Ensure the security of your HCL environment by applying the Zero Trust princi...
Market Research- Prospect Lounge
1. Prospect Lounge Presented By: Team 5 MKTG 470.5 Dec 9, 2009
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18. Methodology: NAME DAY TIME Section Jenna F 1pm 1 Eric W 11am 2 Gary T 8 pm 3 Patrick M 7 am 4 Kate TH 2 pm 5 Elisha T 9 am 6 Lauren TH 4 pm 7 Lindsey M 12 pm 8
53. Key Findings: The top motivator for SDSU students to frequent our establishment was because friends want to go (at 94% of respondents choosing that option). The top rankings for how much students would spend on alcohol and food were 40% of SDSU students spending 0-$9.99 on alcohol and 47.5% would spend 10-19.99 on food.
54. Recommendations: SDSU students are not the ideal market segment of the population of San Diego to target. Most students did not frequent La Jolla on a monthly basis enough to justify the allocation of substantial marketing funds.
55. Recommendations: We recommend only targeting SDSU students if you are willing to significantly decrease your drink prices, offer additional incentives for students (special discount happy hours or student discounts with SDSU ID)
56. Recommendation: If you do choose to market to SDSU students we recommend that you focus on the top motivators for the students through marketing your food portions and quality. The market would bear a slight increase in food prices to compensate for potentially lower liquor prices to generate new traffic.
57. Recommendations: Another recommendation is to do social marketing, and social incentives inorder to play upon the fact that friends are the key motivators. We recommend conducting more marketing research to help better define the target market of students 21 or older who are willing to go to La Jolla for a night out.
58. Executive Summary: SDSU has a a low demand for a bar and grill in la jolla They are willing to spend approx. $10-19 on food and 0-$9.99 on drinks. The top motivator is friends All though the sdsu students do like the attributes, they may not be willing to travel that far
59. Limitations: 1. Some respondents may NOT have wanted to admit if they have an expense for alcoholic beverages, or go to bars if they were underage. Subsequent studies would benefit from having 2 versions of the survey for each age group. 2. When asked to rank items, many failed to respond, did not fully respond, or incorrectly responded. For the sake of time or convenience many respondents just circled their choices. Subsequent studies could be worded clearer, or rather only ask to rank the top 3 choices.
60. Limitations: 3) Regarding Q #7- may be susceptible for misinterpretation. Subsequent studies should be more clear as to whether the individual expense for drinks is regarding drinks consumed or purchased. 4) In subsequent studies we would ask how they heard of Prospect.
![The Researchers: ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Lauren Magnuson Daniel Mickelson Patrick Thomas Eric Villanova]()