Upload
msaadnaeem
View
224
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
1/31
40 Int. J. Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2012
Copyright 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast foodrestaurants in an emerging market
Ateeq Abdul Rauf*
School of Business and Economics,
University of Management and Technology,
Lahore, Pakistan
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author
Irfan ButtCollege of Commerce and Economics,
Sultan Qaboos University,
Muscat, Oman
Email: [email protected]
Abstract:This study empirically examines Pakistani consumer perceptions offoreign fast food restaurants. The objective of this study was to understandmultinational restaurant consumer behaviour in Pakistan and draw managerialimplications for international fast food marketers and operators of Pakistanirestaurants. The findings were based on a sample of 410 respondents. Theattributes of a fast food restaurant, identified through factor analysis, comprisedquality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation and
healthiness, location and price, staff service and staff outlook. Multivariateanalysis of variance was performed to understand consumer perceptions bydemographics and other variables. Analysis revealed that age, gender, maritalstatus, education, household size, income and occupation and price influencethe ratings of attributes for restaurant selection. Results showed size ofhousehold, age and occupation were also factors in determining frequency ofpatronage. The findings were compared with earlier studies conducted in theUSA, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and India.
Keywords: consumer perceptions; consumer behaviour; foreign; MANOVA;fast food; restaurants; Pakistan; emerging market; multinational; factoranalysis; demographics.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Rauf, A.A. and Butt, I.(2012), Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants in an emerging
market,Int. J. Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.4070.
Biographical notes: Ateeq Abdul Rauf is a Lecturer at University ofManagement and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. He has previously worked asResearch Fellow at Lahore University of Management Sciences, where heconducted research and taught undergraduate courses in management. He hasedited the appendices of the 13th edition of Principles of Marketing: A SouthAsian Perspective by Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong, Prafulla Agnihotri andEhsan ul Haque. He is a graduate of Northwestern Universitys Master of
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
2/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 41
Science programme in Integrated Marketing Communications. His research
interests are in the area of consumption and anti-consumption, sociologicaleffects of marketing and media economics.
Irfan Butt is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at College of Commerce andEconomics, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. Prior to joining SultanQaboos, he was a faculty member at Lahore University of ManagementSciences, Lahore, Pakistan. He received his PhD from Carleton University,Ottawa, Canada, where he also worked as a visiting faculty. He received hisMBA from Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona, USA, andBA from College of Wooster, Ohio, USA. His research interests are in theareas of export marketing, market positioning strategy, product-country imageand content analysis.
1 Study objectives
In recent years, the fast food industry has expanded tremendously around the world.The global fast food market was valued at $154.7 billion in 2008 is forecasted to increase
by 29.3% to $200 billion in 2013 (Researchandmarkets.com, 2010). Thus, managersof major international fast food players ought to consider consumer expectations and
behaviour in local markets since such perceptions are susceptible to culturaldifferences (Lee and Ulgado, 1997, p.39). Particelli (1990) mentions that success in aninternational scale will always require local adaptation. This is specifically the case for
product categories associated with cultural and ethnic identification such as food (Reillyand Wallendorf, 1987). Keillor and Fields (1996) note that consumption habits arerelated to the cultural and ethnic environment of the consumers. Anderson and He (1999)contend because it functions in a cultural and demographic environment, the marketingmix (for fast food) may need changes from region to region to be appropriate for thetarget market (p.83). In this regard, researchers have examined various countries likeIndia, South Korea, China, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. One study notes that consumer
perceptions on fast food may even differ across countries as similar as the USA andCanada (Kara et al., 1995).
Previous studies have established that demographics can affect consumers patronageof fast food restaurants and that frequency of visits to such establishments is related togender, age and various household characteristics (Grazin and Olsen, 1997). Akbay et al.(2007) concluded that demographic variables such as age and income as well as otherconsumer perceptions of attributes such as price and healthiness influence patronage offast food restaurants. Oyewole (2007) concluded that gender, age, marital status and
income affect the frequency of visits made by consumers to fast food outlets. Hence,marketing managers of fast food restaurants need to give due importance todemographics when designing marketing strategies.
This paper intends to enhance existing literature on the subject of foreign fast foodconsumption by examining an emerging market, i.e. Pakistan. First, we discuss factorsaffecting consumer perceptions and their choice of multinational fast food chains. Wethen highlighted differences in consumer perception patterns within sub-groups of thesame demographic (e.g. age) using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), atechnique hardly used in such studies before. Keeping the above in view, the followingobjectives were set out for the study:
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
3/31
42 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
1 To examine the relationship between frequency of visits to fast food restaurants and
consumer demographics.
2 To explore attributes considered important for patronising foreign fast foodrestaurants.
3 To investigate how consumer preferences differ by family size, income, age, gender,occupation and marital status.
2 The fast food industry
Researchers have conceptualised fast food in different ways. Keillor and Fields (1996)define it as a franchised restaurant chain offering both dining and take out facilitieswith no table service (e.g. McDonalds, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken)
(p.84). Bender and Bender (1995), on the other hand, confine fast food to food items thathave a limited menu and are prepared under certain production line techniques. However,for this paper we considered fast food as the sale of food and drinks for immediateconsumption either on the premises or in designated eating areas shared with otherfoodservice operators, or for consumption elsewhere (Researchandmarkets.com, 2010).
Many common household names in fast food like McDonalds and Kentucky FriedChicken (KFC) have their origins in the USA. However, the expansion of many suchfranchises in recent years has occurred considerably outside their home country. Inemerging markets, global brands such as McDonalds (with 65% of sales overseas) andYum! Brands (with 50% of sales overseas) have been leading fast food growth byfranchising (Wikinvest, 2009).
In China the fast food industry is growing by leaps and bounds. Compounded annualgrowth rate was expected at around 25% from 2008 to 2011 (Report Buyer, 2008).
Reasons for this include a busier way of life in urban China leading to an increasingdemand for quick meals. According to Getchee Solutions (2009), Burger King plans toopen up to 300 outlets in China in the five years from 2009 to 2014 and KFC worked onopening at least 300 stores in 2009.
The Indian fast food market is burgeoning, too. India is among the top ten markets forfast food consumption in the Asia-Pacific region (Goyal and Singh, 2007). According tothe Worldwatch Institute, Indias fast food industry was growing by 40% a year in 2005(Tiwari and Verma, 2008).
Analysts have spotted similar growth in other countries as well. In Turkey, Yum,McDonalds and Burger King (BKC) have all expanded to the country of 73 million(MSN.com, 2010). Not satisfied by expansion rates in South Korea, McDonalds aimedto invest $15 million in the country in 2010 and $30 million in 2011 (MSN.com, 2010).Fast-foodrestaurantshavepenetratedeverymarketinCEE[CentralandEasternEurope].
Brazil is a battleground for fast food in Latin America (PricewaterhousecoopersSouthAfrica, 2010).Another emerging market is Pakistan, a South Asian country of roughly 180 million
people. In Pakistan, international fast food chains have increased their presence in recentyears in urban locations all over the country. One report states:
Eating out is becoming more common with people trying continental andChinese as well as fast foods. People take more time to go out, enjoy deliciousfood, and hang out at coffeehouses, ice cream parlours, parks and so on. Thishas also raised demand for restaurants, coffeehouses, fast food outlets, dessertparlours, parks, bowling alleys and other recreational facilities across urbancentres. (Euromonitor International, 2008, pp.37, 7374)
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
4/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 43
Horeca(Hotel/Restaurant/Caf)foodsalesareincreasedmorethan86%fromapproximately
PKR 224 million in 2004 to approximately PKR 417.4 million in 2008 (Planet Retail,2009a, 2009b). Planet Retail (2009a, 2009b) data shows that 1.9% of all retail sales in
Pakistan are from HoReCa.
Major fast food players in Pakistan include the multinational chains McDonalds,
KFC, Pizza Hut, Subway, Hardees, Nandos and Dominos Pizza. There are no local fast
food players with an expansive reach in the country.
3 Literature on fast food research
Credible research literature on the Pakistani fast food industry is virtually non-existent.
As a result, research conducted in other countries provided leads for this study. Kara
et al. (1995) looked at differences between US and Canadian cities, Lee and Ulgado(1997) explored perceptual differences of consumers in South Korea and the USA; and
Oyewole (2007) studied African-American consumers. Bhuians (2000) article discussed
consumer perceptions in Saudi Arabia. Papers presented by Chavadi and Kokatnur
(2008), Goyal and Singh (2007) and Tiwari and Verma (2008) surveyed cities in India.
All these studies provided useful insight as to how research should be carried out in an
emerging market like Pakistan.
Kara et al. (1995) discussed how perceptions of fast food consumers differ across
Canada and the USA. The aim of the study was to establish whether consumers on either
side of the border perceived outlets of the same franchise similarly or not. A survey
questionnaire was distributed to 200 households. The analysis of survey results revealed
a significant difference between US and Canadian consumers based on the type of fast
food they consumed, the place where they consumed the food and the price they were
willing to pay. The researchers also used correspondence analysis to evaluate fast foodperceptions in the two countries. Frequent US fast food consumers deem variety of food,
speed of service and friendly staff to be the most important criteria in selection. Less
frequent US customers feel price and promotion are the most essential factors. Frequent
consumers in Canada opined that restaurant seating capacity and food nutritional value
were important determinants of their choice, while less frequent consumers valued price,
novel menu items and location of restaurants.
Kivela (1997) carried out a study on a random sample of 120 households in
Hong Kong to determine how customers select restaurants and to assess whether
variables affecting the selection differed by occasion, age and income. In addition, the
study attempted to find out whether the selection of restaurants is influenced by lower
priority variables once consumers have decided on occasion and segment. The results
showed that most customers think food type and food quality are the most importantvariables. The occasion for dining out appears to be the key factor of the selection set.
Age and income are identified as important determinants. The author also concluded that
the overall package of a restaurant to a particular demographic is a key influencer in
selection or rejection of that restaurant.
Lee and Ulgado (1997) used SERVQUAL to analyse the gap between service
expectation and perception. They ran a survey on US and South Korean customers and
collected 193 questionnaires. The study chosen franchise brand was McDonalds. Lee
and Ulgado used t-test to determine the difference between the two countries consumers.
They found Korean customers have significantly higher expectations. Koreans also rate
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
5/31
44 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
dimensions of service value lower than their US counterparts. Results, attained with
stepwise regression, indicated that Korean consumers judge reliability and price as themost significant variables for service value as opposed to price and assurance for US
consumers.
Bhuian(2000)empiricallyinvestigatedthefactorsthataffectSaudiArabianconsumer
preferences for fast food restaurants. The hypotheses for this study posed that nutrition,
price, taste, speed, seating space, delivery service, variety, location, friendliness and
cleanliness were important in determining restaurant choice (H1) and their importance did
not vary across demographically different groups (H2). Bhuian randomly intercepted and
surveyed 250 respondents for this study. He used t-test for studying H1and Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) for studying H2. Research found all factors apart from delivery of
service in H1to be significant in determining restaurant selection. The study also showed
that, for H2, the influence of taste does not differ across age groups. In addition, all
attributes affecting the selection of fast food outlets equally influence both genders.Moreover, the effect of only nutrition and taste is different across income groups.
Oyewole (2007) researched the factors that influence frequency of visits to fast food
restaurants by African-American consumers. The study used a convenience sample of
400 African-American respondents and tested hypotheses regarding frequency of
patronage using percentage distribution and Chi-square methods. He also examined
hypotheses related to criteria of quality evaluation using ANOVA. The results indicated
that the most important considerations in determining service quality were hygiene,
reliability, expeditiousness, availability and courtesy. The paper also reported that
gender, age, income and marital status influence frequency of visits to fast food
restaurants. Young, single, adult males in lower income groups are frequent patrons of
fast food outlets. Busy consumers in this sub-culture group are also frequent visitors to
fast food outlets. Moreover, these short-of-time consumers are considered not to be brand
loyal.Chavadi and Kokatnur (2008) set out to understand the factors influencing the
selection of fast food restaurants in Davangere, India. SERVQUAL was used to identify
service gaps from 140 respondents. The researchers used factor analysis to reduce the 19
variables to four factors. Results showed that physical evidence, value pricing, high-
quality service and good quality food are important to Indian customers. In addition, the
authors noted that there is a large gap between expectation and perception of two
variables: assurance and empathy. The investigators also studied the association of age
and income with fast food preference using Chi-square tests. Both youth and high income
groups are said to be positively associated with inclination towards fast food.
Goyal and Singh (2007) conducted a study in New Delhi to identify variables
important in fast food restaurant selection by young consumers. Other objectives of this
research included examining consumption patterns of fast food and learning the impactof hygiene and nutritional value of fast foods on consumer decisions. The study used
factor analysis to derive three dimensions: service and delivery, quality and product. The
results indicated that young Indians visit fast food outlets for fun and change, but these
consumers still prefer home-cooked meals. The study also revealed that consumers prefer
more information related to cleanliness and nutrition.In a study carried out in Dehradun, India, Tiwari and Verma (2008) also assessed
Indian consumer perception about fast food. The study objectives included identifyingfactors influencing consumer preference for fast food and studying consumption patternsof fast food. A convenience sample of 150 customers aged between 15 and 35 years was
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
6/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 45
surveyed. Using simple frequency distribution, the researchers concluded that snack
breaks and dinner are the most preferred times for consuming fast food. In addition,customers visit fast food outlets for fun and believe that friends are heavy influencers inthe selection of a restaurant. Food quality and service are the top listed factors that affectselection of fast food outlets.
4 Hypotheses
Our study aimed to confirm whether the relationships and results found in the literature
hold true for the Pakistani fast food market. To answer this question and meet the
objectives of this study, we developed the following hypotheses:
H1: The frequency of visits to fast food restaurants is affected by (a) age, (b) education,
(c) gender, (d) size of household, (e) income, (f) occupation, (g) marital status and(h) price expectation.
H2: The importance consumers attach to attributes of service quality in choosing a
fast food restaurant is affected by (a) age, (b) education, (c) gender, (d) size of
household, (e) income, (f) occupation, (g) marital status and (h) price expectation.
For H2our research also analysed differences by demographics, something that had not
been explored in previous studies.
5 Study methodology
The data for this study were collected from customers eating at specific restaurant outletsin Lahore, the second largest city in Pakistan. The researchers selected multiple outletsfrom each of six major international fast food chains operating in Pakistan: McDonalds,Hardees, KFC, Pizza Hut, Subway and Nandos. Pakistani restaurants that serve acombination of fast food and traditional Pakistani food were also randomly selected to
broaden the range of respondents. The six Pakistani restaurants were Bar BQ Tonight,Bundu Khan, Cock & Bull, Gourmet Grill, Karachi Bar BQ and KuKus Caf. MBAstudents from a local university judgementally selected the respondents. The intervieweesanswered the questions either inside or outside of each outlet, depending upon permissiongiven by the restaurant management to conduct the surveys. A total of 410 usablequestionnaires were obtained.
6 Measures
Based on extensive literature review (Kara et al., 1995; Kivela, 1997; Bhuian, 2000;Oweyole, 2007; Chavadi and Kakatnur, 2008; Tiwari and Verma, 2008), we selected 34attributes of fast food restaurants for this research (see Appendix A). The adaptedmeasures fell in the nine categories used by Oweyole (2007): Hygiene and reliability,expeditiousness, availability, courtesy, communication, health-consciousness, comfort,ease of complaint and love of children. A 5-point scale measured each attribute fromleast important (1) to most important (5). The interviewers asked demographic questionsabout gender, age, income, marital status, size of household, occupation and education
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
7/31
46 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
from each respondent. In addition, the interviewers also asked questions to determine the
frequency of visit, reasons for visit, people accompanied on each visit and peopleinfluencing the choice of a restaurant.
7 Distribution of respondents
The demographic profiles for the studied sample are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Characteristics of the data set
Demographics Frequency Percent Demographics Frequency Percent
Type ofrestaurant visited
Household Size
Pakistani foodrestaurant 212 51.71% 2 or less persons 37 9.02%
Fast food outlet 198 48.29% 35 persons 251 61.22%
68 persons 105 25.61%
More than 8 12 2.93%
Gender Frequency PercentIncome
(Pak Rs. Per month)Frequency Percent
Male 270 65.85% Less than 25,000 45 10.98%
Female 133 32.44% 25,00049,999 59 14.39%
50,00074,999 78 19.02%
Marital Status Frequency Percent 75,00099,999 53 12.93%
Single 236 57.56% 100,000 and over 155 37.80%
Married 167 40.73%
Age Frequency Percent Education Frequency Percent
1825 years 174 42.44% Home schooling 2 0.49%
2634 years 158 38.54% Matric/O-Level1 14 3.41%
3544 years 42 10.24% Intermediate/A-Levels2
62 15.12%
4554 years 23 5.61% Graduate/B.A 173 42.20%
55 or more 11 2.68% Postgraduate 141 34.39%
Notes: Missing values were omitted from the analysis. 1 10 years of schooling; 212 years of schooling.
8 Analysis
8.1 Demographics and frequency of visit
In order to test H1, we performed a Chi-square analysis between the demographic
variables and frequency of visit to fast food outlets. The hypothesis was supported in the
cases of age, size of household and occupation. The significant results are shown in
Table 2.
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
8/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 47
Table 2 Significant results of Chi-square analysis between demographics and frequency
of visit
Chi-Square Tests
Frequency of Visit * Age Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-square 33.32208 20 0.031093
N of Valid Cases 408
Frequency of Visit * Size of household
Pearson Chi-Square 31.26894 15 0.008085
N of Valid Cases 405
Frequency of Visit * Occupation
Pearson Chi-square 40.00241 25 0.029148
N of Valid Cases 402
The results shown in Table 2 indicated that there was a relationship between three
demographic variables (age, number of people in the household and occupation) and
frequency of visits.
8.2 Factor analysis
For the purpose of testing H2, we conducted a factor analysis on the list of 34 attributes inthe questionnaire. We intended to determine what factors affect consumer choice offoreign fast food outlets in Pakistan. Applying Varimax rotation, we retained only factorswith eigenvalues above 1 in the analysis. Eight components explaining more than 57%variance were extracted. Table 3 shows that the following factors were derived based onfactor loadings: quality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation,
healthiness, location, price, staff service, open late, quantity of food and staff outlook.Cronbach alphas were obtained to test reliability of the factors (in Table 3). The alpha
values for cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, healthiness were all above theinternational standard of 0.7. Additionally, values of quality, staff service and staffoutlook were close enough to 0.7 to be studied. However, open late and quantity of foodhad low values and were removed from analysis. Presentation and healthiness whencombined brought the alpha values for these factors closer to the desired figure to beincluded in the study. Similarly, location and price when combined brought the alphavalues for these factors to an adequate level to be studied.
Hence, the factors important to Pakistani consumers while selecting a fast food brandwere assessed to be as follows: quality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare,
presentation and healthiness, location and price, staff service and staff outlook.
8.3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
In order to examine H2, we performed MANOVA using the factors obtained (in thefactor analysis) as dependent variables. The independent variables constituted of thedemographic variables and price preference variable.
Results showed that all demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, education,household size, income and occupation) and price expectation variables influenced theratings of the factors under consideration. We considered measurements useful if thedifference between any two groups of a categorical variable was highly significantlydifferent (p< 0.05) from each other.
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
9/31
48 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Table 3 Extracted factors and their Cronbach alphas
ComponentLoadings
CronbachAlphas
F
actors
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Qualityoffood
0.611822
Freshnessoffood
0.564687
0.674
Q
uality
TasteofFood
0.584094
Comfortableseating
0.55222
Clea
nliness&
Cleanwashrooms
0.703521
0.779
C
omfort
Overallveryclean
0.773883
Lotsofspaceinside
0.503714
BrightLights
0.523099
Decorationsonthewall
0.729655
BackgroundMusic
0.734073
0.753
Ambience
Moderninteriordesign
0.764471
Childrenmenuavailable
0.681578
Toyswithchildrenmeal
0.859381
0.847
Childcare
Childrenplayarea
0.884008
Varietyofdishesinthemenu*
0.524325
0.517
Presentation
Presentationoffood*
0.584976
Nutritionvalueoffood*
0.689202
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
10/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 49
Table 3 Extracted factors and their Cronbach alphas (continued)
Component
Loadings
CronbachAlphas
Factors
Variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.713
Healthiness
Lowcalorie(low-fat)food*
0.705104
Convenient,easilyaccessible
location**
0.592786
0.548
Loc
ation
Locatedclosetothehouse**
0.656567
Lowprices**
0.710954
0.571
Price
Pricescomparabletosimilar
restaurants**
0.730548
Politeandcourteousservers
(waiters)
0.532855
Quickhandlingofcomplaints
0.69464
0.692
StaffService
Clearcommunicationwhile
takingorders
0.519035
Friendlinessofstaff
0.65591
0.684
StaffOutlook
Neatandcleanlookingstaff
0.881274
Notes:
*ifallfouritemsofPr
esentationandHealthinessarecombined,thenC
ronbachalphais0.713;**ifallfouritemsofLo
cationandPricearecombined,then
Cronbachalphais0.64
4.
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
11/31
50 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
In summary, results showed education, income and price expectation influenced all
eight attributes: quality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation andhealthiness, location and price, staff outlook and staff service. Data also revealed that
gender affected cleanliness and comfort and staff outlook. Age impacted attributes of
quality, ambience, childcare, location and price, staff outlook and staff service.
Household size acted as an influencer on cleanliness and comfort, location and price,
staff service and staff outlook. Marital status affected ambience, childcare, presentation
and healthiness, staff service and staff outlook. Occupation influenced ambience,
childcare, presentation and healthiness, location and price, staff service and staff outlook.
8.3.1 Quality
The 3544 years old age group was most particular when it came to quality of food.
Compared to other age groups, this group gave significantly more importance to food
quality in restaurant selection. In contrast, younger audiences did not seem to view
quality as an important selection attribute. The results showed food freshness was least
important to the least educated class in society. Those who had passed intermediate/A-
levels (grade 12) were also not highly interested in freshness. However, degree holders of
matric/O-level (grade 10) seemed to have a higher importance for freshness than home-
school goers and intermediate/A-level degree holders. The highest income group valued
quality of food as a significantly less important consideration in selection of a restaurant
than the group with incomes between PKR 50,000 and 74,999.
8.3.2 Cleanliness and comfort
Graduates seemed to be significantly less sensitive to comfort in restaurants than
matriculates. Graduates were also less sensitive than intermediates/A-level graduatesregarding cleanliness of restaurants. Females, as compared to males, tended to consider
cleanlinesssignificantlymoreimportant.Unlikesmallerfamilies,peoplewithahousehold
size of more than eight persons believed comfortable seating to be a significantly more
important factor in restaurant selection. Results also indicated that comfortable seating
was a more important consideration for income group PKR 50,00074,999 than it was
for people in the lowest income group.
8.3.3 Ambience
Results showed that 1825 years old gave less importance to bright lights and seating
space than 3544 years old. When compared to their younger counterparts, older groups
seemed to have a stronger preference for seating capacity. People studying at home gave
significantly more importance to space in restaurants than was given by students enrolledin higher education. Postgraduates attached higher importance to space than graduates.
Bright lights and music were more strongly preferred by people earning less than
PKR 50,000 than they were by people earning more than PKR 100,000. Space,
decorations and interior design seemed to be greater influence in fast food restaurant
selection for people with income less than PKR 25,000 than for people earning PKR
100,000 and above. Results also showed that housewives had stronger preference for
bright lights in fast food outlet selection relative to students. In addition, self-employed
people deemed background music to be a significantly more important criterion in
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
12/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 51
restaurant selection than did business owners, students and housewives. Also self-
employed people, when compared to salaried employees and students, consideredmodern interior design to be a significantly more important criterion in selection.
8.3.4 Childcare
When compared to other age brackets, age group 3544 years followed by age group4554 years seemed to have a significantly higher preference for childcare facilities, toygifts (complementing children meals) and children play areas. The results also suggestedthat people educated at home gave higher importance to childcare than more educated
people. Postgraduates, when compared to graduates, had a significantly higher inclinationfor children play areas. People earning more than PKR 100,000 seemed to besignificantly less influenced by childcare than people earning less than PKR 25,000. Incomparison to other groups, government service officials deemed childcare items to be a
significantly more important decision factor in restaurant selection. Students and businessowners, however, appeared to be relatively indifferent in this aspect.
8.3.5 Presentation and healthiness
The age group of 3544 years considered nutrition and low-fat food as a more importantselection attribute than younger age groups. In addition, nutrition was a more importantfactor for 3544 years old than it was for 4555 years old. Variety of dishes seemed to bea more important selection criterion for 3544 years old than it was for 2534 years old.Presentation of food was believed to be significantly less important for 1825 years oldthan it was for almost all other age groups. In comparison to intermediates and graduates,matriculates/O-level degree holders considered nutrition to be a significantly moreimportant criterion in restaurant selection. Earners of less than PKR 50,000 thought low
calories and nutrition were a more influential selection attribute than people earning overPKR 100,000. In comparison to other occupation groups, students found presentation andhealthiness to be less significant considerations in restaurant choice.
8.3.6 Location and price
In comparison to 1825 years old, 4554 years old considered location convenience to besignificantly more important in restaurant selection. Price was also a more influentialconsideration for 4554 years old when compared to 1834 years old. People living inhouseholds of more than eight persons gave higher preference to location than peopleliving in households of sixeight persons.
When compared to people earning between PKR 25,000 and 49,999, employeesearning over PKR 100,000 considered location to be significantly less important.
Customers earning more than PKR 100,000 also thought price was less influential thandid people earning less than PKR 25,000. When compared to other occupation streams,government officials gave higher preference to fast food restaurants closer to home.Housewives, when compared to other occupation groups, seemed to be relativelyindifferent to where the restaurant is located when deciding on a fast food outlet.
8.3.7 Staff service
As compared to other age brackets, age group 1825 years believed courtesy andpoliteness from restaurant staff to be a significantly less important factor in restaurant
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
13/31
52 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
selection. Relative to males, females tended to consider cleanliness and friendliness of
staff significantly more important. Home-educated people considered communicationclarity significantly less important than higher educated people. Consumers from ahousehold of more than eight persons valued politeness and courtesy of waiterssignificantly more important when selecting a restaurant than people from otherhousehold strengths. People with income less than PKR 25,000 considered restaurantstaffs quick complaint handling more influential in their decision of selection than otherincome groups. When compared to other occupation groups, students believed staffservice to be significantly less important.
8.3.8 Staff outlook
Neatness of staff was a significantly less notable consideration for 1834 years old whencompared to 3544 years old. Postgraduates seemed to be influenced more significantly
by staff outlook than are people educated at home. Earners of the lowest income bracketconsidered friendliness of staff to be a significantly more important factor in fast foodrestaurant selection than almost all other income groups. When compared to otherhousehold strengths, consumers from a household size of more than eight persons
believed friendliness of staff to be significantly more important. Students gave lessimportance to staff outlook than other occupation groups.
When compared to single adults, people who were married considered space, moderninteriors, childcare, presentation of food, food calories, nutrition, politeness of staff andfriendliness of staff to be significantly more important factors in evaluating fast foodrestaurants.
Tables 411 illustrate the MANOVA findings detailed in the paragraphs above. Onlydata with highly significantly differences (p< 0.05) between groups have been presented.
Table 4 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with age as an independent variable
Age
Dependent Variable(I) Household
Income(J) Household
IncomeMean Difference
(IJ)Std. Error Sig.
Quality
Quality of food 1825 years 3544 years .2146* 0.09783 0.029
2534 years 3544 years .2380* 0.09911 0.017
3544 years 4554 years .3807* 0.14672 0.01
Ambience
Bright Lights 1825 years 3544 years .4205* 0.18983 0.027
Lots of space inside 1825 years 2534 years .2573* 0.1064 0.016
3544 years .4795* 0.16626 0.004
4554 years .8129* 0.22108 0
2534 years 4554 years .5556* 0.2225 0.013
Childcare
Children menu available 1825 years 3544 years 1.7735* 0.27458 0
4554 years 1.0544* 0.31973 0.001
2534 years 3544 years 1.5222* 0.27664 0
4554 years .8032* 0.3215 0.013
3544 years 55 or more 1.4030* 0.4831 0.004
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
14/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 53
Table 4 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with age as an independent variable
(continued)
Age
Dependent Variable(I) Household
Income(J) Household
IncomeMean Difference
(IJ)Std. Error Sig.
Childcare
Toys with children meal 1825 years 2534 years .4531* 0.16304 0.006
3544 years 1.1197* 0.27401 0
4554 years .9388* 0.31907 0.003
2534 years 3544 years .6667* 0.27607 0.016
Children play area 1825 years 2534 years .4963* 0.16382 0.003
3544 years 1.2333* 0.27532 0
4554 years 1.1429* 0.32059 0
2534 years 3544 years .7370* 0.27739 0.008
4554 years .6466* 0.32237 0.046
Presentation and Healthiness
Low calorie (low-fat)food
1825 years 3544 years .8731* 0.22819 0
2534 years 3544 years .6244* 0.23067 0.007
3544 years 55 or more 1.0326* 0.43901 0.019
Nutrition value of food 1825 years 3544 years .7854* 0.23094 0.001
2534 years 3544 years .5787* 0.23345 0.014
Variety of dishes in the
menu
2534 years 3544 years .4007* 0.18716 0.033
Presentation of food 1825 years 2534 years .2298* 0.11237 0.042
3544 years .7135* 0.17918 0
55 or more .6528* 0.31409 0.038
2534 years 3544 years .4837* 0.18113 0.008
Location & price
Convenient, easilyaccessible location
1825 years 4554 years .4722* 0.19839 0.018
Prices comparable tosimilar restaurants
1825 years 4554 years .5647* 0.21556 0.009
2534 years 4554 years .5351* 0.2172 0.014
Staff ServicePolite and courteousservers (waiters)
1825 years 2534 years .2471* 0.10109 0.015
3544 years .5001* 0.15821 0.002
4554 years .4577* 0.20216 0.024
Staff Outlook
Neat and clean lookingstaff
1825 years 3544 years .4205* 0.15249 0.006
2534 years 3544 years .3198* 0.1539 0.038
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
15/31
54 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Table 5 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with education as an independent variable
Education
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Quality
Freshnessoffood
HomeSchooling
Matric/O-Level
1.7857*
0.52793
0.001
Intermediate/A-Levels
1.2419*
0.50173
0.014
Graduate/B.A
1.6471*
0.49673
0.001
Postgraduate
1.5942*
0.49739
0.001
Matric/O-Level
Intermediate/A-Levels
.5438*
0.20665
0.009
Intermediate/A-Levels
Graduate/B.A
.405
1*
0.10361
0
Postgraduate
.352
3*
0.10678
0.001
CleanlinessandComfort
Comfortableseatin
g
Matric/O-Level
Graduate/B.A
.516
6*
0.23202
0.027
Overallveryclean
Intermediate/A-Levels
Graduate/B.A
.281
5*
0.10651
0.009
Postgraduate
.267
1*
0.10965
0.015
Ambience
Lotsofspaceinsid
e
HomeSchooling
Matric/O-Level
1.500
0*
0.73192
0.041
Intermediate/A-Levels
1.383
3*
0.69597
0.048
Graduate/B.A
1.420
1*
0.68869
0.04
Graduate/B.A
Postgraduate
.313
0*
0.11065
0.005
Childcare
Toyswithchildren
meal
HomeSchooling
Matric/O-Level
2.200
0*
1.06642
0.04
Intermediate/A-Levels
2.725
5*
0.99241
0.006
Graduate/B.A
2.878
4*
0.98006
0.004
Postgraduate
2.512
4*
0.98151
0.011
Graduate/B.A
Postgraduate
.366
0*
0.16873
0.031
Childrenplayarea
HomeSchooling
Intermediate/A-Levels
2.402
0*
0.99016
0.016
Graduate/B.A
2.432
4*
0.97784
0.013
Intermediate/A-Levels
Postgraduate
.645
8*
0.22933
0.005
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
16/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 55
Table 5 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with education as an independent variable
(continued)
Education
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Presentation&Healthiness
Nutritionvalueoffoo
d
Matric/O-Level
Intermediate/A-Levels
1.0576*
0.38548
0.006
Graduate/B.A
.7669*
0.36247
0.035
Location&Price
Pricescomparableto
similar
restaurants
Matric/O-Level
Graduate/B.A
.5418*
0.26692
0.043
Staffservice
Politeandcourteousservers
(waiters)
Intermediate/A-Levels
Postgraduate
.3233*
0.14108
0.022
Clearcommunication
while
takingorders
HomeSchooling
Matric/O-Level
1.3571*
0.68652
0.049
Intermediate/A-Levels
1.5806*
0.65246
0.016
Graduate/B.A
1.5706*
0.64595
0.015
Postgraduate
1.8381*
0.64679
0.005
Intermediate/A-Levels
HomeSchooling
1.5806*
0.65246
0.016
Graduate/B.A
HomeSchooling
1.5706*
0.64595
0.015
Postgraduate
.2675*
0.10385
0.01
StaffOutlook
Neatandcleanlookingstaff
HomeSchooling
Postgraduate
1.2695*
0.63684
0.047
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
17/31
56 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Table 6 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with gender as an independent
variable
Gender
Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Cleanliness and Comfort
Clean washrooms 2.960264224 1 2.960264224 4.150687 0.042
Overall very clean 2.156476809 1 2.156476809 4.214667 0.041
Staff outlook
Friendliness of staff 3.13611082 1 3.13611082 3.86903 0.05
Table 7 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with household size as an independent
variable
Household Size
Dependent Variable(I) Household
Income(J) Household
IncomeMean Difference
(IJ)Std. Error Sig.
Cleanliness and Comfort
Comfortableseating
2 or less persons More than 8 .7101* 0.28617 0.014
35 persons More than 8 .6134* 0.25674 0.017
68 persons More than 8 .5970* 0.2642 0.024
Location & Price
Convenient, easilyaccessible location 68 persons More than 8 .5686* 0.27687 0.041
Staff Service
Quick handlingof complaints
35 persons 68 persons .5103* 0.25611 0.047
Polite andcourteousservers (waiters)
2 or less persons More than 8 .6111* 0.3072 0.047
35 persons More than 8 .6024* 0.27238 0.028
68 persons More than 8 .6471* 0.28126 0.022
Clearcommunication
while taking orders
35 persons More than 8 .6456* 0.26914 0.017
Staff outlook
Friendlinessof staff
2 or less persons More than 8 .6081* 0.30123 0.044
35 persons More than 8 .5757* 0.26794 0.032
68 persons More than 8 .5481* 0.27645 0.048
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
18/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 57
Table 8 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with income as an independent variable
Income
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Quality
Freshnessoffood
50,00074,999
100,000andover
0.217019822
0.102406
0.035
CleanlinessandComfort
Comfortableseating
Lessthan25,000
50,00074,999
.3521*
0.15678
0.025
Ambience
BrightLights
Lessthan25,000
100,000andover
.4216*
0.19243
0.029
25,00049,999
100,000andover
.4494*
0.16873
0.008
BackgroundMusic
Lessthan25,000
100,000andover
.5409*
0.20238
0.008
25,00049,999
100,000andover
.3824*
0.17745
0.032
Lotsofspaceinside
Lessthan25,000
25,00049,999
.4941*
0.19376
0.011
100,000andover
.4701*
0.167
0.005
25,00049,999
Lessthan25,000
.4941*
0.19376
0.011
Moderninteriordes
ign
Lessthan25,000
100,000andover
.4620*
0.20241
0.023
75,00099,999
100,000andover
.4659*
0.18749
0.013
Decorationsonthewall
Lessthan25,000
100,000andover
.5288*
0.1993
0.008
Childcare
Childrenmenuavailable
Lessthan25,000
25,00049,999
.7945*
0.33506
0.018
100,000andover
.7921*
0.28549
0.006
25,00049,999
100,000andover
.5043*
0.21546
0.02
Toyswithchildrenmeal
Lessthan25,000
100,000andover
.6790*
0.27694
0.015
Childrenplayarea
Lessthan25,000
100,000andover
.5614*
0.28217
0.047
50,00074,999
100,000andover
.4810*
0.21295
0.025
Presentation
Lowcalorie(low-fat)food
Lessthan25,000
100,000andover
.6553*
0.2271
0.004
25,00049,999
100,000andover
.4850*
0.19987
0.016
Nutritionvalueoffo
od
25,00049,999
100,000andover
.4664*
0.20144
0.021
50,00074,999
100,000andover
.5083*
0.18295
0.006
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
19/31
58 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Table 9 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with marital status as an independent
variable
MaritalStatus
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(I
J)
Std.Error
Sig.
DependentVariable
TypeIIISumofSquares
df
MeanSquare
F
Sig.
Ambience
Lotsofspaceinside
20.53264827
1
20.53264827
23.06768
2E-06
Moderninteriordesign
5.965867957
1
5.965867957
4.44134
0.036
Childcare
Childrenmenuavailable
83.25241487
1
83.25241487
43.99635
1E-10
Toyswithchildrenmeal
73.25635913
1
73.25635913
40.82763
5E-10
Childrenplayarea
114.9831162
1
114.9831162
66.56238
7E-15
PresentationandHealth
Presentationoffood
10.56176528
1
10.56176528
10.17182
0.002
Lowcalorie(low-fat)food
15.8334747
1
15.8334747
9.543034
0.002
Nutritionvalueoffood
10.06792516
1
10.06792516
5.857223
0.016
Staffservice
Politeandcourteousservers(waiters)
14.72580506
1
14.72580506
17.83605
3E-05
StaffOutlook
Friendlinessofstaff
4.053627201
1
4.053627201
5.066268
0.025
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
20/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 59
Table 10 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with occupation as an independent
variable
Occupation
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Ambience
BrightLights
Student
Housewife
.4941*
0.22725
0.03
BackgroundMusic
Self-employed
Businessowner
.842
4*
0.32843
0.011
Student
.630
8*
0.2985
0.035
Housewife
.771
2*
0.36219
0.034
Moderninteriordesign
Salariedemployee
Self-employed
.6188*
0.29884
0.039
Self-employed
Student
.681
5*
0.29499
0.021
Decorationsonthewall
Government
Student
.665
7*
0.32754
0.043
Childcare
Childrenmenuavailable
Salariedemployee
Government
1.67
56*
0.4147
0
Student
.636
3*
0.17649
0
Self-employed
Government
1.0208
0.51919
0.05
Student
1.2911*
0.35879
0
Businessowner
Government
1.21
97*
0.44277
0.006
Student
1.0922*
0.23497
0
Government
Student
2.3119*
0.40894
0
Housewife
1.3141*
0.47447
0.006
Student
Housewife
.9978*
0.29034
0.001
Toyswithchildrenmeal
Salariedemployee
Government
1.02
83*
0.4179
0.014
Student
.395
5*
0.17785
0.027
Housewife
.6117*
0.30069
0.043
Self-employed
Student
1.0071*
0.36156
0.006
Businessowner
Student
.620
8*
0.23679
0.009
Government
Student
1.4238*
0.4121
0.001
Student
Housewife
1.00
71*
0.29258
0.001
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
21/31
60 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Table 10 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with occupation as an independent
variable (continued)
Occupation
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Childcare
Childrenplayarea
Salariedemployee
Self-employed
.8883*
0.35761
0.013
Government
1.38
83*
0.40594
0.001
Student
.761
7*
0.17276
0
Self-employed
Businessowner
1.0000*
0.38852
0.01
Student
1.6500*
0.3512
0
Businessowner
Government
1.50
00*
0.43341
0.001
Student
.650
0*
0.23001
0.005
Government
Student
2.1500*
0.4003
0
Housewife
1.0000*
0.46445
0.032
Student
Housewife
1.15
00*
0.2842
0
PresentationandHealth
Varietyofdishesinthe
menu
Salariedemployee
Student
0.243
0.12398
0.051
Housewife
.4433*
0.21609
0.041
Self-employed
Student
.509
6*
0.24996
0.042
Businessowner
Housewife
0.4796
0.24411
0.05
Government
Student
.691
8*
0.29711
0.02
Student
Housewife
.6863*
0.21099
0.001
Presentationoffood
Salariedemployee
Businessowner
0.3275
0.1696
0.054
Student
.395
6*
0.12051
0.001
Businessowner
Student
.723
2*
0.16342
0
Government
Student
.862
9*
0.28879
0.003
Student
Housewife
.5140*
0.20509
0.013
Lowcalorie(low-fat)fo
od
Salariedemployee
Student
.621
0*
0.15401
0
Businessowner
Student
.607
8*
0.20885
0.004
Government
Student
.854
3*
0.36908
0.021
Student
Housewife
0.4752
0.2621
0.071
Nutritionvalueoffood
Salariedemployee
Student
.467
1*
0.15645
0.003
Businessowner
Student
.515
5*
0.21215
0.016
Government
Student
1.0100*
0.37492
0.007
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
22/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 61
Table 10 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with occupation as an independent
variable (continued)
Occupation
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Location&Price
Convenient,easilyaccessiblelocation
Salariedemployee
Housewife
.3891*
0.19255
0.044
Self-employed
Businessowner
.4909*
0.24889
0.049
Student
0.3933
0.2234
0.079
Housewife
.7256*
0.27373
0.008
Government
Housewife
0.4905
0.29467
0.097
Student
Housewife
0.3323
0.18857
0.079
Locatedclosetotheho
use
Salariedemployee
Government
0.616
0.33122
0.064
Businessowner
Government
0.6
776
0.35768
0.059
Government
Student
0.6199
0.32723
0.059
Housewife
0.7286
0.38785
0.061
Staffservice
Politeandcourteousservers(waiters)
Salariedemployee
Student
.4047*
0.10757
0
Self-employed
Student
0.3957
0.21811
0.07
Businessowner
Student
.4652*
0.14551
0.002
Government
Student
.6227*
0.23571
0.009
Student
Housewife
.48
15*
0.18697
0.01
Clearcommunicationw
hiletakingorders
Salariedemployee
Student
.2657*
0.10892
0.015
Staffoutlook
Friendlinessofstaff
Salariedemployee
Student
.2548*
0.10825
0.019
Businessowner
Student
.3141*
0.14484
0.031
Neatandcleanlooking
staff
Salariedemployee
Businessowner
0.2
392
0.14483
0.099
Student
.2676*
0.10463
0.011
Businessowner
Student
.5068*
0.13999
0
Government
Student
.4876*
0.23006
0.035
Student
Housewife
0.3
447
0.17971
0.056
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
23/31
62 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Table 11 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with price expectation as an independent
variable
Pricefo
rafastfoodmealshouldbe
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncom
e
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDiffer
ence(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Quality
Freshnessoffood
Lessthan200
500599
.34
55*
0.17026
0.043
Cleanlinessandcomfort
Comfortableseating
Lessthan200
600andabove
1.23
08*
0.59969
0.041
200299
600andabove
1.18
24*
0.59414
0.047
300399
600andabove
1.29
03*
0.59699
0.031
500599
600andabove
1.40
00*
0.61951
0.024
Ambience
Backgroundmusic
Lessthan200
600andabove
2.39
39*
0.83335
0.004
200299
600andabove
2.26
19*
0.82587
0.006
300399
600andabove
2.38
71*
0.82978
0.004
400499
600andabove
2.27
50*
0.84128
0.007
500599
600andabove
2.00
00*
0.86795
0.022
Lotsofspaceinside
Lessthan200
400499
.38
86*
0.19368
0.045
Moderninteriordesign
Lessthan200
500599
.64
80*
0.31212
0.039
200299
500599
.77
84*
0.29207
0.008
Decorationsonthewall
Lessthan200
600andabove
1.63
64*
0.81092
0.044
300399
600andabove
1.66
13*
0.80745
0.04
500599
600andabove
1.97
06*
0.84459
0.02
Childcare
Childrenmenuavailab
le
200299
600andabove
2.3562*
1.02561
0.022
300399
600andabove
2.0625*
1.03163
0.046
400499
600andabove
2.4677*
1.05133
0.02
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
24/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 63
Table 11 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with price expectation as an independent
variable (continued)
Pricefora
fastfoodmealshouldbe
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifferen
ce(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Presentationandhealth
Varietyofdishesintheme
nu
Lessthan200
300399
.3385*
0.16907
0.046
400499
.4462*
0.20922
0.034
600andabove
1.646
2*
0.74741
0.028
200299
600andabove
1.4529
0.74049
0.05
Lowcalorie(low-fat)food
Lessthan200
200299
.4534
*
0.1876
0.016
200299
500599
.7098*
0.31885
0.027
600andabove
1.876
5*
0.91495
0.041
Nutritionvalueoffood
200299
500599
.8209*
0.32383
0.012
300399
500599
.8455*
0.33702
0.013
400499
500599
.7694*
0.37081
0.039
Locationandprice
Convenient,easilyaccessiblelocation
300399
600andabove
1.1429
0.63874
0.074
500599
600andabove
1.1
0.66267
0.098
Locatedclosetothehouse
Lessthan200
300399
0.371
4
0.19445
0.057
Pricescomparabletosimilarrestaurants
Lessthan200
300399
.3736
*
0.1555
0.017
400499
.3846
*
0.19395
0.048
500599
.5038
*
0.24485
0.04
600andabove
1.153
8
0.68742
0.094
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
25/31
64 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Table 11 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with price expectation as an independent
variable (continued)
Priceforafastfoodmealshouldbe
DependentVariable
(I)HouseholdIncome
(J)HouseholdIncome
MeanDifference(IJ)
Std.Error
Sig.
Locationandprice
Lowprices
Lessthan200
200299
.4038*
0.14742
0.006
300399
.6396*
0.1643
0
400499
.6615*
0.20492
0.001
500599
1.273
1*
0.2587
0
600andabove
1.623
1*
0.72632
0.026
200299
300399
0.2358
0.13128
0.073
500599
.8693*
0.23909
0
600andabove
1.2193
0.71957
0.091
300399
500599
.6335*
0.24985
0.012
400499
500599
.6115*
0.27825
0.029
Staffservice
Clearcommunicationwhi
letakingorders
Lessthan200
600andabove
1.2687
0.65986
0.055
200299
600andabove
1.1471
0.65404
0.08
300399
600andabove
1.1087
0.65726
0.092
400499
600andabove
1.3
0.66628
0.052
500599
600andabove
1.25
0.68196
0.068
Staffoutlook
Friendlinessofstaff
200299
300399
0.22
15
0.11651
0.058
Neatandcleanlookingsta
ff
200299
500599
.444
7*
0.20974
0.035
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
26/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 65
9 Discussion and implications
Today consumers have many choices while selecting fast food restaurants. Thus, to
achieve sustainable competitive advantage, companies need to recognise and understand
the varying needs and wants of fast food consumers (Bhuian, 2000). Fast food restaurant
attributes have particular usefulness for marketers in the food retail industry. By
discerning which attributes matter most to consumers, marketers can create campaigns
that position their brands effectively using those attributes. This knowledge can help
those foreign or local fast food franchises that are already established in Pakistan as well
as those companies that are looking to set up a new in the country. In addition, consumer
preference data can also be useful to those gourmet or casual local dining brands like
Ziafat or Mirchi that may wish to expand into fast food operations. Current fast food
chains can also use preference information to keep check of in-house operations and
implement sterner controls on those attributes that influence consumer choice ofpreference. As Pakistan is a rapidly developing country, these consumer insights could
provide significant leverage to capture market share in a booming industry.
Oyewoles (2007) result that frequency of visits to fast food restaurants is affected by
age is in line with our findings from the Chi-square analysis. In addition, our research
confirmed Oyewoles finding that young adults tend to be more frequent samplers of fast
food than older people. This study also showed that household size and occupation were
important factors in determining frequency of patronage. However unlike Oyewoles
study, our analysis could not support that gender, income and marital status also
influence frequency of patronage to fast food outlets in Pakistan. Moreover, similar to
their Indian counterparts, we saw that younger Pakistani people tended to be more
frequent visitors to fast food restaurants. Moreover, households with threefive people,
students and salaried employees all appeared to frequent fast food outlets more than other
demographic groups. Similarly the older generation (age 35 and above), people who are
self-employed, government servants and housewives were less inclined to go to fast food
restaurants. Also people living alone, couples and people living in a group of more than
eight were less frequent visitors to fast food outlets. Managers who wish to target heavy
indulgers of fast food would find these conclusions valuable.
In the independent samples t-test analysis, respondents who were at a fast food
restaurant rated fast food outlets higher on ambience, childcare, nutrition, health care and
presentation than those who were at a traditional restaurant. This important finding shows
that these attributes of preference may determine why people end up visiting a fast food
outlet when deciding to choose between two restaurant types.
The results of the factor analysis showed key attributes for Pakistani consumers when
making a selection decision about a fast food outlet. These were quality, cleanliness and
comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation and healthiness, location and price, staffservice and staff outlook. These results match Kivelas (1997) observation that showed
food quality is among the most often mentioned variables for dining out occasions for
Hong Kong consumers. Our findings also corroborate Lee and Ulgados (1997) results
that indicated Korean consumers consider reliability and lower prices as the most
significant variables for service. Our results are also in line with those of Bhuians (2000)
study. Results show that both Pakistani and Saudi consumers feel the attributes of
nutrition, price, taste, speed, variety and location friendliness are significant in
determining their choice of fast food restaurant. We also observe similarities in Pakistani
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
27/31
66 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
preferences with those of Indian consumers as reported by Chavadi and Kokatnur (2008)
and Goyal and Singh (2007). Both Pakistani and Indian consumers are affected byphysical evidence, value pricing, high-quality service and good quality food.
The MANOVA results revealed that age, gender, marital status, education, household
size, income and occupation and price expectation influenced the ratings of all attribute
variables for selection of a fast food restaurant. Findings from Bhuian (2000) and
Oyewole (2007) concur with our MANOVA conclusions.
In the MANOVA tests, our analysis revealed that some groups found certain
attributes more important than other groups. Managerial implications for these are
obvious, yet vital. While positioning their brands, marketing think-tanks would want to
present certain attributes more vividly in their promotion schemes depending on who
they are targeting. For instance if a certain brand is targeted to women, it could
differentiate itself on cleanliness and friendliness of staff. In the same vein, we noticed
that students, when compared to other occupation groups, seemed to be least botheredabout staff outlook and staff service. Hence, marketers may ignore this aspect in
promotional messages if students are meant to be the primary targets.
10 Limitations and future research avenues
Since the fast food market in Pakistan is still small (yet rapidly expanding), it is not
embedded in the countrys culture. Lee and Ulgados (1997) research showed that the
more fast food restaurants become a part of culture, the more the promotional emphasis
shifts from brand experience to the price and consistency of quality. This shift can
become the subject of future research.
The study was conducted in the city of Lahore, which may or may not be
representative of Pakistani fast food preference in general. Future studies can aim toexplore preferences in Karachi and the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. These
cities, along with Lahore, comprise Pakistans major urban centres.
Follow-up research may also embark on another angle of the fast food industry in
emerging markets, i.e. the influence of national identity and patriotism on the perception
of fast food restaurants. Feelings of anti-Americanism in Pakistan have been reported
frequently in the past. Further studies may intend to see whether this translates into
refraining from purchase of US products and services.
To increase generalisability, samples in subsequent studies should include those
interviewed during lunchtime or afternoon. Investigators may also wish to interview
respondents in different seasons like winter and summer.
Further research could also look at prioritising attributes that affect consumer choice
of restaurant. Additional areas of interest may include expenditure patterns, types of fastfood preferred and types of meals preferred.
Subsequent studies could also explore how various fast food brands differ on various
attributes of consumer perception of and brand loyalty.
Researchers may also conduct an in-depth study on a particular attribute like location.
This would see how far consumers are willing to go to dine at a particular fast food place
and what characteristics, e.g. income, may be important factors in influencing such
preferences.
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
28/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 67
We used a judgemental sample for this research. Further studies could use random
samples. Future surveys could also be conducted in Urdu, the national language ofPakistan, instead of English. In addition, subsequent studies could also survey
perceptions both before and after a meal is consumed. Moreover, further research could
look at how perceptions vary when a survey is carried out on-premises than when it is
conducted off-premises.
An additional investigation could explore with whom and when customers make the
decision to visit a particular restaurant.
Follow-up studies may also compare other types of restaurants (traditional, Chinese,
etc.) with foreign fast food brands. Another avenue for research could explore how
Pakistani consumers perceive offerings like McDonalds Chicken McArabia and Pizza
Huts Chicken Tikka pizza that are customised to local taste buds.
Finally an additional cross-national study could see how Pakistani perceptions differ
from those of consumers in another developing or developed country.
References
Akbay, C., Tiryaki, G.Y. and Gul. A. (2007) Consumer characteristics influencing fast foodconsumption in Turkey,Food Control, Vol. 18, pp.904913.
Anderson, P.M. and He, H. (1999) Culture and the fast food marketing mix in the PeoplesRepublic of China and the USA: implications for research and marketing, Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.7795.
Bender, A.E. and Bender, D.A. (1995) A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition, 2nd ed., OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.
Bhuian, S.N. (2000) Saudi consumer preference of fast food outlets: the influence of restaurantattributes,Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.3952.
Chavadi, C.A. and Kokatnur, S.S. (2008) Consumer expectation and perception of fast foodoutlets: an empirical study in Davangere, The Icfai University Journal of Services Marketing,Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.621.
Euromonitor International (2008) Consumer LifestylePakistan. Available online at:http://www.marketresearch.com/ (accessed on 8 September 2009).
Getchee Solutions (2009) GetcheeEmerging Market News: News and Tips for Expansion inChina, India, and Southeast Asia. Available online at: http://blog.getchee.com/ (accessed11 May 2010).
Goyal, A. and Singh, N.P. (2007) Consumer perception about fast food in India: an exploratorystudy,British Food Journal, Vol. 109, pp.182195.
Grazin, C.L. and Olsen, J.E. (1997) Market segmentation for fast-food restaurants in an era ofhealth consciousness, Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 2,pp.120.
Kara, A., Kaynak, E. and Kucukemiroglu, O. (1995) Marketing strategies for fast-food restaurants:a customer view, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7,No. 4, pp.1622.
Keillor, B.D. and Fields, D.M. (1996) Perceptions of a foreign service offering in an overseasmarket: the case of fast food in Hong Kong, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.83104.
Kivela, J.J. (1997) Restaurant marketing: selection and segmentation in Hong Kong,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.116123.
Lee, M. and Ulgado, F.M. (1997) Consumer evaluations of fast-food services: a cross nationalcomparison, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.3952.
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
29/31
68 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
MSN.com (2010) MSN Money. Available online at: http://www.msn.com/ (accessed on
30 April 2010).Oyewole, P. (2007) Fast food marketing and the African American consumers: the impact of
socio-economic and demographic characteristics, Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.75108.
Particelli, M.C. (1990) A global arena,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.4352.
Planet Retail Ltd. (2009a) Company profile: Carrefour in Pakistan. Available online at:http://www.planetretail.net/ (accessed on 12 November 2009).
Planet Retail Ltd. (2009b) Grocery Retailing in Pakistan. Available online at:http://www.planetretail.net/ (accessed on 12 November 2009).
PricewaterhousecoopersSouth Africa (2010) Asia Represents The Best Growth Prospects forRetailers and Consumer-Products Companies. Available online at: http://www.pwc.com/za/(accessed on 11 May 2010).
Reilly, M.D. and Wallendorf, M. (1987, September) A comparison of group differences in food
consumption using household refuse, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 2,pp.289293.
Report Buyer (2008) Report: China Fast Food Analysis (Rcs00496). Available online at:http://www.reportbuyer.com/ (accessed on 11 May 2010).
ResearchandMarkets.com (2010) Fast Food: Global industry guideMarket research reportsResearch and markets. Available online at: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/ (accessedon 11 May 2010).
Tiwari, P. and Verma, H. (2008) Consumer perception about fast food in India: an empirical studyof Dehradun City, The Icfai University Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 4,pp.8091.
Wikinvest (2009) Industry: Fast food restaurants (QSR). Available online at: http://www.wikinvest.com/ (accessed on 11 May 2010).
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
30/31
Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 69
Appendix A: Attributes selected for study
Attribute
Category
Chavadiand
Kakatnur(2008)
Tiw
ariand
Verm
a(2008)
Oweyole(2007)
Bhuian(2000)
Karaetal.(1995)
Kivela(1997)
Total
Cleanliness(Hygiene)
Environment
x
x
x
x
x
x
6
Varietyoffood/menu
Food
x
x
x
x
x
5
Price
Price
x
x
x
x
x
5
Servicespeed
Service
x
x
x
x
4
Tasteoffood
Food
x
x
x
x
4
Location
Convenience
x
x
x
3
Friendlinessofpersonnel
Service
x
x
x
3
Ambience
Environment
x
x
x
3
Qualityoffood
Food
x
x
x
3
Parkingspace/facility
Convenience
x
x
2
Deliveryservice
Delivery
x
x
2
Seatingcapacity/facilities
Environment
x
x
2
Comforts
Other
x
x
2
Billing
Billing
x
1
Creditcards
Billing
x
1
Serviceestablishment
BrandName
x
1
Prestige
BrandName
x
1
Loveofchildren
Children
x
1
Noveltiesforchildren
Children
x
1
Easeofcomplaint
Service
x
1
Nearness
Convenience
x
1
Homedelivery
Delivery
x
1
8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt
31/31
70 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt
Appendix A: Attributes selected for study (continued)
Attribute
Category
Chavadiand
Kakatnur(2008)
Tiw
ariand
Verm
a(2008)
Oweyole(2007)
Bhuian(2000)
Karaetal.(1995)
Kivela(1997)
Total
Communication
Service
x
1
Courtesy
Service
x
1
Employeebehaviour
Service
x
1
Expeditiousness
Service
x
1
Promptservice
Service
x
1
Seatingarrangement
Environment
x
1
Novelties
Food
x
1
Nutrition
Food
x
1
Caloriecontent
Food
x
1
Health-consciousness
Food
x
1
Businesshours
Hours
x
1
Earlyopening
Hours
x
1
Availability
Other
x
1
Coupons
Other
x
1
Orderliness
Other
x
1
Packaging
Other
x
1
Reliability
Other
x
1
Takingorderoverphone
Other
x
1
Convenience
Other
x
1
Newexperience
Other
x
1
Competentwaiting
Service
x
1
Prompthandlingof
complaint(s)
Service
x
1