable.
The researcher agrees with that the experiment of local fast food
restaurant chains is successful.
59.6%
40.4%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
SuccessfulAcceptable

75
Question NO. (8):- Advantages and disadvantages of local fast food
restaurant chains.
The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' evaluation for
the advantages and disadvantages of local fast food restaurant chains.
Results highlighted that 21.2% of the respondents had no experience to
know the advantages and disadvantages of local fast food restaurant
chains. While, 78.8% of customers had enough experience to indicate
the advantages and disadvantages of local fast food restaurant chains as
follows:
A- Advantages:
 Egyptian investment
 Know the source
 Egyptian taste
 Trust
 Halal
 Quality
 Good service
 Good value
 Good price
 Save
 Atmosphere
 Brand name
 Menu variety
 Specialist
 Suitable for youth
B- Disadvantages:
 Few promotional activities.
 Not very strong marketing
 Doesn’t have a very strong brand name.
 Low level of consistence standard
 Not very well atmosphere.
 Few outlets, limited locations
 Service time is not always fast

76
 Price not reasonable for many segments in the society
 Nutritional facts aren’t shown for the guest.
 Not serve soups, or fruits.
 Need more care of kids
 Need more attention for the languages level (English, Russian, and
Italian).
 Need to offer more services for the guest such as Wi – Fi, art
channels, and visa card payment.
 Need to have hot line.

77
Question NO. (9):- Customers' problems with local fast food
restaurant chains.
The aim of this question is to illustrate customers' problems with
local fast food restaurant chains. As Figure 16 presents this issue and
illustrates that 48% of the respondents had no problems with Egyptian
fast food restaurant chains.
Yes
52%
No
48%
Figure 16: Customers' problems with Egyptian QSRs.
However, 52% of customers had real problems during their
experience with local fast food restaurant chains; and these problems
include:
 Late ordered.
 Cold food.
 Long service time.
 Low service level.
 Wrong order.
 Some items in the menu but not available.
 Their no enough care about special order.
 Low level of cleanliness.
 No consistence standard.
 There is no kids’ corner.
 There is not a non-smoking corner.
 There is not a family corner.
 Chairs aren’t comfortable.
 Tables aren’t stabilized.

78
 Need more attention for the languages level (English, Russian,
and Italian).
 Nutritional facts aren’t shown for the guest.
 More care about nutrition value should be taken.
 Need more variety in soups, salads, and fresh fruits fresh
vegetables, cereals, and other group products.
 Need more variety for the kid's fun box and toys for the children
meals.
 The price of the meal should be related according to perceived
value for money and be in line with customer's expectations.
 Home delivery need to be covering most the distances, Single-
telephone-number systems in delivery firms use computerized
guest histories to facilitate order taking, could make the order
through the internet.
 Need more care about carhop, drive in, and drive through
services.
 Credit card payment should be acceptable, and credit card
machine should be available.
 New product should be frequency every limited period.
 Creating a web site, hot line or other advertisement that makes
the users meeting with your product or service memorable, fun
or useful.
 Need enough area for the youth (comfortable chairs, ART
channels, Wi- Fi wireless connection with the Internet.
 More care for the kids (kid's meals, kid's gifts, kid's birthdays,
kid's area, and kids in the school.

79
Question NO. (10):- Customers' suggestions and
recommendations.
The main aim of this question is to guess customers' suggestions
and recommendations. Results highlighted that, 24% of the
respondents had no experience to propose suggestions and
recommendations. In the other side, 76% of the customers had enough
experience to indicate some suggestions and recommendations include
the following:
 Should have corporation for the restaurant staff avoid
individualism.
 More attention for staff selecting.
 Listen to your staff and your guests and chair them.
 More attention for the languages level (English, Russian, Italian).
 Need more awareness of personnel hygiene and sanitation.
 Staff should be aware of the standard importance.
 Make changes when you need to.
 Marketing research study and customer needs analysis should be
frequency.
 Chains should be aware of market new trends.
 The effective use for the Internet through survey, or questionnaire
for the guest through the Internet.
 A name must be memorable and should be easy to pronounce.
 A logo is the restaurant's identifying mark that the public will
recognize.
 The price of the meal should be related according to perceived value
for money and be in line with customer's expectations.
 Nutritional facts should be shown for the guest chain should
include nutritional information on the packaging of all of its
products.
 Fresh juices, decaffeinated, water or low fat milk making good
choices when the guest are eating out will help the guest maintain a
healthy diet care about nutrition value should be taken.
 More variety in soups, salads, and fresh fruits, fresh vegetables,
cereals, and other group products.
 Special meals for diabetic, heart problems, high blood, sports,
healthy food items.

81
 More care for the kids (kid's meals, kid's gifts, kid's birthdays,
kid's area, and kids in the school.
 Soda is highly caloric and not nutritious – kids should have water or
milk instead.
 Avoid chicken nuggets – fried nuggets are sorry imposters of very
chicken
 Skip the fries - consider taking along a bag of mini carrots, grapes
or other fruits and vegetables to have instead. This will add vitamins
and fiber to the meal.
 Order the kids meal with some substitutions.
 In sit-down restaurants, help them for chicken and vegetables rather
than a big plate of macaroni and cheese.
 Chain should not try to find more customers for its products, but
to find more products for its customers.
 Home delivery need to be covering all the distances, single-
telephone-number systems in delivery firms use computerized
guest histories to facilitate order taking, could make the order
through the internet.
 Development of, drive in, and drive through services.
 Credit cards are convenient to the guest, credit card payment
should be acceptable, and credit card machine should be
available.
 New product should be frequency every limited period.
 Creating a web site, hot line or other advertisement that makes
the users meeting with your product or service memorable, fun or
useful.
 Need enough area for the youth (comfortable chairs, ART
channels, Wi- Fi wireless connection with the Internet.
 More care about catering for banks, schools, factories.
 Customer feedback is vital to improve product quality.
 Value is a big lure.
 Chains have to reach the customer in a way that is compatible
with their beliefs, language, needs and expectations.
 To be flexible with the changing times, chains have to be flexible
with the needs of the guest.
 Aligning your customer service with your brand is the best way

81
to build a solid relationship.
 More and more sales are taking place in trade outlets such as
forecourt shops and convenience stores.
 Dealing well with problems and queries.
 Providing a personal touch.
 Customers expect fast foods to be served quickly.
 Mention portion control, plate design.
Personal data analysis.-Question NO. (11):
Table 11: Personal data analysis.
Variables Categories Percent
Gender
Male
Female
69.2%
30.8%
Level of age
Less than 25 years
From 25 to 40
More than 40
40.3%
51%
8.7%
Martial status
Single
Married without children
Married with children
54.8%
19.2%
26%
Nationality
Egyptian
Foreigner
77.9%
22.1%

82
4.4 Interview Response Rate
Out of 42 fast food restaurants' managers in Sharm El Sheikh
(study population), 36 of them accepted to make interview with the
researcher and they appear greet cooperation with the researcher, only
8 persons apologized to make interview with the researcher saying that
they are not ready to deal with the researcher as they are too busy.
Table 12: Interview's response rate
Category Independent
Local
chains
International
chains
Total
Number targeted 12 16 16 44
Number shared 9 15 12 36
Response rate 75 % 93.8 % 75 % 81.8 %
4.5 Interview Analysis Results and Discussion
The next analysis of the questions is ranking according to the
objectives of the interview as follows.

83
Question NO. (1):- Managers evaluation for QSRs in Egypt
The main aim of this question is to illustrate managers’
evaluation for QSRs in Egypt. Figure 17 helps this aim and highlights
that 88.9% of managers accepted the fast food chains in Egypt as a
successful experiment, while; only 11.1% of the respondents indicated
that it was acceptable.
11.1%
88.9%
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
SuccessfulAcceptable
Figure 17: Managers evaluation for QSRs in Egypt.
Restaurant managers proposed the following reasons for that
success:
 Operations provide fast service with good quality.
 Good meals with cheap prices
 Very famous, very clean and trust.
 Customers can find it in every place and it's easy to deal with.
 The man and woman are working and there is no time for cooking.

تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف

تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف

Similar to تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف (20)

More from Hany Atef

More from Hany Atef (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

تقييم تجربة سلاسل المطاعم المحلية مقارنه بالعالمية في مصر رسالة ماجستير خاصة بالدكتور هاني عاطف