154
Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report prepared exclusively for: Florida State University CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2016. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved.

NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report prepared exclusively for:

Florida State University

CONFIDENTIAL Copyright © 2016. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 2: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,
Page 3: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. i

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

This NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey report is designed to assist your institution’s decision-makers in measuring, evaluating and benchmarking the characteristics, needs and opinions of your customers with regard to the food services they receive from your institution. In addition to providing an overall picture of your institution’s performance in terms of customer satisfaction, this report is also designed to provide a detailed look at the satisfaction ratings of your individual all you care to eat (dining hall) and retail establishments, as well as the overall aggregated results of the other NACUFS institutions that conducted this survey.

The ultimate goal of the report is to assist you and your institution in providing the best possible service to your customers.

The survey and this subsequent report focus on such key issues as:

Demographics of the customers, including respondent type (student, faculty, administration/staff and other); student class status (first year, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate or other); gender; and housing arrangements (on campus/university-owned housing or off campus)

Demographics of the institution, including NACUFS region, institution type (public/private, two-year/four-year), number of students enrolled, and type of operation (self-operated/contracted/both)

General satisfaction with the overall dining services provided

Importance of various food service factors, such as food, menu, service, cleanliness, dining environment and environmental stewardship/sustainability

Satisfaction with these food service factors. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

For the 16th consecutive year, this study was conducted by Industry Insights, Inc., an independent research firm headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. Although NACUFS was deeply involved in the set-up and design of the questionnaire and study, it is important to note that

no one at NACUFS will ever see your institution’s survey results unless you decide to show them.

The confidentiality of your data is 100% guaranteed.

The research instrument used for this survey was designed based on the extensive input of representatives from various NACUFS member institutions to ensure the information gathered would be relevant and useful (a copy of the survey form can be found in this report’s Appendix).

Since 2004, members have had the option of choosing to administer their survey online. Of the 99 schools that used the survey in 2015, 79 chose this option, thus avoiding significant printing and shipping costs, as well as “going green.”

These online schools distributed unique identifiers (usually via e-mail) to their students, staff and faculty, allowing respondents to access a central survey website. This online system permitted respondents to rate as many locations as they wished and was customized for each participating institution, showing only their school’s dining establishments.

This online option provided several advantages, including considerable cost savings over the traditional printed methodology, as well as increased convenience on the part of the respondent. In addition, the open-ended comments provided by online respondents are sent to the schools in an electronic format for easier analysis.

E-mails with a link to the website or paper forms, as appropriate, were distributed by the participating institutions in late October and into November. Completed paper forms were shipped by the schools directly to Industry Insights, where the data from the questionnaires were scanned electronically for processing and checks were run to ensure data validity. Online responses went directly to an Industry Insights server.

The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of, and their satisfaction with, 25 operating characteristics as they applied to that particular dining facility in general, without regard to any specific meal.

Page 4: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. ii

The 25 operating characteristics measured were:

Food: Overall Taste Eye appeal Freshness Nutritional content Value

Menu: Availability of posted menu items Variety of menu choices Variety of healthy menu choices Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Service: Overall Speed of service Hours of operation Helpfulness of staff Friendliness of staff

Cleanliness: Overall Serving areas Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Dining Environment: Location Layout of facility Appearance Availability of seating Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Environmental Stewardship/Sustainability: Environmentally friendly practices related to food Social/ethical practices related to food

All told, 99 institutions took part in this year’s survey, and 125,562 useable questionnaires were submitted to Industry Insights for processing. Forms that had less than a minimal number of response fields completed were removed from the sample. Also, unless otherwise noted, responses of “Not Applicable” have been removed from the survey data.

The results displayed in this report for your institution include all reasonably complete and usable forms that were returned, regardless of whether required minimum quantities for a particular location(s) were met.

HOW TO USE THIS DATA

Definition of Rating Scales

Unless otherwise noted, “mean rating” figures throughout this report are based on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1=very dissatisfied/not at all important, 2=somewhat dissatisfied/not very important, 3=mixed, 4=somewhat satisfied/somewhat important, and 5=very satisfied/very important.

Sampling Error

To assist in analysis of the survey results, the “Sampling Error” (also known as the “Standard Error of the Mean”) is shown for each mean rating score in the Detailed Survey Results tables.

The Sampling Error is important in that it shows the extent to which the sample mean rating (based on those who responded to the survey) is a statistically accurate predictor of the population mean rating (that is, all people who use the institution’s dining halls and retail units).

About two-thirds (68.2%) of all sample means will be within one Sampling Error (or Standard Error) of the population mean, while 95.4% of all sample means will be within two Sampling Errors of the population mean, and 99.7% of all sample means will be within three Sampling Errors of the population mean.

In other words, if your institution were to repeat this survey 100 times on the same population, 68 of those times, the sample mean would be within one Sampling Error of the population mean, 95 times it would be within two Sampling Errors, and it would almost always be within three Sampling Errors of the population mean.

In the example below, XYZ University had a mean satisfaction rating of 3.99 with regard to “Food: Overall” and a Sampling Error of .09. This means that XYZ can be 95% confident that the population mean satisfaction is between 3.81 and 4.17.

Food: Overall XYZ

Sample Mean

Sampling Error

95% Confidence

(2 x Sampling Error)

Range

3.99 .09 .18 3.81 to 4.17

An important, and intuitive, implication is that the more surveys received, the lower the Sampling Error, and thus the more accurate the prediction of the overall population mean.

Page 5: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. iii

REPORT ORGANIZATION

To make this report meaningful and informative, yet easy to use, it has been divided into three main sections: “Industry Overview,” “Executive Summary,” and “Detailed Survey Results.”

The “Industry Overview” presents a user-friendly summary of the survey’s overall findings, based on the aggregated data from all participating institutions (“Entire Sample”). This section shows the demographic make-up of the institutions that participated in the study and provides a look at how these institutions fared overall in terms of customer satisfaction.

Members asked for survey improvements, and NACUFS listened…

The “Executive Summary” is an important enhancement to the report that was added based on extensive feedback from NACUFS members. This section includes…

Predictors of Overall Satisfaction Priority Matrixes Comparative Tables Three Year Trend Data Location-specific Results

These additions to the report will be described in further detail at the beginning of the Executive Summary.

NACUFS is continually striving to provide its members with the information they need to successfully run their operations, and the Executive Summary is a result of this commitment to member satisfaction.

The “Detailed Survey Results” section, as the name suggests, presents the survey data in greater detail, showing both the frequency distributions and mean results for your institution and the entire sample broken down by various respondent and institutional characteristics.

ABOUT THE STUDY

It is believed the data presented in this report represent a valid cross-section of your customers and is representative of the customers in total, within the statistical limits discussed above. However, the statistical validity of responses for any given question varies somewhat depending on sample sizes and the demographics of response. Industry Insights, therefore, makes no representations or warranties with respect to the results of this study and shall not be liable to NACUFS, your institution or anyone else for any informational inaccuracies, errors, or omissions in content.

At the completion of this project, all paper questionnaires received by Industry Insights will be returned to their institutions so the open-ended comments that respondents gave can be examined. Institutions utilizing the online form will receive their comments electronically. CONTACT INFORMATION

Participating institutions that wish to have Industry Insights run special customized reports based on the survey data should please contact:

Steve Kretzer e-mail: [email protected]

(614) 389-2100 ext 106 Industry Insights, Inc.

6235 Emerald Parkway Dublin, OH 43016

Please address any questions you may have regarding the report or data compilation to either Steve Kretzer or Gretchen Couraud of NACUFS (517) 332-2494 email: [email protected].

NACUFS and Industry Insights, Inc., are pleased to provide you with this report and hope you will find it most useful.

Page 6: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey About This Report

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. iv

The table below shows the names of the dining halls and retail establishments that your institution surveyed. Throughout the Executive Summary and Detailed Survey Results sections of this report, the dining halls and retail establishments are referred to by their corresponding number from this table.

Dining Halls Retail Establishments 1 Suwannee Room 1 Chilis 2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

Miso, Papa Johns) 4 4 Salad Creations 5 5 Subway 6 6 Garnet N Go (Bus Stop) 7 7 P.O.D. - Honors Building 8 8 Trading Post 9 9 Rising Roll 10 10 Einsteins Brothers Bagels 11 11 The Den (Dennys) 12 12 Starbucks - Main 13 13 Starbucks - Dirac 14 14 Starbucks - Strozier 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20

NACUFS Regions: Continental

Alberta, Colorado, Idaho, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming

Mid-Atlantic Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Midwest Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin

Northeast Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec

Pacific Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Australia, China, Fiji, Mexico, New Zealand

Southern Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands

Page 7: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

Industry Overview

Page 8: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,
Page 9: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 1

The overall results of the 2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey are outlined below. Users of this information should bear in mind that because studies of this type measure perceptions and attitudes in addition to concrete facts, a certain amount of bias may have been introduced based on how individual respondents might have interpreted specific questions. The questions asked in this study were designed and phrased to be as clear and unambiguous as possible; it is therefore believed any such biases are minimal and the data reported are representative of the overall universe.

Respondent Demographics - All Schools

The demographic makeup of the entire survey’s respondents for 2011 through 2015 can be seen in the graphs below. As shown, the demographic characteristics of the individual respondents have remained consistent across the past five survey years. (All sample sizes shown are based on the 2015 survey results.)

1%

3%

10%

86%

1%

4%

9%

86%

1%

4%

10%

85%

1%

3%

9%

87%

1%

3%

11%

85%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Faculty

Administration/Staff

Student

Respondent TypeSample Size = 125,113

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

1%

6%

15%

18%

22%

38%

1%

5%

15%

17%

23%

39%

1%

6%

16%

17%

22%

38%

1%

6%

16%

18%

22%

37%

1%

7%

16%

17%

21%

38%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Other

Graduate

Senior

Junior

Sophomore

First year

Student Class StatusSample Size = 106,293

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

40%

60%

0%

0%

39%

60%

1%

0%

39%

60%

1%

0%

41%

58%

1%

0%

39%

59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Other Identity

Transgender

Male

Female

Respondent Gender Identity ("Identity" new in 2012)Sample Size = 124,599

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

60%

40%

60%

40%

59%

41%

59%

41%

58%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

On campus

Off campus

Live…Sample Size = 123,672 2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Page 10: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 2

Institutional Demographics – All Schools (based on total responses received) Demographic characteristics of the participating institutions are displayed below. The figures shown are based on the percentage of total responses that came from institutions of that type. For example, 22% of all questionnaires received in 2015 came from institutions in the Northeast Region, while 76% came from mainly self-operated institutions and 97% came from primarily four-year colleges.

14%

9%

24%

21%

18%

14%

11%

10%

25%

19%

21%

14%

11%

11%

27%

17%

16%

17%

11%

8%

25%

19%

19%

18%

9%

8%

25%

22%

17%

19%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Continental

Mid-Atlantic

Midwest

Northeast

Pacific

Southern

NACUFS RegionSample Size = 125,562

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

1%

15%

8%

15%

21%

13%

28%

2%

14%

8%

14%

20%

18%

26%

0%

12%

6%

14%

24%

14%

30%

0%

14%

6%

13%

24%

10%

34%

0%

11%

6%

14%

25%

12%

31%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

No type given

Convenience Store

Sit-down Restaurant

Specialty Coffee Shop/JuiceBar

Express Unit

Marketplace

Food Court

Type of Retail UnitSample Size = 71,030

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2%

98%

4%

96%

1%

99%

4%

96%

3%

97%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Primarily 2-year

Primarily 4-year

Institution TypeSample Size = 125,562

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

3%

18%

79%

3%

16%

81%

2%

22%

76%

5%

25%

71%

3%

21%

76%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Combination ofBoth

Mainly Contracted

Mainly Self-operated

Operation TypeSample Size = 125,562

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Page 11: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 3

3%

20%

32%

45%

5%

20%

25%

50%

3%

28%

21%

48%

4%

24%

30%

41%

5%

20%

32%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,000

10,001 to 20,000

Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment (Fulltime + Part-time Students)Sample Size = 125,562

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

81%

19%

74%

26%

77%

23%

77%

23%

77%

23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Public

Private

Institution TypeSample Size = 125,562 2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Satisfaction Ratings

As shown below, the mean (average) level of satisfaction with the participating institutions’ dining services was down slightly in 2015 (3.81 on the five-point scale, where 1 = low and 5 = high satisfaction, versus 3.84 in 2014). Overall, approximately two-thirds of the valid respondents (68%) were very or somewhat satisfied with their institution’s dining services in 2015.

4%

7%

17%

41%

31%

4%

7%

17%

41%

32%

4%

8%

17%

40%

31%

4%

7%

18%

40%

30%

4%

8%

19%

40%

28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

(1) Very Dissatisfied

(2) Somewhat Dissatisfied

(3) Mixed

(4) Somewhat Satisfied

(5) Very Satisfied

In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the dining services provided by your college/university?

Sample Size = 105,904

2015 Mean = 3.81

2014 Mean = 3.84

2013 Mean = 3.85

2012 Mean = 3.90

2011 Mean = 3.87

Page 12: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 4

In addition to rating their overall satisfaction with their institutions’ dining services, the respondents were also asked to rate the importance of specific dining attributes and their satisfaction with each attribute. The results are summarized beginning below.

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)

(1)

Not at All Important

(2) Not Very Important

(3) Mixed

(4) Somewhat Important

(5) Very

Important

Mean Importance

Number of Responses

FOOD

Overall 0% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 102,663

Taste 0% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 102,874

Eye appeal 3% 11% 20% 34% 33% 3.83 102,510

Freshness 0% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.59 102,296

Nutritional content 1% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.35 102,014

Value 1% 2% 11% 28% 57% 4.40 100,745

MENU

Availability of posted menu items 1% 4% 13% 35% 48% 4.25 99,696

Variety of menu choices 1% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 100,466

Variety of healthy menu choices 2% 3% 12% 29% 53% 4.29 99,758

Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18% 11% 15% 21% 34% 3.42 85,325

SERVICE

Overall 0% 1% 9% 31% 59% 4.47 101,047

Speed of service 0% 1% 9% 32% 57% 4.44 101,168

Hours of operation 1% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.41 100,916

Helpfulness of staff 1% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 100,548

Friendliness of staff 1% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.41 100,649

CLEANLINESS

Overall 0% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 100,738

Serving areas 0% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 100,010

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 1% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 98,386

DINING ENVIRONMENT

Location 1% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 100,638

Layout of facility 2% 7% 17% 37% 36% 3.98 100,119

Appearance 2% 7% 18% 36% 36% 3.98 99,948

Availability of seating 1% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.29 98,103

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 1% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.19 97,753

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

Environmentally friendly practices related to food 5% 6% 17% 29% 44% 4.02 91,020

Social/ethical practices related to food 5% 6% 18% 27% 43% 3.96 89,016

Page 13: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 5

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)

(1)

Very Dissatisfied

(2) Somewhat

Dissatisfied

(3) Mixed

(4) Somewhat Satisfied

(5) Very

Satisfied

Mean Satisfaction

Number of Responses

FOOD

Overall 3% 7% 19% 42% 28% 3.84 122,902

Taste 4% 9% 20% 39% 29% 3.81 122,786

Eye appeal 3% 9% 23% 36% 29% 3.78 122,393

Freshness 5% 11% 23% 33% 28% 3.70 122,323

Nutritional content 7% 13% 27% 31% 23% 3.51 121,111

Value 9% 14% 26% 29% 22% 3.42 120,150

MENU

Availability of posted menu items 4% 8% 17% 33% 38% 3.95 120,030

Variety of menu choices 6% 13% 21% 32% 28% 3.63 121,472

Variety of healthy menu choices 8% 14% 24% 30% 24% 3.48 119,845

Variety of vegetarian menu choices 8% 11% 26% 27% 27% 3.53 92,719

SERVICE

Overall 3% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.16 122,009

Speed of service 4% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.00 121,957

Hours of operation 6% 10% 16% 30% 38% 3.84 121,496

Helpfulness of staff 3% 4% 13% 30% 50% 4.20 121,115

Friendliness of staff 3% 4% 12% 28% 53% 4.24 121,474

CLEANLINESS

Overall 2% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.20 121,901

Serving areas 2% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.24 120,886

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3% 7% 17% 35% 38% 3.98 118,648

DINING ENVIRONMENT

Location 2% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.39 121,670

Layout of facility 2% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.23 121,227

Appearance 2% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.27 121,058

Availability of seating 4% 8% 16% 31% 40% 3.96 118,473

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

2% 5% 15% 35% 42% 4.09 118,707

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

3% 5% 20% 35% 37% 3.98 108,539

Social/ethical practices related to food

3% 4% 21% 34% 38% 4.00 105,676

Page 14: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 6

The following series of graphs shows the mean satisfaction ratings for the various dining service attributes over the past five years on the one to five scale. As shown, the mean satisfaction ratings for many of the items decreased slightly in 2015 on top of a slight decrease in 2014.

Mean* Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General without Regard to Any Specific Meal

3.45

3.51

3.78

3.84

3.86

3.89

3.50

3.55

3.80

3.86

3.89

3.93

3.49

3.54

3.77

3.85

3.88

3.91

3.48

3.53

3.73

3.81

3.84

3.88

3.42

3.51

3.70

3.78

3.81

3.84

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Value

Nutritional content

Freshness

Eye appeal

Taste

Food: Overall

FOOD

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

3.50

3.58

3.67

4.04

3.53

3.62

3.70

4.05

3.51

3.58

3.69

4.04

3.50

3.57

3.66

3.99

3.48

3.53

3.63

3.95

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Variety of healthy menu choices

Variety of vegetarian menuchoices

Variety of menu choices

Availability of posted menuitems

MENU

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

* 1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction ("Not Applicable" Responses Removed)

Page 15: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 7

Mean* Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General without Regard to Any Specific Meal

3.81

4.04

4.19

4.20

4.25

3.86

4.06

4.22

4.24

4.28

3.86

4.02

4.19

4.22

4.26

3.84

4.01

4.18

4.21

4.25

3.84

4.00

4.16

4.20

4.24

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Hours ofoperation

Speed ofservice

Service:Overall

Helpfulness ofstaff

Friendliness ofstaff

SERVICE

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

4.02

4.26

4.28

4.07

4.28

4.31

4.03

4.24

4.27

4.01

4.21

4.25

3.98

4.20

4.24

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Eating areas(tables, chairs,

etc.)

Cleanliness:Overall

Serving areas

CLEANLINESS

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

3.94

4.11

4.22

4.28

4.41

3.99

4.14

4.24

4.30

4.40

3.96

4.12

4.23

4.29

4.39

3.96

4.12

4.22

4.27

4.38

3.96

4.09

4.23

4.27

4.39

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Availability ofseating

Comfort(seats,

temperature,lighting, sound

level, etc.)

Layout offacility

Appearance

Location

DINING ENVIRONMENT2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

4.01

4.03

4.06

4.08

4.04

4.05

4.03

4.04

3.98

4.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Environmentally friendlypractices related to food

Social/ethical practices relatedto food

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

* 1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction ("Not Applicable" Responses Removed)

Page 16: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 8

Examining the difference between an item’s mean importance and mean satisfaction ratings can yield significant insights. Using this “gap analysis,” areas where importance significantly outscored satisfaction should be looked at as possible opportunities for improvement. The graphs below and on the following page illustrate the areas where this gap was the largest for the overall survey sample. This report also includes the gap analysis for your specific institution in the “Executive Summary” section.

3.53

3.78

4.00

4.23

4.27

3.98

4.09

3.95

4.39

3.96

3.48

3.51

4.20

3.63

3.42

4.24

3.84

4.00

4.16

3.98

3.84

4.24

4.20

3.70

3.81

3.42

3.83

3.96

3.98

3.98

4.02

4.19

4.25

4.27

4.29

4.29

4.35

4.36

4.39

4.40

4.41

4.41

4.44

4.47

4.50

4.53

4.53

4.59

4.59

4.67

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Eye appeal

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Layout of facility

Appearance

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Availability of posted menu items

Location

Availability of seating

Variety of healthy menu choices

Nutritional content

Helpfulness of staff

Variety of menu choices

Value

Friendliness of staff

Hours of operation

Speed of service

Service: Overall

Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Food: Overall

Cleanliness: Serving areas

Cleanliness: Overall

Freshness

Taste

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Value = Higher Importance/Satisfaction

Mean* Importance of, and Satisfaction with,Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

Mean* Importance Mean* Satisfaction

Page 17: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Industry Overview

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 9

As shown below, value, freshness, taste, nutritional content and variety of healthy menu options were the areas where importance outscored satisfaction by the largest margins. This has also been the case over the last several years.

-0.29

-0.25

-0.12

-0.11

-0.04

0.04

0.05

0.09

0.16

0.17

0.29

0.30

0.30

0.33

0.38

0.44

0.52

0.57

0.69

0.76

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.89

0.98

-1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

Appearance

Layout of facility

Location

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Eye appeal

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Helpfulness of staff

Friendliness of staff

Cleanliness: Serving areas

Availability of posted menu items

Service: Overall

Availability of seating

Cleanliness: Overall

Speed of service

Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Hours of operation

Food: Overall

Variety of menu choices

Variety of healthy menu choices

Nutritional content

Taste

Freshness

Value

"Gap Analysis"Importance minus Satisfaction

Page 18: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,
Page 19: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

Executive Summary

Page 20: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,
Page 21: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 11

As part of its ongoing efforts to make this survey as useful and beneficial as possible for the membership, a committee of NACUFS members met at Industry Insights in Columbus, OH, to discuss how the survey could be improved. The result of this meeting and several subsequent conference calls was this Executive Summary. This important enhancement to the report contains data specific to your institution and includes…

Predictors of Overall Satisfaction Multiple regression analysis was used to determine the “Key Drivers” of overall satisfaction for your institution. These Key Drivers are shown alongside the mean satisfaction and gap1 ratings for both your institution and the overall survey sample benchmarks. This section is described in more detail below.

Priority Matrixes

These graphs illustrate your institution’s mean importance and satisfaction ratings for each of the survey’s operating characteristics over the past three surveyed years, as well as highlighting the Key Drivers as determined by the regression analysis. This section is described in more detail below.

Comparative Tables

These tables present the mean satisfaction and gap ratings for your institution displayed by respondent characteristics and shown alongside the appropriate benchmark comparison groups. The data is also summarized by all you care to eat facilities (dining halls) versus retail units.

Three Year Trend Data

This section shows your institution’s mean satisfaction and gap ratings for each of the past three years in both tabular and graphic form (based on your institution’s past participation in this survey) so that performance trends can be examined over time. The trend graphs also show how the overall industry has performed over the past three years. This section is described in more detail below.

Location-specific Results

These tables show the mean satisfaction and gap ratings for each of your surveyed locations. PREDICTORS OF OVERALL SATISFACTION Multiple regression analysis is the most popular statistical method for examining the relationship between an outcome variable (also known as the dependent variable) and several predictor (independent) variables. This “Key Driver” analysis is extremely useful when examining customer satisfaction survey data because it allows one to combine many independent variables into one predictive equation and also determine the unique role each variable plays in influencing the outcome. Multiple regression analysis provides a measure of the total explanatory power of the model and also provides an estimate of whether a given variable is a statistically significant outcome predictor. In other words, multiple regression analysis is used to determine the relative weight each performance attribute’s ratings have on overall satisfaction. The attributes with the largest regression coefficients can be considered the most important drivers of overall satisfaction.

1 As discussed in the Industry Overview, gap analysis involves comparing the mean importance rating for an item versus the item’s mean satisfaction rating. Items where the importance is significantly higher than the satisfaction are potential areas for improvement. As an enhancement to the report this year, this gap analysis has been included in many of the tables found in this Executive Summary section.

Page 22: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 12

For purposes of this report, stepwise multiple regression was used. This is among the most commonly used methods of regression analysis for customer satisfaction survey data, as it helps lessen the impact of multi-collinearity2, which commonly occurs in these types of surveys. For this report, the survey question “In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the dining services provided by your college/university?” was used as the dependent variable that represents overall satisfaction, while each of the 25 performance attributes listed on page ii were the independent variables. Thus, our regression analysis examines the role each of the 25 performance attributes played in determining overall satisfaction. When analyzing regression data, the following items need to be examined:

The coefficient of determination (“Adjusted R2” )

Significance of model test (“Sig.” of the model)

Significance of variable (“Sig.”)

Regression coefficients for each variable (“Unstandardized Coefficient B”)

The coefficient of determination (Adjusted R2) shows the proportion of the variance in overall satisfaction that is explained by the 25 attributes. Put another way, Adjusted R2 shows how well our model (overall satisfaction as a function of the 25 performance attributes) works. An Adjusted R2 of .456, for example, means that 45.6% of the variance in overall satisfaction responses is explained by the 25 attributes. (For comparison, historically, the Adjusted R2 generally ranges from around .3 to .5 for the schools in this survey.) It is also important to consider if the set of independent variables is statistically significant at predicting overall customer satisfaction, and this is illustrated by “Sig.” shown in “Model Summary” in Figure 1. Figures less than .05 indicate that the model was significant at the five percent level. This means that there is less than a 5% likelihood that our regression results occurred by chance. To determine which specific attributes were significant predictors in our model, we check the significance of each variable (“Sig.”). The regression model was set to allow significance of .05 or less, and only those attributes that met this criterion are shown. Finally, we examine the regression coefficients (“Unstandardized Coefficient B”) to assess the effect of each predictor - the higher the number, the greater the effect of the predictor on overall satisfaction. For example, a B of .327 means that for every one unit increase in the response to this question, we could expect overall satisfaction to increase by .327 units on our five point satisfaction scale. In other words, if “Nutritional Content” had a B of .327 and we compared respondents who rated nutritional content a 4 (somewhat satisfied) versus those who rated nutritional content a 5 (very satisfied), according to our model, we would expect that the latter group would have an overall satisfaction rating .327 units higher. Figures 1 and 2 on the following pages are based on fictitious data and are intended as examples to illustrate how to interpret the tables beginning on page 16 that have been customized for your institution.

2 Multi-collinearity arises in customer satisfaction survey data when respondent ratings for different performance attributes are correlated. For example, a respondent’s opinion regarding dining environment layout and dining environment appearance may be closely related.

Page 23: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 13

Summary of Figure 1

In “Model Summary,” the coefficient of determination (“Adjusted R2”) of .39 means our model explains 39% of the variance in overall satisfaction

In “Model Summary,” the “Sig.” of 0.00 means it is highly unlikely that our model’s findings are based on random chance

The significance of the variables (“Sig.” under “Your Institution”) shows that each of the five predictor variables is a significant predictor of overall satisfaction at a 95% confidence level, since all the values are less than .05

The regression coefficients for each variable (“Unstandardized Coefficient B” under “Your Institution”) show the extent to which that variable predicts overall satisfaction.

Figure 1

Predictor Status**

Unstandardized Coefficient

B (Extent to w hich

item predicts Overall

Satisfaction)

Sig. (Likelihood that this

item's predictor status w as due to random chance)

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Variety of vegetarian menu choices Top Predictor 0.29 0.00 3.87 0.51 3.52 -0.14Eye appeal 2nd Predictor 0.19 0.00 3.60 0.71 3.80 0.09Social/ethical practices related to food 3rd Predictor 0.15 0.00 3.58 0.83 4.00 -0.02Layout of facility 4th Predictor 0.14 0.01 3.83 0.75 4.21 -0.19Appearance 5th Predictor 0.08 0.01 4.10 -0.07 4.26 -0.23Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.66 0.37 3.97 0.07Availability of posted menu items 3.58 0.98 4.01 0.20Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.51 0.77 4.08 0.18Location 3.93 0.22 4.40 -0.10Variety of healthy menu choices 3.52 0.68 3.44 0.90Helpfulness of staff 3.49 -0.20 4.18 0.17Availability of seating 4.14 0.20 3.95 0.40Nutritional content 4.06 0.26 3.46 0.93Friendliness of staff 3.77 0.53 4.22 0.18Value 4.12 0.12 3.40 1.03Variety of menu choices 4.22 0.09 3.61 0.82Hours of operation 4.11 0.42 3.79 0.64Speed of service 4.11 0.36 4.00 0.45Service: Overall 4.03 0.46 4.16 0.31Food: Overall 4.33 -0.09 3.85 0.69Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.97 0.13 4.01 0.54Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.11 0.15 4.26 0.31Cleanliness: Overall 4.00 0.24 4.24 0.38Freshness 4.11 0.15 3.75 0.89Taste 4.00 0.24 3.83 0.86

Adjusted R2 = 0.39

Adjusted R Square Sig.

0.000

Model Summary

Extent to Which Various Factors Predict Overall Satisfaction*

* Items have been sorted by predictor status for your institution. Items that are not predictors are listed in the sequence in which they were presented on the survey form.** If cell is blank, that item was not a predictor of overall satisfaction.*** Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

All RespondentsYour Institution

Page 24: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 14

PRIORITY MATRIXES

Another important component of this report is comprised of the three Priority Matrix graphs (one for each of the past three survey years). These graphs are intended to help decision makers prioritize their efforts and hone in on the areas where the greatest impact on overall customer satisfaction can be achieved.

In the example below (Figure 2), again based on fictitious data, satisfaction ratings are plotted on the vertical axis, with importance ratings on the horizontal axis. Each of the 25 attributes has been graphed based on the mean satisfaction and mean importance ratings they were given by this institution’s respondents. The vertical line in the graph represents the overall mean importance for all of the attributes combined, as rated by your respondents, and similarly, the horizontal line represents the overall mean satisfaction for all of the attributes combined. The lines divide the graph into four priority quadrants.

Summary of Figure 2

Sustain = High Satisfaction, Low Importance (Institution may be “overachieving” here.)

Sustain or Improve = High Satisfaction, High Importance (In general, institution is doing well here. Monitor to make sure there are no drops in satisfaction for these important items.)

Action Area = Low Satisfaction, High Importance (May want to concentrate efforts here first.)

Watch = Low Satisfaction, Low Importance (In general, no action needed, although monitor to ensure that none of these low satisfaction areas move into the “important” quadrant, where they would become an Action Area.)

Items in bold were the “Key Drivers” as determined by the regression analysis.

Figure 2

Priority Matrixes

1 = Food: Overall 2 = Taste 3 = Eye appeal 4 = Freshness 5 = Nutritional content 6 = Value 7 = Availability of posted menu items 8 = Variety of menu choices 9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices11 = Service: Overall 12 = Speed of service 13 = Hours of operation 14 = Helpfulness of staff 15 = Friendliness of staff 16 = Cleanliness: Overall 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas 19 = Location 20 = Layout of facility 21 = Appearance 22 = Availability of seating 23 = Comfort 24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food 25 = Social/ethical practices related to food Items in Bold are “Key Drivers”

In the example above, decision-makers might want to concentrate their efforts on improving nutritional content and variety of healthy menu choices, since these two items were key drivers and were in the lower right quadrant, meaning their importance was high but their satisfaction levels were not.

2008

12

34

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1617

1819

20

2122

23

8

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

Importance

Sa

tis

fac

tio

n

Sustain High Satisfaction, Low Importance

Action Area Low Satisfaction, High Importance

Sustain or Improve High Satisfaction, High Importance

Watch Low Satisfaction, Low Importance

2015

Page 25: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Report Executive Summary

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College & University Food Services. All rights reserved. 15

THREE YEAR TREND DATA This section displays historical data in both tabular and graphic format for the past two survey years alongside this year’s results to allow those institutions that have used the NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Survey package in the past to analyze trends. The trend tables are self-explanatory, and the trend graphs are described below. Trend Graphs These graphs show your institution’s satisfaction ratings for each of the past three survey years, to the extent possible based on your institution’s past participation. The graphs also show how the overall survey sample has trended over this period. Each of the 25 graphs represents one surveyed attribute. For each graph, the X and solid blue line represent your institution’s mean satisfaction figure for that attribute, while the and dashed green line show the mean satisfaction for the overall sample (all institutions). The shaded area shows the “middle range” (the area between the 25th and 75th percentile, or the middle 50% of the respondents) for the overall sample.

The remainder of the tables and graphs in this Executive Summary (Comparative Tables, Three Year Trends and Location-specific Results) are self-explanatory.

Eye Appeal

3.68 3.67 3.74

3.84 3.96 3.92

1

2

3

4

5

2013 2014 2015

Page 26: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

Predictor Status**

Unstandardized Coefficient

B (Extent to which item

predicts Overall Satisfaction)

Sig. (Likelihood that this

item's predictor status was due to random chance)

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Mean Satisfaction

Mean Gap***

Food: Overall Top Predictor 0.31 0.00 4.10 0.49 3.84 0.69Taste 2nd Predictor 0.14 0.00 4.13 0.62 3.81 0.86Variety of healthy menu choices 3rd Predictor 0.11 0.00 3.69 0.56 3.48 0.82Speed of service 4th Predictor 0.11 0.00 3.94 0.65 4.00 0.44Value 5th Predictor 0.09 0.01 3.68 0.85 3.42 0.98Nutritional content 6th Predictor -0.08 0.04 3.68 0.60 3.51 0.84Eye appeal 4.05 -0.10 3.78 0.05Freshness 3.99 0.65 3.70 0.89Availability of posted menu items 4.06 0.34 3.95 0.30Variety of menu choices 3.92 0.46 3.63 0.76Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.64 -0.36 3.53 -0.11Service: Overall 4.16 0.45 4.16 0.30Hours of operation 3.95 0.51 3.84 0.57Helpfulness of staff 4.21 0.30 4.20 0.16Friendliness of staff 4.29 0.29 4.24 0.17Cleanliness: Overall 4.21 0.46 4.20 0.38Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.23 0.37 4.24 0.29Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.01 0.53 3.98 0.52Location 4.44 -0.04 4.39 -0.12Layout of facility 4.30 -0.30 4.23 -0.25Appearance 4.35 -0.26 4.27 -0.29Availability of seating 4.00 0.29 3.96 0.33Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.10 0.10 4.09 0.09Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.03 0.01 3.98 0.04Social/ethical practices related to food 4.08 -0.09 4.00 -0.04

Adjusted R2 = 0.347

Adjusted R Square(Amount of variance in Overall Satisfaction

explained by our model)

Sig.(Likelihood that our model's findings

were due to random chance)

0.000

Model Summary

Extent to Which Various Factors Predict Overall Satisfaction*

* Items have been sorted by predictor status for your institution. Items that are not predictors are listed in the sequence in which they were presented on the survey form.

** If cell is blank, that item was not a predictor of overall satisfaction.

*** Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

All RespondentsYour Institution

16 School #242: Florida State University

Page 27: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Priority Matrixes

20155

1 23

47

8

11

1213

1415

1617

18

19

2021

22

2324

254sf

actio

n

5 6

8

910

Sati

33 4 5

9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables chairs etc )

1 = Food: Overall2 = Taste

Importance

10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)11 = Service: Overall 19 = Location12 = Speed of service 20 = Layout of facility13 = Hours of operation 21 = Appearance14 = Helpfulness of staff 22 = Availability of seating

7 = Availability of posted menu items8 = Variety of menu choices

2 = Taste3 = Eye appeal4 = Freshness5 = Nutritional content6 = Value

15 = Friendliness of staff16 = Cleanliness: Overall

23 = Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food8 = Variety of menu choices 16 = Cleanliness: Overall 24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food25 = Social/ethical practices related to food

Bold Items Are "Key Drivers" 17 School #242: Florida State University

Page 28: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Priority Matrixes

5

20145

1 237

11

12

1415

1617

19

2021

22

23

24254sf

actio

n

134

5 6

8

910

1213 1822

2425

Sati

33 4 5

9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables chairs etc )2 = Taste

1 = Food: Overall

Importance

10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)11 = Service: Overall 19 = Location12 = Speed of service 20 = Layout of facility13 = Hours of operation 21 = Appearance14 = Helpfulness of staff 22 = Availability of seating

23 = Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)8 = Variety of menu choices

2 = Taste

7 = Availability of posted menu items 15 = Friendliness of staff

3 = Eye appeal4 = Freshness5 = Nutritional content

16 = Cleanliness: Overall

6 = Value

24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food8 Variety of menu choices 16 Cleanliness: Overall 24 Environmentally friendly practices related to food25 = Social/ethical practices related to food

Bold Items Are "Key Drivers" 18 School #242: Florida State University

Page 29: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey Priority Matrixes

2013

5

1 237

811

14

151617

18

19

2021

2223

25

4

sfac

tion

4

5 6

8

9

10

12132425

Satis

33 4 5

9 = Variety of healthy menu choices 17 = Cleanliness: Serving areas10 V i t f t i h i 18 Cl li E ti (t bl h i t )

1 = Food: Overall2 T t

Importance

10 = Variety of vegetarian menu choices 18 = Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)11 = Service: Overall 19 = Location12 = Speed of service 20 = Layout of facility13 = Hours of operation 21 = Appearance14 = Helpfulness of staff 22 = Availability of seating6 = Value

3 = Eye appeal

5 = Nutritional content

7 = Availability of posted menu items 15 = Friendliness of staff

4 = Freshness

2 = Taste

23 = Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

16 = Cleanliness: Overall 24 = Environmentally friendly practices related to food8 = Variety of menu choices25 = Social/ethical practices related to food

Bold Items Are "Key Drivers" 19 School #242: Florida State University

Page 30: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

All Survey Respondents By Respondent Demographics

Satis Gap* Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis GapFood: Overall 4.10 0.49 4.08 0.50 4.13 0.36 4.18 0.46 4.22 0.61 3.96 0.66 4.23 0.32 4.29 0.32 4.24 0.36 4.06 0.37 3.92 0.38 4.13 0.50 4.05 0.47 3.78 0.51 3.94 -0.01 3.92 0.70 4.20 0.37Taste 4.13 0.62 4.10 0.64 4.11 0.61 4.21 0.56 4.33 0.50 3.96 0.81 4.31 0.49 4.28 0.53 4.26 0.43 4.16 0.40 4.08 0.62 4.15 0.65 4.08 0.57 3.78 0.79 3.94 0.33 3.92 0.87 4.24 0.49Eye appeal 4.05 -0.10 4.03 -0.15 3.97 -0.02 4.13 0.11 4.11 0.06 3.92 -0.07 4.17 -0.27 4.25 -0.13 4.11 -0.34 4.02 -0.29 4.08 -0.08 4.09 -0.04 3.97 -0.18 3.67 -1.10 3.88 -1.42 3.89 -0.03 4.14 -0.13Freshness 3.99 0.65 3.93 0.68 4.12 0.55 4.18 0.59 4.33 0.50 3.77 0.86 4.06 0.61 4.18 0.46 4.07 0.45 4.05 0.48 3.92 0.58 4.00 0.72 3.99 0.51 3.22 1.21 3.56 0.29 3.72 0.92 4.14 0.51Nutritional content 3.68 0.60 3.59 0.68 3.99 0.36 3.97 0.33 4.00 0.33 3.49 0.79 3.61 0.79 3.81 0.40 3.65 0.58 3.63 0.61 3.00 1.50 3.68 0.67 3.69 0.45 2.89 1.25 3.56 0.08 3.45 0.85 3.80 0.46Value 3.68 0.85 3.58 0.92 3.85 0.72 4.00 0.61 3.67 1.17 3.49 0.98 3.70 0.86 3.79 0.75 3.62 0.94 3.57 0.94 3.45 0.77 3.69 0.90 3.68 0.75 3.44 0.89 3.06 0.81 3.44 1.02 3.80 0.76Availability of posted menu items 4.06 0.34 4.02 0.38 4.06 0.05 4.24 0.25 4.44 0.22 3.89 0.52 4.00 0.38 4.25 0.23 4.13 0.28 4.08 0.22 4.42 -0.42 4.05 0.40 4.09 0.23 4.22 -0.37 3.81 0.26 3.86 0.53 4.17 0.24Variety of menu choices 3.92 0.46 3.86 0.50 4.09 0.08 4.08 0.42 4.22 0.44 3.72 0.71 3.97 0.39 4.13 0.25 4.04 0.22 3.85 0.34 3.83 0.17 3.93 0.53 3.89 0.36 3.44 0.56 4.06 -0.21 3.68 0.77 4.04 0.30Variety of healthy menu choices 3.69 0.56 3.60 0.63 3.95 0.34 3.98 0.38 3.88 -0.21 3.49 0.78 3.62 0.55 3.89 0.37 3.74 0.27 3.58 0.67 3.58 0.72 3.69 0.66 3.71 0.38 3.11 1.46 3.93 -0.67 3.44 0.82 3.83 0.42Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.64 -0.36 3.56 -0.33 3.87 -0.58 3.93 -0.42 3.38 -0.71 3.44 -0.31 3.55 -0.57 3.78 -0.34 3.70 -0.52 3.62 -0.14 3.88 -0.30 3.62 -0.26 3.70 -0.58 3.38 0.13 3.86 -0.86 3.42 -0.26 3.77 -0.41Service: Overall 4.16 0.45 4.15 0.45 4.17 0.30 4.18 0.49 4.56 0.24 4.04 0.55 4.31 0.34 4.35 0.34 4.26 0.39 4.11 0.27 4.00 0.67 4.16 0.51 4.15 0.33 3.89 0.25 3.88 0.26 4.02 0.56 4.23 0.38Speed of service 3.94 0.65 3.91 0.68 3.97 0.50 4.04 0.60 4.56 -0.16 3.79 0.79 4.04 0.66 4.11 0.52 4.03 0.59 3.93 0.56 3.67 1.00 3.92 0.74 4.00 0.49 3.89 0.11 3.53 0.54 3.78 0.79 4.03 0.58Hours of operation 3.95 0.51 3.87 0.61 4.12 0.01 4.22 0.23 4.22 0.38 3.71 0.82 4.01 0.65 4.17 0.28 3.94 0.40 3.92 0.41 4.08 0.14 3.95 0.56 3.94 0.42 3.50 0.50 3.88 0.05 3.65 0.87 4.11 0.32Helpfulness of staff 4.21 0.30 4.19 0.31 4.40 -0.04 4.26 0.36 4.56 -0.16 4.09 0.41 4.36 0.21 4.36 0.25 4.31 0.13 4.13 0.20 4.36 0.14 4.24 0.35 4.16 0.21 3.78 0.08 3.94 0.06 4.07 0.42 4.29 0.24Friendliness of staff 4.29 0.29 4.26 0.30 4.46 -0.13 4.33 0.32 4.78 -0.18 4.18 0.42 4.42 0.17 4.45 0.24 4.35 0.09 4.18 0.19 4.17 0.33 4.32 0.33 4.23 0.22 3.89 -0.46 4.24 -0.24 4.16 0.42 4.36 0.21Cleanliness: Overall 4.21 0.46 4.21 0.44 4.22 0.37 4.19 0.58 4.56 0.28 4.17 0.48 4.27 0.39 4.39 0.34 4.25 0.37 4.11 0.44 3.58 1.12 4.22 0.50 4.19 0.38 4.38 -0.04 4.12 0.15 4.15 0.51 4.24 0.44Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.23 0.37 4.23 0.35 4.25 0.25 4.21 0.50 4.44 -0.28 4.24 0.35 4.31 0.27 4.40 0.28 4.17 0.33 3.98 0.46 3.92 0.78 4.24 0.43 4.20 0.26 4.38 -0.21 4.12 0.02 4.23 0.35 4.23 0.38Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.01 0.53 4.00 0.53 3.98 0.42 4.05 0.56 4.33 -0.17 3.99 0.56 4.03 0.43 4.13 0.50 4.07 0.45 3.82 0.57 3.75 0.95 4.01 0.59 4.01 0.42 4.00 0.00 4.25 -0.04 3.97 0.56 4.03 0.51Location 4.44 -0.04 4.44 -0.07 4.54 -0.19 4.39 0.12 4.56 -0.22 4.43 -0.07 4.56 -0.22 4.51 -0.07 4.47 -0.08 4.31 0.03 4.50 -0.30 4.49 -0.04 4.32 -0.04 4.56 -0.13 4.47 -0.47 4.42 -0.06 4.45 -0.03Layout of facility 4.30 -0.30 4.32 -0.34 4.26 -0.41 4.25 -0.09 4.56 -0.89 4.40 -0.44 4.37 -0.28 4.35 -0.25 4.14 -0.25 4.09 -0.17 4.42 -0.72 4.34 -0.27 4.24 -0.35 4.00 -0.43 3.94 -0.27 4.38 -0.43 4.26 -0.22Appearance 4.35 -0.26 4.38 -0.32 4.18 -0.21 4.29 0.02 4.44 -0.78 4.43 -0.40 4.39 -0.37 4.45 -0.21 4.28 -0.28 4.18 -0.19 4.25 -0.45 4.40 -0.24 4.25 -0.26 3.67 -0.52 4.29 -1.36 4.41 -0.38 4.32 -0.18Availability of seating 4.00 0.29 3.99 0.32 4.11 0.03 4.02 0.24 4.22 -0.56 4.09 0.25 3.87 0.44 3.98 0.43 3.80 0.39 3.82 0.35 4.33 -0.13 3.98 0.39 4.06 0.09 3.44 0.70 3.86 0.23 4.09 0.22 3.95 0.33Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.10 0.10 4.12 0.09 3.96 0.16 4.06 0.17 4.22 -0.56 4.21 0.02 4.17 0.05 4.10 0.21 4.07 0.00 3.87 0.22 4.08 0.12 4.11 0.16 4.11 -0.01 2.78 1.08 3.87 -0.41 4.20 0.05 4.05 0.13Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.03 0.01 4.01 0.02 4.01 0.07 4.09 -0.05 4.22 0.11 4.03 -0.02 4.04 0.03 4.13 -0.02 3.98 -0.03 3.83 0.19 3.80 0.70 4.06 0.11 3.99 -0.20 3.25 0.58 3.71 -0.05 4.01 0.00 4.04 0.01Social/ethical practices related to food 4.08 -0.09 4.07 -0.08 3.97 0.04 4.10 -0.15 4.44 -0.11 4.06 -0.08 4.16 -0.22 4.22 -0.11 4.08 -0.21 3.89 0.07 3.82 0.85 4.10 0.03 4.05 -0.34 3.25 0.42 3.64 0.02 4.02 -0.06 4.11 -0.11

Satis Gap* Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis Gap Satis GapFood: Overall 3.84 0.69 3.80 0.71 3.93 0.63 4.08 0.54 4.16 0.37 3.77 0.74 3.72 0.80 3.83 0.69 3.90 0.62 3.91 0.56 3.92 0.58 3.85 0.71 3.83 0.66 3.63 0.73 3.56 0.80 3.71 0.81 4.02 0.51Taste 3.81 0.86 3.76 0.90 3.97 0.74 4.11 0.68 4.15 0.49 3.69 0.97 3.68 0.97 3.81 0.84 3.88 0.77 3.91 0.71 3.85 0.82 3.82 0.91 3.79 0.81 3.63 0.83 3.58 0.98 3.65 1.02 4.03 0.66Eye appeal 3.78 0.05 3.74 0.05 3.95 0.03 4.08 0.09 4.13 0.01 3.71 0.05 3.65 0.11 3.75 0.07 3.81 0.04 3.91 -0.12 3.90 0.06 3.81 0.11 3.75 -0.04 3.59 0.11 3.53 0.05 3.65 0.10 3.97 -0.02Freshness 3.70 0.89 3.63 0.93 4.01 0.68 4.13 0.63 4.13 0.46 3.56 1.01 3.53 1.02 3.66 0.88 3.75 0.82 3.91 0.68 3.82 0.78 3.69 0.99 3.71 0.75 3.52 0.78 3.48 0.91 3.51 1.06 3.96 0.66Nutritional content 3.51 0.84 3.45 0.89 3.75 0.68 3.89 0.49 3.91 0.44 3.40 0.94 3.39 0.96 3.48 0.85 3.53 0.81 3.67 0.70 3.55 0.83 3.47 0.99 3.58 0.62 3.35 0.84 3.33 0.86 3.36 1.00 3.72 0.62Value 3.42 0.98 3.38 0.99 3.59 0.90 3.61 0.99 3.87 0.59 3.45 0.83 3.30 1.06 3.34 1.09 3.35 1.11 3.45 1.07 3.50 0.90 3.42 1.02 3.41 0.92 3.20 1.05 3.15 1.15 3.36 0.95 3.50 1.03Availability of posted menu items 3.95 0.30 3.91 0.32 4.12 0.10 4.20 0.18 4.20 0.12 3.85 0.35 3.86 0.36 3.93 0.33 4.01 0.28 4.06 0.19 3.99 0.26 3.96 0.33 3.94 0.25 3.73 0.49 3.73 0.37 3.83 0.38 4.12 0.19Variety of menu choices 3.63 0.76 3.59 0.79 3.73 0.63 3.89 0.56 4.04 0.31 3.55 0.86 3.51 0.87 3.62 0.74 3.72 0.66 3.68 0.63 3.71 0.66 3.62 0.83 3.65 0.65 3.41 0.88 3.39 0.83 3.48 0.92 3.84 0.53Variety of healthy menu choices 3.48 0.82 3.43 0.85 3.63 0.75 3.80 0.56 3.84 0.46 3.39 0.90 3.36 0.92 3.46 0.81 3.52 0.77 3.59 0.71 3.53 0.79 3.43 1.00 3.56 0.54 3.33 0.92 3.28 0.88 3.33 0.96 3.68 0.61Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.53 -0.11 3.50 -0.08 3.58 -0.12 3.79 -0.39 3.78 -0.06 3.50 -0.17 3.44 -0.01 3.49 -0.04 3.55 -0.08 3.55 0.02 3.60 -0.11 3.48 0.11 3.61 -0.47 3.18 0.67 3.18 0.53 3.44 -0.05 3.67 -0.22Service: Overall 4.16 0.30 4.14 0.31 4.25 0.30 4.32 0.31 4.36 0.17 4.16 0.27 4.09 0.33 4.11 0.35 4.15 0.33 4.19 0.25 4.21 0.29 4.19 0.33 4.13 0.27 4.01 0.28 4.01 0.25 4.10 0.32 4.25 0.29Speed of service 4.00 0.44 3.98 0.44 4.10 0.44 4.16 0.45 4.29 0.20 4.00 0.39 3.93 0.48 3.95 0.50 3.98 0.48 4.06 0.41 4.10 0.39 4.02 0.47 3.98 0.40 3.89 0.38 3.85 0.41 3.95 0.44 4.08 0.44Hours of operation 3.84 0.57 3.78 0.64 4.08 0.30 4.24 0.16 4.24 0.16 3.67 0.77 3.79 0.61 3.84 0.56 3.91 0.50 3.90 0.49 3.85 0.61 3.86 0.60 3.82 0.53 3.61 0.72 3.65 0.64 3.69 0.74 4.05 0.34Helpfulness of staff 4.20 0.16 4.17 0.16 4.40 0.11 4.40 0.21 4.41 0.08 4.17 0.14 4.14 0.17 4.15 0.19 4.20 0.18 4.26 0.09 4.22 0.23 4.23 0.21 4.17 0.09 4.06 0.15 4.05 0.20 4.14 0.17 4.30 0.15Friendliness of staff 4.24 0.17 4.21 0.17 4.45 0.06 4.43 0.20 4.42 0.09 4.20 0.16 4.18 0.17 4.19 0.20 4.23 0.18 4.28 0.09 4.26 0.20 4.25 0.22 4.23 0.08 4.08 0.11 4.09 0.12 4.17 0.18 4.33 0.15Cleanliness: Overall 4.20 0.38 4.17 0.39 4.34 0.34 4.39 0.38 4.34 0.23 4.15 0.41 4.12 0.41 4.17 0.40 4.22 0.35 4.30 0.28 4.26 0.38 4.21 0.44 4.19 0.30 4.01 0.37 4.03 0.36 4.11 0.44 4.32 0.32Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.24 0.29 4.21 0.29 4.33 0.29 4.38 0.32 4.36 0.18 4.23 0.28 4.18 0.31 4.19 0.32 4.22 0.28 4.29 0.22 4.26 0.31 4.25 0.35 4.22 0.20 4.05 0.31 4.04 0.31 4.18 0.32 4.32 0.26Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.98 0.52 3.96 0.53 4.10 0.41 4.15 0.44 4.23 0.26 3.96 0.55 3.91 0.57 3.94 0.56 3.98 0.51 4.08 0.38 4.10 0.46 3.97 0.59 4.01 0.41 3.76 0.56 3.79 0.53 3.92 0.57 4.07 0.45Location 4.39 -0.12 4.38 -0.13 4.44 -0.07 4.50 -0.10 4.42 -0.13 4.42 -0.17 4.36 -0.14 4.33 -0.09 4.35 -0.10 4.34 -0.02 4.35 -0.08 4.43 -0.09 4.34 -0.18 4.13 0.04 4.12 -0.05 4.39 -0.15 4.40 -0.09Layout of facility 4.23 -0.25 4.24 -0.28 4.15 -0.10 4.24 -0.11 4.32 -0.19 4.32 -0.38 4.21 -0.26 4.17 -0.19 4.17 -0.18 4.16 -0.18 4.25 -0.22 4.27 -0.23 4.19 -0.30 3.97 -0.06 3.92 -0.11 4.25 -0.31 4.21 -0.17Appearance 4.27 -0.29 4.27 -0.32 4.21 -0.11 4.32 -0.09 4.34 -0.15 4.32 -0.38 4.24 -0.32 4.23 -0.27 4.25 -0.26 4.23 -0.28 4.28 -0.27 4.31 -0.26 4.22 -0.34 4.05 -0.19 3.96 -0.25 4.28 -0.36 4.28 -0.20Availability of seating 3.96 0.33 3.94 0.36 4.03 0.18 4.10 0.18 4.22 0.06 4.07 0.23 3.87 0.43 3.84 0.47 3.82 0.49 3.92 0.31 4.09 0.21 3.96 0.39 3.97 0.25 3.79 0.43 3.68 0.52 3.99 0.29 3.92 0.39Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.09 0.09 4.10 0.08 4.01 0.16 4.07 0.15 4.25 -0.02 4.20 -0.01 4.07 0.09 4.03 0.17 4.01 0.19 3.99 0.14 4.10 0.14 4.11 0.13 4.08 0.03 3.83 0.28 3.79 0.25 4.14 0.03 4.03 0.18Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.98 0.04 3.97 0.03 3.90 0.24 4.11 0.00 4.17 0.02 4.03 -0.09 3.91 0.09 3.92 0.13 3.94 0.13 3.93 0.13 3.98 0.10 3.99 0.16 3.98 -0.16 3.67 0.34 3.55 0.47 3.95 0.02 4.03 0.07Social/ethical practices related to food 4.00 -0.04 3.99 -0.04 3.92 0.11 4.11 -0.11 4.19 -0.04 4.05 -0.16 3.95 0.00 3.95 0.05 3.97 0.05 3.96 0.08 4.00 0.04 4.01 0.09 4.00 -0.25 3.65 0.38 3.56 0.44 3.97 -0.06 4.05 -0.02

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

Live...

FemaleJunior Senior

Sophomore Graduate

Other

Senior Female Off campusOther

Gender Identity

OtherGraduate Off campus

Student Class Status

Faculty

All Valid Respondents

Respondent Type

Other First year

Student Class Status

Other

SophomoreAll Valid

Respondents

Respondent Type

Admin/StaffStudent Male Transgender

YOUR INSTITUTION

OVERALL SAMPLE

First yearOtherAdmin/StaffFaculty Transgender

On campus

Live...

On campusMale

Gender Identity

Student Junior

20 School #242: Florida State University

Page 31: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Institutional Demographics

This table summarizes the survey results for your institution as well as the overall survey sample of all participating institutions.

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.10 0.49 3.84 0.69 3.97 0.57 3.85 0.67 3.84 0.69 3.66 0.89 3.80 0.72Taste 4.13 0.62 3.81 0.86 3.96 0.74 3.81 0.85 3.80 0.87 3.65 1.03 3.77 0.90Eye appeal 4.05 -0.10 3.78 0.05 3.90 -0.01 3.79 0.05 3.78 0.05 3.64 0.13 3.76 0.00Freshness 3.99 0.65 3.70 0.89 3.84 0.78 3.71 0.88 3.70 0.89 3.55 1.04 3.66 0.92Nutritional content 3.68 0.60 3.51 0.84 3.61 0.73 3.52 0.82 3.51 0.84 3.37 0.97 3.46 0.88Value 3.68 0.85 3.42 0.98 3.48 1.01 3.42 0.99 3.42 0.97 3.23 1.18 3.35 1.05Availability of posted menu items 4.06 0.34 3.95 0.30 4.07 0.24 3.95 0.31 3.94 0.30 3.78 0.46 3.93 0.31Variety of menu choices 3.92 0.46 3.63 0.76 3.77 0.63 3.64 0.75 3.63 0.76 3.44 0.93 3.59 0.78Variety of healthy menu choices 3.69 0.56 3.48 0.82 3.57 0.72 3.50 0.79 3.48 0.82 3.31 0.97 3.43 0.84Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.64 -0.36 3.53 -0.11 3.58 -0.20 3.55 -0.14 3.53 -0.12 3.35 0.08 3.50 -0.19Service: Overall 4.16 0.45 4.16 0.30 4.21 0.32 4.15 0.31 4.16 0.30 4.00 0.45 4.13 0.31Speed of service 3.94 0.65 4.00 0.44 4.06 0.45 4.01 0.43 4.00 0.44 3.86 0.57 3.98 0.46Hours of operation 3.95 0.51 3.84 0.57 3.90 0.54 3.85 0.57 3.84 0.58 3.72 0.69 3.82 0.57Helpfulness of staff 4.21 0.30 4.20 0.16 4.24 0.20 4.18 0.18 4.20 0.16 4.05 0.29 4.16 0.16Friendliness of staff 4.29 0.29 4.24 0.17 4.28 0.21 4.22 0.19 4.24 0.17 4.10 0.30 4.19 0.17Cleanliness: Overall 4.21 0.46 4.20 0.38 4.28 0.35 4.20 0.39 4.20 0.38 4.07 0.49 4.17 0.40Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.23 0.37 4.24 0.29 4.30 0.28 4.23 0.30 4.24 0.29 4.11 0.39 4.21 0.30Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.01 0.53 3.98 0.52 4.05 0.47 3.97 0.53 3.98 0.52 3.88 0.58 3.93 0.55Location 4.44 -0.04 4.39 -0.12 4.42 -0.08 4.39 -0.10 4.39 -0.12 4.30 -0.06 4.38 -0.11Layout of facility 4.30 -0.30 4.23 -0.25 4.27 -0.27 4.23 -0.24 4.23 -0.25 4.14 -0.25 4.21 -0.29Appearance 4.35 -0.26 4.27 -0.29 4.34 -0.30 4.27 -0.28 4.28 -0.30 4.18 -0.27 4.25 -0.33Availability of seating 4.00 0.29 3.96 0.33 3.91 0.38 3.96 0.33 3.96 0.33 3.83 0.41 3.88 0.40Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.10 0.10 4.09 0.09 4.11 0.07 4.09 0.09 4.09 0.09 3.99 0.13 4.05 0.09Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.03 0.01 3.98 0.04 4.03 0.00 3.99 0.03 3.98 0.04 3.80 0.15 3.95 0.00Social/ethical practices related to food 4.08 -0.09 4.00 -0.04 4.06 -0.07 4.01 -0.04 4.00 -0.04 3.82 0.08 3.97 -0.08

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

ALL SURVEY RESPONDENTS (BOTH "ALL YOU CARE TO EAT DINING FACILITIES (DINING HALLS)" AND RETAIL UNITS)

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM ALL PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Institution TypeAll Valid RespondentsYour Institution Mainly Contracted Over 20,000Southern Public Primarily 4-year

Institution Type Operation TypeTotal Current Enrollment

(Fulltime + Part-time)NACUFS Region

21 School #242: Florida State University

Page 32: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Institutional Demographics

This table summarizes the survey results for your institution as well as the overall survey sample of all participating institutions.

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 3.65 0.93 3.65 0.88 3.67 0.89 3.66 0.86 3.65 0.88 3.48 1.08 3.59 0.94Taste 3.55 1.21 3.54 1.12 3.55 1.15 3.55 1.11 3.54 1.12 3.38 1.31 3.48 1.20Eye appeal 3.58 0.23 3.59 0.12 3.59 0.21 3.60 0.11 3.59 0.12 3.45 0.21 3.56 0.06Freshness 3.51 1.14 3.47 1.10 3.53 1.08 3.49 1.08 3.47 1.10 3.34 1.24 3.41 1.17Nutritional content 3.37 1.05 3.40 0.99 3.49 0.91 3.40 0.97 3.40 0.99 3.30 1.09 3.30 1.08Value 3.45 0.97 3.41 0.84 3.44 0.90 3.41 0.84 3.41 0.84 3.19 1.05 3.29 0.94Availability of posted menu items 3.78 0.42 3.78 0.36 3.83 0.39 3.79 0.38 3.78 0.37 3.62 0.52 3.75 0.39Variety of menu choices 3.54 0.93 3.43 0.98 3.47 0.98 3.45 0.97 3.43 0.98 3.27 1.15 3.36 1.06Variety of healthy menu choices 3.35 1.03 3.36 0.96 3.43 0.94 3.37 0.93 3.36 0.96 3.23 1.11 3.27 1.05Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.42 -0.09 3.47 -0.11 3.50 -0.02 3.48 -0.14 3.47 -0.12 3.31 0.07 3.40 -0.18Service: Overall 4.09 0.39 4.13 0.26 4.15 0.34 4.11 0.27 4.13 0.26 4.02 0.38 4.08 0.28Speed of service 4.12 0.28 4.04 0.31 4.09 0.33 4.04 0.31 4.04 0.30 3.94 0.40 3.99 0.34Hours of operation 3.83 0.61 3.71 0.71 3.75 0.71 3.73 0.69 3.70 0.72 3.59 0.83 3.68 0.73Helpfulness of staff 4.12 0.27 4.16 0.12 4.18 0.22 4.13 0.14 4.16 0.12 4.07 0.23 4.10 0.12Friendliness of staff 4.12 0.38 4.19 0.14 4.21 0.26 4.15 0.17 4.19 0.14 4.11 0.26 4.11 0.16Cleanliness: Overall 4.00 0.69 4.09 0.47 4.09 0.53 4.07 0.49 4.09 0.47 3.97 0.59 4.06 0.50Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.16 0.46 4.19 0.33 4.22 0.38 4.18 0.34 4.19 0.33 4.10 0.42 4.19 0.33Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.94 0.66 3.90 0.62 3.88 0.71 3.87 0.66 3.90 0.62 3.83 0.67 3.87 0.65Location 4.37 -0.05 4.41 -0.18 4.39 -0.12 4.40 -0.16 4.41 -0.18 4.35 -0.16 4.42 -0.18Layout of facility 4.41 -0.49 4.26 -0.32 4.28 -0.29 4.25 -0.31 4.26 -0.32 4.21 -0.36 4.26 -0.40Appearance 4.38 -0.31 4.28 -0.38 4.34 -0.34 4.28 -0.37 4.29 -0.38 4.24 -0.39 4.27 -0.43Availability of seating 4.36 0.02 4.00 0.35 3.77 0.70 3.97 0.39 4.00 0.36 3.86 0.48 3.97 0.39Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.23 0.06 4.14 0.05 4.11 0.15 4.14 0.06 4.14 0.05 4.08 0.07 4.14 0.01Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.88 0.10 3.96 0.00 4.00 0.01 3.98 -0.01 3.96 0.00 3.83 0.07 3.95 -0.05Social/ethical practices related to food 3.87 0.03 3.97 -0.08 4.01 -0.05 3.98 -0.09 3.97 -0.08 3.84 0.01 3.95 -0.13

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

ALL YOU CARE TO EAT DINING FACILITIES (DINING HALLS)

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM ALL PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Southern Public Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type Operation Type

Total Current Enrollment (Fulltime + Part-time)NACUFS Region Institution Type

All Valid Respondents Mainly Contracted Over 20,000Your Institution

22 School #242: Florida State University

Page 33: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Institutional Demographics

This table summarizes the survey results for your institution as well as the overall survey sample of all participating institutions.

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.24 0.35 3.98 0.54 4.09 0.44 3.99 0.53 3.99 0.54 3.78 0.75 3.98 0.54Taste 4.31 0.44 4.01 0.66 4.12 0.58 4.02 0.65 4.01 0.66 3.84 0.84 4.01 0.65Eye appeal 4.20 -0.20 3.94 0.00 4.02 -0.10 3.95 0.00 3.94 -0.01 3.77 0.07 3.93 -0.04Freshness 4.14 0.50 3.87 0.72 3.96 0.66 3.89 0.71 3.88 0.72 3.69 0.90 3.87 0.71Nutritional content 3.78 0.46 3.60 0.72 3.65 0.65 3.62 0.70 3.61 0.72 3.42 0.89 3.59 0.71Value 3.75 0.81 3.43 1.09 3.50 1.05 3.42 1.10 3.43 1.08 3.25 1.26 3.39 1.14Availability of posted menu items 4.15 0.32 4.08 0.25 4.16 0.19 4.09 0.25 4.07 0.25 3.89 0.42 4.09 0.24Variety of menu choices 4.03 0.32 3.78 0.59 3.88 0.50 3.80 0.57 3.78 0.58 3.56 0.77 3.79 0.54Variety of healthy menu choices 3.80 0.41 3.57 0.70 3.62 0.64 3.59 0.67 3.57 0.70 3.37 0.88 3.57 0.66Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.71 -0.45 3.58 -0.12 3.62 -0.27 3.60 -0.13 3.59 -0.12 3.38 0.09 3.58 -0.20Service: Overall 4.18 0.46 4.18 0.34 4.24 0.31 4.18 0.35 4.18 0.34 3.98 0.50 4.16 0.34Speed of service 3.89 0.77 3.98 0.54 4.05 0.50 3.98 0.53 3.97 0.54 3.81 0.69 3.96 0.55Hours of operation 3.98 0.48 3.95 0.46 3.96 0.48 3.94 0.47 3.94 0.46 3.80 0.59 3.95 0.43Helpfulness of staff 4.24 0.31 4.24 0.20 4.26 0.19 4.23 0.21 4.23 0.20 4.04 0.33 4.21 0.19Friendliness of staff 4.34 0.25 4.28 0.19 4.30 0.20 4.27 0.20 4.28 0.19 4.09 0.32 4.26 0.17Cleanliness: Overall 4.27 0.39 4.29 0.31 4.36 0.28 4.29 0.32 4.29 0.31 4.13 0.43 4.27 0.31Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.25 0.34 4.27 0.26 4.33 0.23 4.27 0.27 4.27 0.26 4.13 0.37 4.23 0.27Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.03 0.49 4.05 0.43 4.11 0.38 4.05 0.42 4.05 0.43 3.92 0.51 3.99 0.46Location 4.46 -0.04 4.38 -0.08 4.43 -0.07 4.37 -0.06 4.38 -0.07 4.27 0.01 4.34 -0.04Layout of facility 4.27 -0.24 4.22 -0.20 4.27 -0.26 4.21 -0.19 4.21 -0.20 4.10 -0.17 4.17 -0.20Appearance 4.34 -0.24 4.27 -0.22 4.34 -0.29 4.27 -0.22 4.27 -0.23 4.14 -0.19 4.23 -0.24Availability of seating 3.89 0.38 3.93 0.31 3.97 0.25 3.95 0.28 3.93 0.31 3.81 0.36 3.81 0.40Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.06 0.12 4.05 0.13 4.11 0.04 4.05 0.12 4.05 0.13 3.92 0.17 3.97 0.15Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.08 -0.02 3.99 0.07 4.05 0.00 4.00 0.07 3.99 0.07 3.77 0.21 3.95 0.04Social/ethical practices related to food 4.14 -0.13 4.03 -0.01 4.08 -0.08 4.02 -0.01 4.03 -0.01 3.81 0.13 3.99 -0.04

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

Total Current Enrollment (Fulltime + Part-time)NACUFS Region Institution Type

All Valid Respondents

RETAIL UNITS

Mainly Contracted Over 20,000Your Institution

SURVEY RESPONSES FROM ALL PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS

Southern Public Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type Operation Type

23 School #242: Florida State University

Page 34: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap

Satisfaction Versus Prior

Year Satisfaction Gap

Satisfaction Versus Prior

YearFood: Overall 3.94 0.57 3.90 0.53 -0.04 4.10 0.49 0.20Taste 3.96 0.66 3.92 0.62 -0.04 4.13 0.62 0.21Eye appeal 3.93 0.08 3.90 0.14 -0.02 4.05 -0.10 0.15Freshness 3.85 0.73 3.84 0.68 -0.01 3.99 0.65 0.15Nutritional content 3.56 0.73 3.62 0.69 0.06 3.68 0.60 0.06Value 3.58 0.88 3.61 0.83 0.03 3.68 0.85 0.07Availability of posted menu items 4.01 0.29 3.96 0.31 -0.05 4.06 0.34 0.11Variety of menu choices 3.90 0.44 3.76 0.58 -0.13 3.92 0.46 0.15Variety of healthy menu choices 3.61 0.62 3.59 0.69 -0.01 3.69 0.56 0.10Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.49 0.05 3.60 0.06 0.11 3.64 -0.36 0.04Service: Overall 3.96 0.58 4.01 0.43 0.05 4.16 0.45 0.15Speed of service 3.79 0.74 3.89 0.53 0.10 3.94 0.65 0.06Hours of operation 3.87 0.52 3.87 0.53 0.00 3.95 0.51 0.08Helpfulness of staff 4.01 0.43 4.04 0.36 0.02 4.21 0.30 0.17Friendliness of staff 4.14 0.36 4.13 0.30 -0.01 4.29 0.29 0.16Cleanliness: Overall 4.08 0.53 4.04 0.46 -0.04 4.21 0.46 0.17Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.08 0.45 4.03 0.45 -0.05 4.23 0.37 0.19Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.95 0.57 3.87 0.60 -0.08 4.01 0.53 0.14Location 4.36 0.01 4.28 0.07 -0.08 4.44 -0.04 0.16Layout of facility 4.18 -0.14 4.14 -0.09 -0.04 4.30 -0.30 0.16Appearance 4.24 -0.11 4.18 -0.04 -0.05 4.35 -0.26 0.17Availability of seating 3.93 0.40 3.91 0.42 -0.02 4.00 0.29 0.09Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.01 0.29 4.02 0.24 0.02 4.10 0.10 0.08Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.86 0.20 3.87 0.22 0.01 4.03 0.01 0.16Social/ethical practices related to food 3.88 0.17 3.89 0.19 0.01 4.08 -0.09 0.19

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

20152014Your InstitutionYour Institution

2013Your Institution

24 School #242: Florida State University

Page 35: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

FOOD

Value

3.94 3.904.10

3.91 3.88 3.84

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Food: Overall

3.96 3.924.13

3.88 3.84 3.81

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Taste

3.93 3.90 4.05

3.85 3.81 3.78

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Eye Appeal

3.85 3.84 3.99

3.77 3.73 3.70

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Freshness

3.56 3.62 3.68

3.54 3.53 3.51

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Nutritional Content

3.58 3.61 3.68

3.49 3.48 3.42

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Value

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

25 School #242: Florida State University

Page 36: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

Value

MENU

4.01 3.96 4.064.04 3.99 3.95

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Availability of Posted Menu Items

3.90 3.76 3.92

3.69 3.66 3.63

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Variety of Menu Choices

3.61 3.59 3.69

3.51 3.50 3.48

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Variety of Healthy Menu Choices

3.49 3.60 3.643.58 3.57 3.53

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Variety of Vegetarian Menu Choices

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

26 School #242: Florida State University

Page 37: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

Value

SERVICE

3.96 4.01 4.164.19 4.18 4.16

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Service: Overall

3.79 3.89 3.944.02 4.01 4.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Speed of Service

3.87 3.87 3.95

3.86 3.84 3.84

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Hours of Operation

4.01 4.044.21

4.22 4.21 4.20

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Helpfulness of Staff

4.14 4.13 4.294.26 4.25 4.24

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Friendliness of Staff

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

27 School #242: Florida State University

Page 38: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY

CLEANLINESS

4.08 4.044.21

4.24 4.21 4.20

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Cleanliness: Overall

4.08 4.034.23

4.27 4.25 4.24

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Cleanliness: Serving Areas

3.95 3.87 4.014.03 4.01 3.98

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Cleanliness: Eating Areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

3.86 3.87 4.034.04 4.03 3.98

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

3.88 3.894.08

4.05 4.04 4.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Social/ethical practices related to food

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

28 School #242: Florida State University

Page 39: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

3 Year Trend For Your Institution and All Institutions - Satisfaction

Value

DINING ENVIRONMENT

4.36 4.28 4.444.39 4.38 4.39

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Location

4.18 4.14 4.304.23 4.22 4.23

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Layout of Facility

4.24 4.184.35

4.29 4.27 4.27

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Appearance

3.93 3.91 4.003.96 3.96 3.96

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Availability of Seating

4.01 4.02 4.104.12 4.12 4.09

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

2013 2014 2015

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

X = YOUR RESULTS O = INDUSTRY TYPICAL SHADED AREA = INDUSTRY MIDDLE RANGE

29 School #242: Florida State University

Page 40: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By All You Care to Eat Dining Facility (Dining Hall) - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 3.29 1.28 4.01 0.58Taste 3.18 1.52 3.91 0.89Eye appeal 3.28 0.45 3.89 0.02Freshness 3.10 1.52 3.93 0.76Nutritional content 3.00 1.42 3.75 0.68Value 3.11 1.26 3.79 0.69Availability of posted menu items 3.65 0.51 3.91 0.32Variety of menu choices 3.28 1.12 3.80 0.74Variety of healthy menu choices 3.00 1.42 3.69 0.64Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.20 0.08 3.63 -0.25Service: Overall 3.84 0.58 4.34 0.19Speed of service 3.89 0.42 4.35 0.13Hours of operation 3.63 0.75 4.04 0.47Helpfulness of staff 3.86 0.46 4.38 0.07Friendliness of staff 3.86 0.59 4.38 0.18Cleanliness: Overall 3.79 0.86 4.21 0.52Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.00 0.61 4.33 0.32Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.81 0.76 4.08 0.56Location 4.43 -0.25 4.31 0.15Layout of facility 4.38 -0.56 4.44 -0.42Appearance 4.37 -0.38 4.39 -0.25Availability of seating 4.32 -0.03 4.40 0.07Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.24 -0.02 4.22 0.14Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.67 0.26 4.09 -0.06Social/ethical practices related to food 3.71 0.15 4.04 -0.08

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: OverallTasteEye appealFreshnessNutritional contentValueAvailability of posted menu itemsVariety of menu choicesVariety of healthy menu choicesVariety of vegetarian menu choicesService: OverallSpeed of serviceHours of operationHelpfulness of staffFriendliness of staffCleanliness: OverallCleanliness: Serving areasCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)LocationLayout of facilityAppearanceAvailability of seatingComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)Environmentally friendly practices related to foodSocial/ethical practices related to food

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

All You Care to Eat Facility #

9

All You Care to Eat Facility #

6 10

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

7 8

1 2 3

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

4 5

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

30 School #242: Florida State University

Page 41: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By All You Care to Eat Dining Facility (Dining Hall) - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: OverallTasteEye appealFreshnessNutritional contentValueAvailability of posted menu itemsVariety of menu choicesVariety of healthy menu choicesVariety of vegetarian menu choicesService: OverallSpeed of serviceHours of operationHelpfulness of staffFriendliness of staffCleanliness: OverallCleanliness: Serving areasCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)LocationLayout of facilityAppearanceAvailability of seatingComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)Environmentally friendly practices related to foodSocial/ethical practices related to food

Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: OverallTasteEye appealFreshnessNutritional contentValueAvailability of posted menu itemsVariety of menu choicesVariety of healthy menu choicesVariety of vegetarian menu choicesService: OverallSpeed of serviceHours of operationHelpfulness of staffFriendliness of staffCleanliness: OverallCleanliness: Serving areasCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)LocationLayout of facilityAppearanceAvailability of seatingComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)Environmentally friendly practices related to foodSocial/ethical practices related to food

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

All You Care to Eat Facility #

20

All You Care to Eat Facility #

15

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

19

14

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

16 17 18

11

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

All You Care to Eat Facility #

13

All You Care to Eat Facility #

12

31 School #242: Florida State University

Page 42: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Retail Unit - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 3.87 0.76 4.49 0.15 3.79 0.79 4.23 0.51 4.37 0.21Taste 3.97 0.87 4.50 0.24 3.84 0.95 4.33 0.47 4.37 0.32Eye appeal 4.14 -0.19 4.32 -0.32 3.64 0.34 4.25 0.03 4.11 -0.35Freshness 3.80 0.82 4.33 0.28 3.75 0.87 4.30 0.55 4.14 0.50Nutritional content 3.42 0.80 3.80 0.29 3.33 1.00 4.45 0.26 4.14 0.20Value 3.58 1.07 4.04 0.48 3.32 1.17 3.51 1.15 3.94 0.69Availability of posted menu items 4.16 0.43 4.18 0.32 4.10 0.25 4.50 -0.08 4.43 0.10Variety of menu choices 4.22 0.29 3.90 0.43 3.66 0.72 4.33 0.21 4.30 -0.03Variety of healthy menu choices 3.76 0.51 3.72 0.35 3.39 1.00 4.51 0.18 4.25 0.03Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.63 -0.41 3.54 -0.44 3.39 -0.18 4.62 -0.68 4.00 -0.57Service: Overall 3.35 1.32 4.48 0.18 3.98 0.62 4.33 0.31 4.14 0.37Speed of service 2.90 1.79 4.35 0.32 3.71 0.95 3.92 0.73 3.55 1.02Hours of operation 3.98 0.34 4.04 0.45 3.57 0.87 3.72 0.65 4.26 0.11Helpfulness of staff 3.52 1.12 4.46 0.09 4.04 0.43 4.51 -0.03 4.27 0.12Friendliness of staff 3.77 0.98 4.53 0.07 4.09 0.37 4.45 0.11 4.35 0.03Cleanliness: Overall 3.95 0.78 4.34 0.30 3.75 0.88 4.58 0.12 4.40 0.19Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.01 0.66 4.35 0.22 3.81 0.72 4.48 0.11 4.28 0.27Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.04 0.69 4.07 0.46 3.47 1.04 4.05 0.26 4.30 0.17Location 4.41 0.00 4.42 -0.08 4.42 0.01 4.41 -0.08 4.43 -0.04Layout of facility 4.28 -0.32 4.32 -0.34 4.16 -0.09 4.09 -0.03 4.24 -0.27Appearance 4.22 -0.04 4.42 -0.34 3.77 0.35 4.43 -0.37 4.47 -0.42Availability of seating 4.13 0.37 3.91 0.40 3.98 0.48 3.30 0.74 4.37 -0.18Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.11 0.30 4.18 0.02 3.75 0.45 3.56 0.46 4.31 -0.10Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.84 0.13 4.20 -0.13 3.72 0.20 4.28 -0.02 4.12 0.02Social/ethical practices related to food 3.81 0.14 4.29 -0.24 3.78 0.08 4.34 -0.16 4.24 -0.27

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 4.25 0.34 4.24 0.23 4.24 0.01 4.33 0.34 4.55 0.11Taste 4.32 0.56 4.24 0.23 4.06 0.38 4.43 0.38 4.68 0.14Eye appeal 4.15 -0.03 4.18 -0.04 4.00 -0.06 4.22 -0.35 4.39 -0.50Freshness 4.23 0.59 4.18 0.36 4.00 0.44 4.24 0.43 4.48 0.28Nutritional content 3.97 0.25 3.88 0.65 3.75 0.69 4.04 0.42 3.98 0.25Value 3.69 0.99 3.82 0.64 3.25 1.44 3.69 0.88 3.98 0.75Availability of posted menu items 4.20 0.24 4.07 0.14 4.23 0.44 4.46 0.02 4.42 0.00Variety of menu choices 3.92 0.51 4.20 0.16 3.80 0.77 4.40 0.07 4.34 -0.09Variety of healthy menu choices 3.82 0.34 3.93 0.64 3.86 0.68 4.21 0.31 4.11 0.03Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.26 0.02 4.14 -0.30 3.55 0.12 3.86 -0.74 4.15 -0.82Service: Overall 4.62 0.16 4.29 0.11 4.41 0.15 4.08 0.59 4.32 0.31Speed of service 4.63 0.10 4.29 0.04 4.24 0.26 3.50 1.18 3.80 0.88Hours of operation 4.30 0.24 4.25 0.08 3.94 0.43 3.38 1.01 3.53 1.00Helpfulness of staff 4.63 0.19 4.06 0.41 4.44 0.03 4.18 0.32 4.33 0.25Friendliness of staff 4.70 0.12 4.18 0.29 4.59 -0.03 4.30 0.28 4.49 0.08Cleanliness: Overall 4.66 0.20 4.29 0.24 4.38 0.23 4.33 0.38 4.53 0.12Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.53 0.29 4.33 0.17 4.43 0.11 4.25 0.39 4.31 0.16Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 4.38 0.00 4.07 0.08 4.47 0.10 3.96 0.69 4.00 0.43Location 4.50 0.14 4.41 0.05 4.25 0.39 4.34 0.04 4.48 -0.08Layout of facility 4.24 -0.02 4.35 -0.15 4.19 0.24 4.21 -0.29 4.08 -0.16Appearance 4.37 -0.01 4.47 -0.27 4.44 -0.30 4.40 -0.42 4.35 -0.36Availability of seating 4.00 -0.34 3.86 0.07 3.80 0.60 3.78 0.36 3.23 0.79Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 3.94 -0.23 4.07 -0.21 4.31 -0.39 3.93 0.20 3.72 0.22Environmentally friendly practices related to food 4.20 -0.08 4.12 -0.38 4.09 -0.59 3.91 0.22 4.17 -0.21Social/ethical practices related to food 4.19 -0.14 4.13 -0.46 4.27 -0.61 3.96 0.11 4.20 -0.29

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #Retail Unit #Retail Unit #4 5

Retail Unit #8 10

Retail Unit #

1 2 3Retail Unit #

6 7Retail Unit #

9

32 School #242: Florida State University

Page 43: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking Survey

By Retail Unit - Your Institution

Satisfaction Gap* Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: Overall 3.91 0.59 4.39 0.04 4.14 0.33 4.11 0.41Taste 3.99 0.58 4.48 0.15 4.20 0.44 4.33 0.48Eye appeal 3.88 0.12 4.39 -0.26 4.42 -0.31 4.25 -0.24Freshness 3.71 0.79 4.31 0.40 4.14 0.47 4.07 0.52Nutritional content 3.26 0.63 4.00 0.33 3.79 0.43 3.77 0.49Value 3.51 0.99 3.93 0.50 3.50 0.89 3.53 1.08Availability of posted menu items 4.15 0.25 4.11 0.33 3.97 0.48 3.43 1.09Variety of menu choices 3.51 0.83 4.23 0.04 4.12 0.13 4.04 0.29Variety of healthy menu choices 3.21 0.65 3.76 0.59 3.84 0.29 3.72 0.50Variety of vegetarian menu choices 3.28 -0.21 3.80 -0.32 3.85 -0.31 3.74 -0.56Service: Overall 3.69 0.74 4.35 0.26 4.28 0.39 4.10 0.65Speed of service 3.47 1.13 4.11 0.53 4.16 0.44 3.78 0.95Hours of operation 4.45 0.11 3.85 0.61 4.14 0.34 4.48 0.17Helpfulness of staff 3.81 0.70 4.43 0.10 4.32 0.21 4.32 0.35Friendliness of staff 3.88 0.78 4.57 0.04 4.38 0.17 4.47 0.27Cleanliness: Overall 3.96 0.63 4.53 0.12 4.44 0.19 4.26 0.47Cleanliness: Serving areas 4.10 0.49 4.47 0.14 4.32 0.26 4.22 0.41Cleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) 3.75 0.87 4.32 0.22 4.23 0.22 4.02 0.44Location 4.44 -0.06 4.61 -0.17 4.56 -0.15 4.68 0.01Layout of facility 4.30 -0.22 4.31 -0.25 4.36 -0.22 4.39 -0.18Appearance 4.34 -0.19 4.55 -0.41 4.45 -0.30 4.49 -0.31Availability of seating 4.22 0.24 3.80 0.49 3.91 0.31 3.64 0.59Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) 4.20 0.22 4.11 0.03 4.23 -0.02 4.13 0.13Environmentally friendly practices related to food 3.88 0.03 4.18 0.09 4.08 -0.05 4.19 -0.01Social/ethical practices related to food 4.08 -0.19 4.23 -0.07 4.08 -0.06 4.23 -0.09

Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction Gap Satisfaction GapFood: OverallTasteEye appealFreshnessNutritional contentValueAvailability of posted menu itemsVariety of menu choicesVariety of healthy menu choicesVariety of vegetarian menu choicesService: OverallSpeed of serviceHours of operationHelpfulness of staffFriendliness of staffCleanliness: OverallCleanliness: Serving areasCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)LocationLayout of facilityAppearanceAvailability of seatingComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)Environmentally friendly practices related to foodSocial/ethical practices related to food

* Gap = Mean Importance minus Mean Satisfaction.

11 1312Retail Unit #

16 17

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

Retail Unit #Retail Unit #

20Retail Unit #

15

Retail Unit # Retail Unit #

14

1918

33 School #242: Florida State University

Page 44: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,
Page 45: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

Detailed Survey Results for Florida State University

This section shows the detailed survey results for both the overall industry and for your institution by various data aggregations to allow comparisons between differing respondent groups.

Page 46: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,
Page 47: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

DEMOGRAPHICS

YOUR INSTITUTION

75%4%

20%0%

2,39549%

9%17%10%14%

1%1,80067%32%

0%1%

2,39535%65%

2,395

StudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type

Total Resp First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status

Total Resp FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender Identity

Total Resp On campusOff campus

Live...

Total Resp

Florida State University

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 48: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 1a

4% 6% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .02 1,9394% 8% 19% 40% 28% 3.81 .00 105,9044% 5% 13% 41% 37% 4.03 .03 1,4924% 7% 17% 40% 32% 3.90 .00 59,7374% 10% 22% 42% 23% 3.69 .05 4474% 9% 22% 41% 23% 3.70 .00 46,1674% 6% 15% 41% 34% 3.94 .03 1,4904% 9% 4% 55% 28% 3.93 .12 753% 5% 15% 41% 36% 4.02 .05 366

25% 63% 13% 3.88 .23 84% 8% 20% 41% 27% 3.78 .00 91,5725% 7% 16% 36% 35% 3.88 .02 3,1674% 6% 15% 38% 38% 4.01 .01 10,3494% 3% 13% 32% 48% 4.16 .04 6905% 7% 18% 40% 31% 3.84 .04 7292% 3% 16% 38% 40% 4.11 .08 1293% 4% 7% 47% 39% 4.15 .06 2565% 6% 16% 38% 35% 3.92 .09 1463% 8% 14% 40% 34% 3.94 .07 220

40% 40% 20% 3.80 .25 104% 8% 20% 41% 27% 3.78 .01 35,0285% 9% 21% 40% 24% 3.70 .01 18,8774% 8% 19% 41% 27% 3.79 .01 15,6294% 7% 18% 42% 29% 3.84 .01 14,4334% 7% 17% 42% 30% 3.87 .01 6,5653% 7% 21% 37% 31% 3.84 .04 8964% 6% 14% 42% 33% 3.93 .03 1,2903% 5% 15% 41% 35% 4.00 .04 628

11% 11% 22% 56% 4.22 .36 9 17% 58% 8% 17% 3.25 .28 12

4% 8% 20% 40% 28% 3.81 .00 62,7644% 8% 18% 41% 29% 3.82 .01 41,520

10% 9% 21% 39% 21% 3.52 .06 3837% 10% 26% 35% 22% 3.56 .04 7305% 8% 20% 38% 29% 3.77 .04 6723% 5% 12% 43% 37% 4.05 .03 1,2675% 9% 22% 41% 24% 3.71 .00 61,7844% 6% 16% 40% 35% 3.97 .00 42,8544% 6% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .02 1,9393% 6% 15% 42% 33% 3.96 .01 8,9847% 13% 23% 38% 19% 3.50 .01 8,6363% 7% 19% 42% 28% 3.85 .01 27,0505% 8% 21% 38% 28% 3.76 .01 23,7085% 8% 21% 40% 26% 3.76 .01 18,4333% 6% 17% 42% 32% 3.94 .01 19,0934% 6% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .02 1,9394% 8% 19% 40% 29% 3.81 .00 80,4544% 8% 19% 40% 28% 3.80 .01 25,4504% 6% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .02 1,9394% 7% 18% 37% 34% 3.89 .02 2,5644% 8% 19% 41% 28% 3.81 .00 103,3404% 6% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .02 1,9394% 7% 18% 41% 30% 3.87 .00 80,2196% 11% 22% 38% 23% 3.59 .01 22,5956% 7% 17% 37% 33% 3.85 .02 3,0904% 6% 15% 41% 34% 3.95 .02 1,9393% 7% 19% 42% 29% 3.87 .01 5,0354% 8% 19% 40% 29% 3.80 .01 20,9094% 7% 19% 41% 30% 3.86 .01 34,2045% 8% 19% 41% 27% 3.77 .01 45,7564% 6% 21% 43% 25% 3.79 .09 1264% 4% 9% 37% 46% 4.18 .04 6633% 5% 12% 46% 35% 4.06 .05 3967% 9% 20% 40% 25% 3.68 .08 2251% 4% 13% 49% 33% 4.09 .09 825% 8% 19% 38% 29% 3.77 .01 18,7654% 8% 21% 42% 25% 3.75 .01 7,3863% 5% 15% 39% 38% 4.02 .01 15,1893% 6% 16% 40% 35% 3.98 .01 8,2784% 5% 15% 41% 36% 4.00 .02 3,6733% 5% 16% 42% 34% 3.99 .01 6,3203% 6% 15% 36% 40% 4.05 .09 126

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the diningservices provided by your college/university?

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 49: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 1bMean* Importance of Various Items and Satisfaction with Each Item

(as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in Generalwithout regard to any specific meal)

Aggregated Dining Halls & Retail Units

4.594.104.754.133.954.054.643.994.283.684.533.684.414.064.383.924.253.693.283.644.604.164.603.944.463.954.514.214.574.294.674.214.604.234.544.014.404.444.014.304.104.354.294.004.214.104.044.033.994.08

Food: Overall - IMPORTANCEFood: Overall - SATISFACTIONTaste - IMPORTANCETaste - SATISFACTIONEye appeal - IMPORTANCEEye appeal - SATISFACTIONFreshness - IMPORTANCEFreshness - SATISFACTIONNutritional content - IMPORTANCENutritional content - SATISFACTIONValue - IMPORTANCEValue - SATISFACTIONAvailability of posted menu items - IMPORTANCEAvailability of posted menu items - SATISFACTIONVariety of menu choices - IMPORTANCEVariety of menu choices - SATISFACTIONVariety of healthy menu choices - IMPORTANCEVariety of healthy menu choices - SATISFACTIONVariety of vegetarian menu choices - IMPORTANCEVariety of vegetarian menu choices - SATISFACTIONService: Overall - IMPORTANCEService: Overall - SATISFACTIONSpeed of service - IMPORTANCESpeed of service - SATISFACTIONHours of operation - IMPORTANCEHours of operation - SATISFACTIONHelpfulness of staff - IMPORTANCEHelpfulness of staff - SATISFACTIONFriendliness of staff - IMPORTANCEFriendliness of staff - SATISFACTIONCleanliness: Overall - IMPORTANCECleanliness: Overall - SATISFACTIONCleanliness: Serving areas - IMPORTANCECleanliness: Serving areas - SATISFACTIONCleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) - IMPORTANCECleanliness: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.) - SATISFACTIONLocation - IMPORTANCELocation - SATISFACTIONLayout of facility - IMPORTANCELayout of facility - SATISFACTIONAppearance - IMPORTANCEAppearance - SATISFACTIONAvailability of seating - IMPORTANCEAvailability of seating - SATISFACTIONComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) - IMPORTANCEComfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.) - SATISFACTIONEnvironmentally friendly practices related to food - IMPORTANCEEnvironmentally friendly practices related to food - SATISFACTIONSocial/ ethical practices related to food - IMPORTANCESocial/ ethical practices related to food - SATISFACTION

Florida State University

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance/Satisfaction

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 50: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 2aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

0% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,8850% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 102,6630% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.59 .02 1,4400% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.52 .00 57,560

1% 7% 23% 68% 4.59 .03 4450% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 45,1030% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .02 1,452

8% 35% 57% 4.49 .08 74 1% 5% 26% 69% 4.63 .03 353 17% 83% 4.83 .17 6

0% 1% 9% 27% 63% 4.51 .00 88,2590% 1% 6% 28% 65% 4.56 .01 3,1770% 0% 5% 27% 68% 4.62 .01 10,2711% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .03 6640% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.62 .02 729

2% 10% 18% 70% 4.56 .07 1240% 2% 5% 23% 70% 4.61 .04 251

6% 29% 65% 4.60 .05 1391% 2% 10% 32% 56% 4.42 .05 199

10% 30% 60% 4.30 .40 100% 1% 9% 27% 63% 4.51 .00 34,0100% 1% 9% 27% 63% 4.52 .01 18,0770% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .01 15,0430% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .01 14,0020% 1% 9% 32% 59% 4.47 .01 6,1551% 1% 9% 28% 61% 4.49 .03 8360% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.63 .02 1,2490% 1% 7% 28% 63% 4.53 .03 614

14% 43% 43% 4.29 .29 77% 13% 53% 27% 3.93 .27 150% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.56 .00 59,6110% 1% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .00 41,2691% 3% 13% 26% 57% 4.37 .04 3742% 2% 13% 25% 58% 4.36 .03 7190% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.62 .03 6730% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.57 .02 1,2120% 1% 9% 27% 64% 4.52 .00 59,5920% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.54 .00 41,6100% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,8850% 1% 8% 29% 62% 4.51 .01 9,0900% 1% 8% 29% 62% 4.53 .01 8,2550% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .00 26,6680% 1% 8% 25% 66% 4.55 .00 23,0630% 1% 9% 26% 64% 4.52 .01 17,2250% 1% 8% 27% 65% 4.54 .01 18,3620% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,8850% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .00 78,2600% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.55 .00 24,4030% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,8850% 1% 7% 28% 63% 4.52 .01 2,5290% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 100,1340% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,8850% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .00 78,5010% 1% 7% 27% 65% 4.54 .00 21,2581% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.52 .01 2,9040% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,8850% 1% 7% 27% 66% 4.58 .01 4,9960% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.54 .01 20,2200% 1% 9% 27% 63% 4.51 .00 32,5970% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .00 44,8501% 5% 29% 65% 4.58 .06 1370% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.64 .03 6451% 2% 6% 29% 63% 4.53 .04 376

1% 8% 23% 69% 4.59 .05 200 7% 35% 57% 4.50 .07 82

0% 1% 9% 27% 62% 4.50 .01 18,2880% 1% 8% 29% 62% 4.52 .01 7,2270% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .01 14,6591% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .01 7,7290% 1% 6% 24% 70% 4.62 .01 3,6050% 1% 9% 29% 61% 4.48 .01 5,9341% 1% 8% 22% 69% 4.57 .07 118

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 51: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 2bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

3% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3293% 7% 19% 42% 28% 3.84 .00 122,9022% 3% 10% 37% 48% 4.24 .02 1,7763% 6% 15% 41% 35% 3.98 .00 69,0834% 10% 24% 39% 22% 3.65 .05 5534% 10% 24% 43% 20% 3.65 .00 53,8193% 6% 14% 36% 41% 4.08 .02 1,7573% 6% 4% 48% 39% 4.13 .10 963% 3% 11% 39% 44% 4.18 .04 467

11% 56% 33% 4.22 .22 93% 8% 20% 42% 26% 3.80 .00 104,6744% 8% 14% 39% 35% 3.93 .02 4,0533% 5% 13% 38% 40% 4.08 .01 12,9923% 4% 14% 33% 47% 4.16 .03 8223% 8% 17% 35% 38% 3.96 .04 8741% 5% 10% 37% 47% 4.23 .07 1542% 4% 8% 36% 50% 4.29 .05 2951% 2% 15% 37% 45% 4.24 .06 1744% 4% 12% 42% 38% 4.06 .07 248

42% 25% 33% 3.92 .26 123% 8% 22% 42% 25% 3.77 .01 40,0094% 9% 22% 41% 24% 3.72 .01 21,6654% 8% 19% 42% 28% 3.83 .01 17,8643% 7% 17% 43% 30% 3.90 .01 16,4663% 6% 16% 44% 30% 3.91 .01 7,4383% 6% 21% 36% 34% 3.92 .03 1,0503% 5% 13% 35% 44% 4.13 .03 1,5553% 5% 13% 43% 37% 4.05 .04 748

11% 33% 22% 33% 3.78 .36 9 6% 18% 53% 24% 3.94 .20 17

3% 8% 19% 41% 29% 3.85 .00 72,5334% 7% 19% 43% 27% 3.83 .00 48,2548% 9% 20% 39% 25% 3.63 .06 4387% 10% 26% 35% 22% 3.56 .04 8433% 8% 18% 35% 36% 3.92 .04 8143% 3% 10% 39% 45% 4.20 .02 1,5154% 9% 23% 42% 23% 3.71 .00 70,2993% 5% 14% 42% 36% 4.02 .00 50,8763% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3292% 6% 16% 44% 32% 3.98 .01 10,5515% 12% 23% 40% 20% 3.56 .01 9,9933% 7% 19% 45% 27% 3.86 .01 31,2714% 8% 21% 39% 28% 3.79 .01 27,2864% 8% 21% 41% 27% 3.79 .01 21,0213% 6% 16% 42% 33% 3.97 .01 22,7803% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3293% 7% 19% 42% 29% 3.85 .00 94,2823% 8% 20% 42% 27% 3.81 .01 28,6203% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3294% 7% 17% 39% 33% 3.91 .02 3,1573% 8% 19% 42% 28% 3.84 .00 119,7453% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3293% 7% 19% 43% 29% 3.89 .00 93,4495% 10% 21% 39% 24% 3.66 .01 26,0194% 7% 16% 38% 34% 3.91 .02 3,4343% 5% 13% 37% 42% 4.10 .02 2,3292% 6% 20% 44% 28% 3.90 .01 5,9084% 7% 19% 41% 30% 3.85 .01 24,3353% 7% 20% 42% 29% 3.87 .01 39,2044% 8% 19% 42% 27% 3.80 .00 53,4554% 5% 20% 51% 20% 3.79 .07 1622% 2% 4% 32% 59% 4.43 .03 8031% 3% 9% 40% 46% 4.28 .04 4504% 8% 20% 35% 34% 3.88 .07 2662% 1% 11% 43% 43% 4.24 .09 954% 8% 18% 41% 29% 3.83 .01 21,6523% 7% 19% 44% 27% 3.85 .01 8,6443% 4% 12% 39% 42% 4.13 .01 17,6392% 5% 14% 40% 39% 4.08 .01 9,3142% 4% 12% 39% 42% 4.15 .01 4,4392% 5% 16% 44% 33% 4.02 .01 7,2473% 9% 14% 35% 40% 4.01 .09 148

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 52: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 3aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

0% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,8800% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 102,8740% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,4370% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.67 .00 57,685

0% 3% 16% 80% 4.75 .03 4430% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 45,1890% 1% 4% 15% 80% 4.74 .02 1,449

4% 19% 76% 4.72 .06 72 0% 2% 17% 80% 4.77 .03 353 17% 83% 4.83 .17 6

0% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.66 .00 88,3760% 0% 3% 20% 76% 4.71 .01 3,2200% 0% 2% 15% 82% 4.79 .00 10,3051% 1% 6% 18% 74% 4.64 .03 6650% 1% 4% 14% 82% 4.77 .02 725

2% 15% 82% 4.80 .04 123 0% 3% 12% 84% 4.81 .03 251

1% 1% 2% 19% 76% 4.69 .06 1360% 0% 9% 23% 68% 4.56 .05 204

30% 70% 4.70 .15 100% 1% 5% 19% 74% 4.67 .00 34,0820% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.65 .00 18,1020% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.65 .01 15,0570% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.66 .01 14,0000% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.62 .01 6,161

0% 5% 21% 74% 4.67 .02 838 0% 3% 13% 84% 4.80 .01 1,248

0% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.65 .03 610 14% 14% 71% 4.57 .30 7 7% 7% 40% 47% 4.27 .23 15

0% 0% 4% 18% 78% 4.72 .00 59,7610% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.60 .00 41,2942% 2% 12% 20% 66% 4.46 .04 3861% 1% 9% 19% 70% 4.56 .03 723

0% 3% 14% 83% 4.79 .02 6690% 0% 4% 17% 78% 4.73 .02 1,2110% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.66 .00 59,7200% 1% 5% 19% 76% 4.69 .00 41,6710% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,8800% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .01 9,1380% 1% 5% 22% 73% 4.66 .01 8,2650% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .00 26,7290% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.67 .00 23,1080% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.66 .00 17,2610% 1% 5% 18% 76% 4.70 .00 18,3730% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,8800% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 78,3620% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.68 .00 24,5120% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,8800% 1% 5% 18% 76% 4.69 .01 2,5380% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 100,3360% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,8800% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 78,6420% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.68 .00 21,3310% 1% 4% 15% 80% 4.73 .01 2,9010% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,8800% 0% 4% 19% 76% 4.71 .01 5,0330% 1% 5% 19% 74% 4.67 .00 20,2650% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.66 .00 32,6880% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 44,888

1% 1% 16% 82% 4.79 .04 1380% 1% 4% 14% 81% 4.75 .02 6390% 0% 4% 17% 79% 4.74 .03 3821% 1% 4% 15% 80% 4.74 .04 198

3% 24% 74% 4.71 .06 800% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.65 .00 18,4010% 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.67 .01 7,2540% 1% 4% 18% 77% 4.70 .01 14,6400% 1% 5% 20% 75% 4.67 .01 7,7480% 0% 3% 15% 81% 4.76 .01 3,6120% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .01 5,9111% 1% 5% 14% 79% 4.70 .06 119

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 53: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 3bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

3% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.13 .02 2,3334% 9% 20% 39% 29% 3.81 .00 122,7862% 4% 8% 32% 53% 4.31 .02 1,7773% 6% 15% 39% 37% 4.01 .00 69,0056% 13% 24% 35% 22% 3.55 .05 5564% 12% 27% 39% 18% 3.54 .00 53,7813% 7% 12% 31% 46% 4.10 .03 1,7592% 1% 18% 41% 37% 4.11 .09 992% 3% 11% 38% 45% 4.21 .04 466

11% 44% 44% 4.33 .24 94% 9% 22% 39% 27% 3.76 .00 104,5694% 6% 15% 39% 36% 3.97 .02 4,0593% 5% 13% 38% 42% 4.11 .01 12,9663% 4% 14% 32% 46% 4.15 .04 8234% 10% 15% 29% 43% 3.96 .04 8731% 5% 8% 32% 53% 4.31 .07 1572% 5% 7% 36% 51% 4.28 .05 2921% 3% 14% 30% 51% 4.26 .07 1744% 5% 10% 35% 47% 4.16 .07 251

25% 42% 33% 4.08 .23 124% 10% 23% 38% 24% 3.69 .01 39,9924% 10% 23% 38% 25% 3.68 .01 21,6314% 8% 20% 40% 28% 3.81 .01 17,8493% 7% 19% 40% 31% 3.88 .01 16,4383% 7% 17% 41% 31% 3.91 .01 7,4283% 8% 20% 35% 33% 3.85 .03 1,0494% 6% 11% 32% 48% 4.15 .03 1,5602% 7% 14% 36% 41% 4.08 .04 747

22% 22% 11% 44% 3.78 .43 9 6% 29% 29% 35% 3.94 .23 17

3% 9% 20% 38% 29% 3.82 .00 72,4694% 8% 21% 40% 28% 3.79 .00 48,1907% 10% 22% 34% 27% 3.63 .06 4418% 9% 26% 33% 25% 3.58 .04 8414% 10% 15% 30% 41% 3.92 .04 8122% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.24 .02 1,5214% 11% 24% 39% 23% 3.65 .00 70,2503% 6% 15% 39% 37% 4.03 .00 50,7863% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.13 .02 2,3332% 7% 18% 41% 33% 3.95 .01 10,5466% 13% 24% 38% 20% 3.54 .01 9,9903% 8% 20% 42% 28% 3.83 .01 31,2264% 9% 21% 37% 28% 3.75 .01 27,2614% 10% 23% 37% 27% 3.72 .01 21,0373% 7% 17% 39% 35% 3.96 .01 22,7263% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.13 .02 2,3334% 9% 20% 39% 29% 3.81 .00 94,1994% 9% 21% 39% 27% 3.78 .01 28,5873% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.13 .02 2,3333% 8% 17% 38% 34% 3.91 .02 3,1584% 9% 20% 39% 29% 3.80 .00 119,6283% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.13 .02 2,3333% 8% 20% 40% 29% 3.85 .00 93,3256% 11% 21% 36% 26% 3.65 .01 26,0205% 8% 19% 35% 34% 3.84 .02 3,4413% 6% 12% 33% 46% 4.13 .02 2,3332% 8% 21% 41% 27% 3.84 .01 5,8934% 8% 20% 39% 30% 3.83 .01 24,3093% 8% 21% 39% 29% 3.83 .01 39,1944% 9% 20% 38% 28% 3.77 .00 53,3902% 7% 19% 47% 24% 3.84 .07 1652% 2% 6% 26% 63% 4.46 .03 8011% 3% 7% 33% 56% 4.41 .04 4525% 8% 12% 37% 39% 3.97 .07 2652% 1% 7% 48% 41% 4.26 .08 944% 8% 18% 39% 31% 3.85 .01 21,6433% 8% 18% 42% 30% 3.89 .01 8,6412% 5% 12% 36% 45% 4.16 .01 17,6313% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .01 9,3112% 5% 12% 37% 45% 4.18 .01 4,4242% 5% 16% 42% 35% 4.03 .01 7,2073% 7% 16% 36% 38% 4.00 .08 148

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 54: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 4aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

2% 10% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .02 1,8753% 11% 20% 34% 33% 3.83 .00 102,5101% 9% 17% 34% 39% 3.99 .03 1,4322% 9% 18% 34% 37% 3.93 .00 57,4952% 11% 21% 35% 31% 3.82 .05 4433% 13% 22% 34% 28% 3.71 .01 45,0152% 11% 19% 32% 36% 3.88 .03 1,4421% 4% 21% 47% 27% 3.95 .10 730% 4% 12% 39% 45% 4.25 .04 354

17% 50% 33% 4.17 .31 63% 12% 21% 33% 31% 3.79 .00 88,0502% 7% 17% 39% 35% 3.98 .02 3,2081% 5% 13% 39% 42% 4.17 .01 10,2942% 5% 17% 29% 47% 4.14 .04 6702% 11% 20% 33% 34% 3.85 .04 7192% 13% 19% 28% 39% 3.90 .10 1201% 8% 15% 30% 46% 4.12 .06 2522% 22% 12% 25% 39% 3.78 .11 1382% 10% 26% 38% 24% 3.73 .07 203

10% 60% 30% 4.00 .37 103% 12% 21% 33% 30% 3.75 .01 33,9343% 13% 21% 33% 31% 3.76 .01 18,0303% 12% 20% 33% 33% 3.82 .01 15,0243% 11% 20% 33% 34% 3.85 .01 13,9442% 12% 20% 36% 30% 3.79 .01 6,1482% 9% 18% 34% 37% 3.96 .04 8331% 8% 16% 34% 41% 4.06 .03 1,2442% 11% 22% 35% 30% 3.79 .04 609

14% 29% 43% 14% 2.57 .37 77% 53% 27% 13% 2.47 .22 152% 10% 18% 35% 35% 3.92 .00 59,6263% 13% 22% 33% 29% 3.71 .01 41,0914% 15% 24% 21% 36% 3.70 .06 3755% 16% 23% 30% 27% 3.58 .04 7272% 11% 21% 32% 34% 3.86 .04 6632% 9% 16% 35% 38% 4.00 .03 1,2123% 13% 21% 33% 30% 3.74 .00 59,4752% 9% 18% 35% 37% 3.96 .01 41,5662% 10% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .02 1,8753% 12% 21% 37% 28% 3.74 .01 9,0983% 13% 23% 34% 27% 3.68 .01 8,2453% 12% 21% 35% 30% 3.77 .01 26,6472% 9% 18% 33% 37% 3.93 .01 23,0213% 11% 19% 32% 35% 3.87 .01 17,1762% 10% 19% 33% 35% 3.88 .01 18,3232% 10% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .02 1,8752% 11% 20% 34% 33% 3.84 .00 78,0933% 12% 20% 34% 32% 3.80 .01 24,4172% 10% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .02 1,8752% 7% 17% 35% 39% 4.00 .02 2,5283% 11% 20% 34% 33% 3.83 .00 99,9822% 10% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .02 1,8752% 11% 20% 34% 32% 3.83 .00 78,3453% 13% 20% 33% 31% 3.77 .01 21,2661% 4% 11% 32% 53% 4.31 .02 2,8992% 10% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .02 1,8753% 12% 20% 35% 31% 3.78 .02 5,0192% 9% 18% 34% 36% 3.93 .01 20,2092% 10% 19% 34% 34% 3.87 .01 32,5303% 12% 21% 34% 30% 3.77 .01 44,7522% 7% 20% 32% 39% 3.99 .09 1371% 10% 18% 32% 39% 3.97 .04 6341% 8% 16% 37% 38% 4.02 .05 3812% 11% 15% 33% 39% 3.97 .08 198

10% 11% 40% 39% 4.09 .10 822% 9% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .01 18,3083% 13% 21% 34% 29% 3.75 .01 7,2322% 8% 17% 33% 39% 4.00 .01 14,5942% 9% 17% 35% 37% 3.97 .01 7,7302% 9% 16% 35% 38% 3.99 .02 3,6052% 10% 20% 35% 34% 3.88 .01 5,9061% 6% 13% 28% 53% 4.26 .09 120

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 55: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 4bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

3% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.05 .02 2,3183% 9% 23% 36% 29% 3.78 .00 122,3932% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.20 .02 1,7623% 7% 20% 36% 35% 3.94 .00 68,8175% 13% 23% 36% 23% 3.58 .05 5564% 11% 28% 36% 21% 3.59 .00 53,5763% 6% 16% 33% 41% 4.03 .03 1,7501% 8% 18% 39% 34% 3.97 .10 973% 5% 11% 40% 42% 4.13 .05 462

22% 44% 33% 4.11 .26 93% 9% 25% 36% 27% 3.74 .00 104,2323% 6% 18% 38% 35% 3.95 .02 4,0432% 5% 15% 38% 40% 4.08 .01 12,9143% 5% 15% 32% 45% 4.13 .04 8254% 8% 18% 32% 38% 3.92 .04 8683% 5% 12% 34% 46% 4.17 .08 1552% 2% 13% 35% 48% 4.25 .05 2952% 5% 19% 29% 45% 4.11 .08 1723% 7% 15% 35% 40% 4.02 .07 248

25% 42% 33% 4.08 .23 123% 9% 26% 36% 26% 3.71 .01 39,8704% 11% 26% 34% 24% 3.65 .01 21,5544% 9% 23% 36% 28% 3.75 .01 17,7723% 8% 23% 37% 29% 3.81 .01 16,3873% 6% 20% 40% 31% 3.91 .01 7,4153% 7% 20% 35% 34% 3.90 .03 1,0493% 6% 14% 32% 44% 4.09 .03 1,5513% 7% 17% 39% 35% 3.97 .04 741

11% 11% 56% 22% 3.67 .44 9 6% 24% 47% 24% 3.88 .21 17

3% 9% 22% 36% 30% 3.81 .00 72,3064% 8% 25% 36% 27% 3.75 .00 47,9668% 9% 23% 36% 24% 3.59 .06 4396% 11% 31% 29% 24% 3.53 .04 8384% 8% 18% 33% 36% 3.89 .04 8062% 5% 13% 35% 44% 4.14 .03 1,5124% 10% 27% 35% 24% 3.65 .00 70,0193% 6% 19% 37% 36% 3.97 .00 50,6293% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.05 .02 2,3182% 7% 23% 38% 31% 3.88 .01 10,5285% 12% 28% 35% 20% 3.53 .01 9,9413% 8% 23% 38% 28% 3.80 .01 31,1324% 9% 24% 34% 29% 3.75 .01 27,1974% 9% 24% 35% 28% 3.75 .01 20,9353% 7% 21% 36% 33% 3.90 .01 22,6603% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.05 .02 2,3183% 8% 23% 36% 29% 3.79 .00 93,8963% 9% 24% 36% 27% 3.75 .01 28,4973% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.05 .02 2,3184% 8% 21% 34% 33% 3.83 .02 3,1533% 9% 23% 36% 29% 3.78 .00 119,2403% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.05 .02 2,3183% 8% 23% 37% 29% 3.82 .00 93,0125% 11% 24% 34% 25% 3.64 .01 25,9545% 9% 19% 33% 34% 3.81 .02 3,4273% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.05 .02 2,3182% 8% 24% 38% 27% 3.81 .01 5,8794% 8% 23% 35% 30% 3.79 .01 24,2503% 8% 24% 36% 29% 3.80 .01 39,0494% 9% 23% 36% 28% 3.76 .00 53,2152% 9% 29% 42% 18% 3.64 .08 1623% 4% 10% 30% 53% 4.27 .03 7930% 2% 11% 36% 51% 4.36 .04 4503% 5% 15% 37% 40% 4.06 .06 2622% 4% 12% 43% 39% 4.13 .09 954% 9% 22% 36% 29% 3.77 .01 21,5643% 8% 24% 39% 27% 3.80 .01 8,6052% 5% 17% 35% 41% 4.06 .01 17,5842% 5% 16% 34% 43% 4.12 .01 9,3091% 5% 16% 36% 42% 4.12 .01 4,4142% 6% 21% 38% 33% 3.95 .01 7,1932% 3% 14% 37% 44% 4.18 .08 148

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 56: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 5aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

0% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 1,8660% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 102,2960% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 1,4240% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .00 57,3550% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.66 .03 4420% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 44,9410% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.61 .02 1,435

4% 24% 72% 4.68 .06 74 2% 18% 80% 4.77 .03 351 17% 83% 4.83 .17 6

0% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.56 .00 87,8621% 0% 4% 20% 75% 4.69 .01 3,2050% 0% 3% 17% 79% 4.75 .01 10,2621% 1% 8% 19% 71% 4.59 .03 664

1% 6% 22% 71% 4.63 .02 7191% 3% 25% 72% 4.67 .06 1200% 2% 6% 15% 76% 4.64 .05 2471% 2% 6% 27% 64% 4.52 .07 1380% 1% 9% 23% 66% 4.53 .05 201

10% 30% 60% 4.50 .22 100% 1% 7% 24% 67% 4.57 .00 33,8300% 1% 8% 25% 66% 4.56 .01 17,9740% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.55 .01 15,0040% 1% 7% 24% 67% 4.57 .01 13,9300% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .01 6,1440% 0% 7% 23% 69% 4.60 .02 8370% 1% 4% 18% 78% 4.72 .02 1,2340% 1% 9% 27% 63% 4.51 .03 611

57% 43% 4.43 .20 7 14% 7% 57% 21% 3.86 .25 14

0% 1% 5% 20% 75% 4.68 .00 59,5121% 1% 9% 30% 59% 4.46 .00 40,9822% 4% 13% 27% 55% 4.30 .05 3791% 2% 12% 27% 58% 4.39 .03 722

1% 5% 22% 72% 4.64 .02 6630% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.65 .02 1,2030% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.57 .00 59,3720% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .00 41,4590% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 1,8660% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .01 9,0900% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .01 8,2240% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.57 .00 26,5840% 1% 7% 22% 70% 4.60 .00 22,9710% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.58 .01 17,1490% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.62 .00 18,2780% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 1,8660% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.59 .00 77,9330% 1% 7% 25% 68% 4.58 .00 24,3630% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 1,8660% 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.63 .01 2,5230% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 99,7730% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 1,8660% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 78,2220% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.58 .00 21,1820% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 2,8920% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .01 1,8660% 1% 6% 23% 71% 4.63 .01 4,9980% 1% 7% 22% 70% 4.61 .00 20,1600% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.58 .00 32,4790% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 44,659

1% 5% 24% 70% 4.62 .06 1360% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.64 .03 6331% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.66 .03 376

1% 8% 23% 69% 4.59 .05 197 4% 23% 73% 4.70 .06 82

0% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.57 .01 18,2550% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .01 7,2250% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 14,5610% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .01 7,7021% 1% 5% 22% 73% 4.65 .01 3,5890% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .01 5,9021% 2% 7% 17% 74% 4.62 .07 121

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 57: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 5bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

4% 8% 15% 32% 41% 3.99 .02 2,3165% 11% 23% 33% 28% 3.70 .00 122,3233% 5% 14% 32% 46% 4.14 .02 1,7644% 8% 20% 33% 35% 3.87 .00 68,7127% 16% 21% 30% 26% 3.51 .05 5526% 14% 27% 33% 20% 3.47 .00 53,6114% 9% 17% 31% 40% 3.93 .03 1,7472% 4% 13% 40% 40% 4.12 .10 973% 5% 11% 33% 48% 4.18 .05 463

22% 22% 56% 4.33 .29 95% 12% 24% 33% 26% 3.63 .00 104,2023% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.01 .02 4,0312% 6% 13% 34% 45% 4.13 .01 12,9053% 5% 17% 27% 48% 4.13 .04 8145% 12% 18% 30% 35% 3.77 .04 8704% 7% 15% 28% 46% 4.06 .09 1553% 3% 16% 31% 47% 4.18 .06 2901% 9% 16% 27% 46% 4.07 .08 1713% 6% 15% 36% 40% 4.05 .06 249

8% 8% 67% 17% 3.92 .23 125% 13% 26% 32% 24% 3.56 .01 39,8646% 13% 25% 32% 23% 3.53 .01 21,5325% 11% 23% 34% 27% 3.66 .01 17,7854% 10% 22% 34% 29% 3.75 .01 16,3943% 8% 18% 37% 34% 3.91 .01 7,4064% 9% 21% 32% 34% 3.82 .03 1,0384% 8% 16% 29% 43% 4.00 .03 1,5483% 8% 15% 36% 38% 3.99 .04 743

22% 11% 56% 11% 3.22 .49 9 25% 19% 31% 25% 3.56 .29 16

5% 12% 22% 32% 29% 3.69 .00 72,2114% 10% 23% 35% 28% 3.71 .01 47,982

10% 11% 23% 31% 26% 3.52 .06 4416% 15% 24% 33% 22% 3.48 .04 8366% 13% 19% 28% 34% 3.72 .04 8103% 5% 13% 33% 45% 4.14 .03 1,5066% 14% 26% 33% 22% 3.51 .00 70,0513% 7% 18% 34% 38% 3.96 .00 50,5404% 8% 15% 32% 41% 3.99 .02 2,3163% 9% 22% 35% 30% 3.80 .01 10,4968% 16% 26% 30% 20% 3.40 .01 9,9474% 11% 23% 35% 27% 3.70 .01 31,1155% 12% 23% 32% 28% 3.65 .01 27,1675% 11% 23% 33% 29% 3.70 .01 20,9384% 9% 20% 34% 34% 3.84 .01 22,6604% 8% 15% 32% 41% 3.99 .02 2,3165% 11% 22% 33% 29% 3.71 .00 93,8675% 12% 24% 33% 27% 3.65 .01 28,4564% 8% 15% 32% 41% 3.99 .02 2,3165% 10% 20% 32% 33% 3.79 .02 3,1465% 11% 23% 33% 28% 3.70 .00 119,1774% 8% 15% 32% 41% 3.99 .02 2,3164% 10% 23% 34% 29% 3.74 .00 93,0077% 13% 23% 31% 26% 3.55 .01 25,9035% 10% 18% 31% 36% 3.84 .02 3,4134% 8% 15% 32% 41% 3.99 .02 2,3163% 10% 23% 36% 27% 3.74 .01 5,8775% 11% 23% 32% 29% 3.70 .01 24,2064% 11% 22% 33% 30% 3.74 .01 39,0465% 11% 23% 33% 27% 3.66 .00 53,1942% 10% 24% 40% 24% 3.75 .08 1652% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.29 .03 7971% 3% 15% 35% 47% 4.24 .04 4467% 11% 16% 30% 36% 3.78 .08 2631% 4% 10% 45% 40% 4.18 .09 935% 10% 22% 33% 30% 3.71 .01 21,5444% 10% 23% 35% 28% 3.75 .01 8,6083% 6% 17% 32% 41% 4.02 .01 17,5592% 7% 17% 33% 41% 4.03 .01 9,2703% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.07 .02 4,4003% 9% 21% 35% 32% 3.85 .01 7,1823% 5% 16% 33% 44% 4.10 .08 149

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 58: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 6aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

1% 5% 13% 28% 54% 4.28 .02 1,8781% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.35 .00 102,0142% 5% 13% 28% 52% 4.23 .03 1,4371% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.32 .00 57,1740% 3% 10% 26% 60% 4.43 .04 4411% 3% 11% 28% 58% 4.39 .00 44,8401% 5% 13% 26% 55% 4.27 .03 1,443

3% 11% 34% 52% 4.35 .09 712% 2% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .05 358

17% 33% 50% 4.33 .33 61% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .00 87,6572% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.43 .02 3,1791% 3% 10% 31% 56% 4.37 .01 10,2322% 2% 11% 26% 58% 4.35 .04 6541% 6% 12% 26% 55% 4.28 .04 725

3% 12% 26% 59% 4.40 .08 1212% 8% 13% 21% 56% 4.21 .07 2521% 5% 14% 29% 51% 4.22 .08 1361% 4% 16% 29% 51% 4.25 .07 199

10% 30% 60% 4.50 .22 101% 3% 12% 27% 57% 4.35 .00 33,7771% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .01 17,9401% 4% 12% 28% 55% 4.33 .01 14,9581% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.34 .01 13,8871% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.37 .01 6,1281% 3% 11% 26% 59% 4.38 .03 8301% 4% 11% 26% 58% 4.35 .03 1,2462% 6% 15% 30% 47% 4.14 .04 611

14% 43% 43% 4.14 .40 7 14% 21% 50% 14% 3.64 .25 14

1% 2% 9% 26% 62% 4.46 .00 59,3602% 4% 15% 31% 48% 4.20 .00 40,8923% 5% 16% 24% 52% 4.18 .05 3802% 4% 17% 26% 51% 4.19 .04 7041% 5% 12% 26% 56% 4.30 .04 6691% 4% 13% 28% 53% 4.27 .03 1,2091% 3% 11% 28% 57% 4.36 .00 59,2081% 3% 11% 29% 56% 4.34 .00 41,3721% 5% 13% 28% 54% 4.28 .02 1,8781% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.31 .01 9,0371% 3% 11% 29% 57% 4.37 .01 8,1961% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.32 .01 26,5011% 3% 11% 27% 58% 4.39 .01 22,8931% 3% 11% 26% 59% 4.39 .01 17,1251% 4% 12% 27% 56% 4.33 .01 18,2621% 5% 13% 28% 54% 4.28 .02 1,8781% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.34 .00 77,7361% 3% 10% 28% 58% 4.39 .01 24,2781% 5% 13% 28% 54% 4.28 .02 1,8782% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.32 .02 2,5121% 3% 11% 28% 56% 4.35 .00 99,5021% 5% 13% 28% 54% 4.28 .02 1,8781% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .00 78,0001% 3% 11% 29% 55% 4.34 .01 21,1271% 2% 7% 23% 67% 4.53 .01 2,8871% 5% 13% 28% 54% 4.28 .02 1,8781% 2% 10% 27% 59% 4.42 .01 4,9821% 3% 11% 28% 57% 4.36 .01 20,0681% 3% 12% 28% 57% 4.36 .00 32,3781% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.34 .00 44,5861% 4% 12% 27% 56% 4.33 .08 1382% 5% 13% 28% 52% 4.23 .04 6411% 6% 13% 28% 52% 4.25 .05 3763% 7% 17% 25% 49% 4.11 .08 1991% 2% 8% 40% 48% 4.31 .09 831% 3% 11% 27% 57% 4.36 .01 18,2121% 3% 12% 31% 54% 4.33 .01 7,2041% 4% 12% 29% 54% 4.31 .01 14,5172% 4% 12% 29% 54% 4.29 .01 7,6762% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.31 .02 3,5691% 3% 13% 29% 53% 4.29 .01 5,8843% 4% 14% 26% 53% 4.21 .10 112

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 59: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 6bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

5% 11% 25% 30% 29% 3.68 .02 2,2977% 13% 27% 31% 23% 3.51 .00 121,1114% 10% 24% 31% 32% 3.78 .03 1,7506% 11% 26% 31% 26% 3.60 .00 67,9489% 15% 27% 28% 21% 3.37 .05 5478% 14% 28% 32% 19% 3.40 .01 53,1636% 12% 27% 28% 27% 3.59 .03 1,7382% 4% 22% 36% 36% 3.99 .10 953% 7% 18% 37% 36% 3.97 .05 455

11% 11% 44% 33% 4.00 .33 97% 13% 28% 31% 21% 3.45 .00 103,3406% 9% 21% 35% 30% 3.75 .02 3,9603% 7% 21% 35% 34% 3.89 .01 12,6454% 6% 23% 29% 38% 3.91 .04 7937% 14% 27% 27% 25% 3.49 .04 8666% 11% 28% 27% 29% 3.61 .09 1544% 8% 24% 32% 32% 3.81 .06 2904% 13% 27% 26% 30% 3.65 .09 1724% 11% 30% 31% 25% 3.63 .07 2459% 27% 27% 27% 9% 3.00 .36 117% 14% 29% 30% 20% 3.40 .01 39,5068% 15% 28% 30% 19% 3.39 .01 21,3727% 13% 28% 31% 22% 3.48 .01 17,6276% 12% 27% 31% 23% 3.53 .01 16,2655% 10% 24% 35% 26% 3.67 .01 7,3636% 13% 26% 28% 26% 3.55 .04 1,0245% 11% 25% 29% 30% 3.68 .03 1,5364% 11% 25% 33% 27% 3.69 .04 736

22% 22% 22% 11% 22% 2.89 .51 9 19% 31% 25% 25% 3.56 .27 16

7% 13% 27% 30% 22% 3.47 .00 71,5675% 11% 27% 33% 23% 3.58 .01 47,452

12% 12% 28% 27% 22% 3.35 .06 4339% 15% 29% 29% 18% 3.33 .04 8178% 14% 28% 27% 24% 3.45 .04 8043% 9% 23% 32% 32% 3.80 .03 1,4938% 15% 29% 30% 18% 3.36 .00 69,4214% 9% 25% 33% 29% 3.72 .00 49,9785% 11% 25% 30% 29% 3.68 .02 2,2974% 12% 27% 34% 23% 3.58 .01 10,402

12% 18% 28% 27% 15% 3.17 .01 9,8786% 12% 28% 33% 21% 3.53 .01 30,7817% 13% 26% 30% 24% 3.50 .01 26,8606% 12% 27% 31% 24% 3.53 .01 20,7516% 11% 26% 31% 26% 3.61 .01 22,4395% 11% 25% 30% 29% 3.68 .02 2,2976% 12% 27% 31% 23% 3.52 .00 92,8447% 13% 27% 32% 21% 3.48 .01 28,2675% 11% 25% 30% 29% 3.68 .02 2,2978% 12% 27% 29% 24% 3.50 .02 3,0726% 13% 27% 31% 23% 3.51 .00 118,0395% 11% 25% 30% 29% 3.68 .02 2,2976% 12% 27% 32% 23% 3.54 .00 92,0879% 14% 27% 29% 20% 3.37 .01 25,6106% 10% 22% 30% 32% 3.70 .02 3,4145% 11% 25% 30% 29% 3.68 .02 2,2975% 12% 28% 33% 22% 3.54 .01 5,8177% 12% 27% 31% 23% 3.52 .01 23,9106% 12% 27% 32% 24% 3.58 .01 38,6567% 13% 27% 31% 21% 3.46 .01 52,7287% 13% 35% 28% 17% 3.33 .09 1632% 8% 22% 29% 38% 3.93 .04 7941% 8% 24% 36% 31% 3.87 .05 4449% 16% 26% 26% 22% 3.37 .08 2572% 7% 18% 43% 29% 3.91 .10 928% 14% 28% 29% 22% 3.44 .01 21,3236% 13% 27% 33% 21% 3.49 .01 8,5194% 9% 25% 31% 31% 3.74 .01 17,3554% 9% 26% 31% 30% 3.74 .01 9,1464% 9% 24% 32% 31% 3.78 .02 4,3326% 11% 26% 33% 25% 3.60 .01 7,1332% 6% 24% 35% 33% 3.90 .09 140

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 60: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 7aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

0% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .02 1,8491% 2% 11% 28% 57% 4.40 .00 100,7450% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.56 .02 1,4181% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .00 57,0201% 2% 11% 27% 59% 4.42 .04 4311% 3% 15% 32% 49% 4.25 .00 43,7250% 2% 9% 25% 64% 4.50 .02 1,423

1% 4% 31% 64% 4.57 .08 721% 0% 4% 27% 68% 4.61 .04 348

17% 83% 4.83 .17 61% 2% 12% 29% 56% 4.37 .00 86,4860% 1% 8% 30% 61% 4.49 .01 3,1600% 1% 5% 26% 68% 4.60 .01 10,1561% 1% 11% 25% 62% 4.46 .03 6501% 2% 11% 24% 63% 4.47 .03 709

2% 9% 21% 68% 4.56 .07 120 2% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .05 248 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.56 .06 135

0% 1% 9% 25% 64% 4.51 .05 20211% 33% 56% 4.22 .43 9

1% 3% 14% 30% 51% 4.28 .00 33,1061% 2% 13% 29% 55% 4.36 .01 17,7111% 2% 11% 27% 60% 4.43 .01 14,8231% 2% 10% 26% 62% 4.46 .01 13,8200% 1% 8% 28% 63% 4.52 .01 6,0831% 2% 11% 29% 57% 4.40 .03 8190% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.58 .02 1,2280% 2% 10% 29% 59% 4.43 .03 600

17% 33% 50% 4.33 .33 67% 7% 7% 53% 27% 3.87 .29 151% 2% 10% 28% 60% 4.44 .00 58,4951% 2% 13% 30% 54% 4.33 .00 40,4972% 3% 17% 23% 55% 4.26 .05 3732% 3% 15% 24% 56% 4.31 .04 6931% 2% 10% 25% 62% 4.46 .03 6510% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .02 1,1981% 3% 14% 30% 52% 4.30 .00 58,1470% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .00 41,1700% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .02 1,8491% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.42 .01 8,9671% 3% 13% 31% 52% 4.31 .01 8,0941% 2% 13% 31% 53% 4.33 .01 26,0781% 2% 11% 27% 59% 4.42 .01 22,6281% 2% 12% 27% 58% 4.40 .01 16,8811% 1% 9% 26% 63% 4.49 .01 18,0970% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .02 1,8491% 2% 11% 28% 58% 4.41 .00 76,8961% 2% 12% 29% 56% 4.37 .01 23,8490% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .02 1,8491% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .02 2,5191% 2% 11% 28% 57% 4.39 .00 98,2260% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .02 1,8491% 2% 12% 29% 57% 4.39 .00 77,0651% 2% 11% 28% 58% 4.41 .01 20,8371% 1% 7% 23% 67% 4.55 .01 2,8430% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .02 1,8491% 2% 12% 30% 56% 4.37 .01 4,8631% 2% 12% 28% 58% 4.41 .01 19,8591% 2% 12% 28% 57% 4.39 .00 31,9741% 2% 11% 28% 58% 4.40 .00 44,0491% 1% 11% 24% 64% 4.49 .07 1350% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.55 .03 6291% 1% 6% 29% 64% 4.55 .04 378

2% 8% 20% 71% 4.60 .05 1951% 1% 28% 69% 4.64 .07 811% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .01 18,1340% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.45 .01 7,1651% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .01 14,4751% 1% 9% 26% 64% 4.50 .01 7,6920% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.55 .01 3,5561% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .01 5,8803% 2% 5% 24% 67% 4.51 .08 118

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 61: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 7bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

6% 12% 21% 30% 31% 3.68 .03 2,2879% 14% 26% 29% 22% 3.42 .00 120,1505% 11% 20% 32% 32% 3.75 .03 1,7519% 14% 24% 28% 24% 3.43 .00 68,200

10% 15% 23% 26% 27% 3.45 .06 5368% 13% 28% 30% 20% 3.41 .01 51,9507% 13% 23% 29% 28% 3.58 .03 1,7325% 11% 15% 30% 39% 3.85 .12 964% 7% 14% 34% 41% 4.00 .05 450

22% 11% 44% 22% 3.67 .37 99% 14% 27% 29% 21% 3.38 .00 102,2679% 12% 20% 30% 29% 3.59 .02 3,9977% 12% 22% 29% 29% 3.61 .01 12,7146% 10% 16% 28% 40% 3.87 .04 7968% 13% 25% 29% 25% 3.49 .04 8546% 14% 18% 29% 33% 3.70 .10 1543% 11% 22% 30% 34% 3.79 .07 2915% 16% 20% 29% 30% 3.62 .09 1737% 12% 24% 31% 27% 3.57 .08 249

27% 18% 36% 18% 3.45 .34 117% 13% 28% 31% 21% 3.45 .01 38,870

10% 15% 27% 28% 19% 3.30 .01 21,13010% 15% 26% 28% 20% 3.34 .01 17,51810% 15% 25% 29% 21% 3.35 .01 16,212

9% 14% 24% 31% 23% 3.45 .01 7,3509% 12% 25% 28% 26% 3.50 .04 1,0146% 12% 20% 30% 31% 3.69 .03 1,5247% 11% 21% 31% 31% 3.68 .04 737

11% 33% 56% 3.44 .24 9 35% 35% 18% 12% 3.06 .25 17

8% 14% 26% 30% 22% 3.42 .00 70,8279% 14% 25% 29% 23% 3.41 .01 47,238

15% 13% 27% 25% 20% 3.20 .06 43013% 18% 27% 24% 18% 3.15 .04 809

9% 14% 25% 28% 24% 3.44 .04 7924% 11% 19% 32% 34% 3.80 .03 1,4959% 14% 28% 29% 19% 3.36 .00 68,3098% 14% 23% 29% 26% 3.50 .01 50,1346% 12% 21% 30% 31% 3.68 .03 2,2877% 14% 26% 31% 22% 3.48 .01 10,347

13% 18% 26% 27% 16% 3.15 .01 9,7838% 14% 27% 31% 21% 3.43 .01 30,429

11% 13% 25% 28% 23% 3.40 .01 26,6788% 13% 27% 30% 22% 3.44 .01 20,5508% 14% 25% 29% 24% 3.48 .01 22,3636% 12% 21% 30% 31% 3.68 .03 2,2879% 14% 26% 29% 22% 3.42 .00 92,3318% 14% 27% 30% 21% 3.42 .01 27,8196% 12% 21% 30% 31% 3.68 .03 2,287

12% 13% 23% 26% 25% 3.40 .02 3,1069% 14% 26% 29% 22% 3.42 .00 117,0446% 12% 21% 30% 31% 3.68 .03 2,2878% 13% 26% 30% 23% 3.47 .00 91,390

13% 17% 25% 26% 19% 3.23 .01 25,4068% 12% 22% 29% 29% 3.57 .02 3,3546% 12% 21% 30% 31% 3.68 .03 2,2877% 12% 28% 33% 21% 3.49 .02 5,7279% 13% 25% 29% 24% 3.46 .01 23,8167% 14% 26% 30% 23% 3.48 .01 38,265

10% 15% 26% 29% 20% 3.35 .01 52,3429% 13% 31% 32% 15% 3.32 .09 1634% 8% 18% 31% 39% 3.94 .04 7893% 12% 23% 33% 28% 3.71 .05 4468% 16% 19% 28% 29% 3.56 .08 2627% 16% 11% 38% 27% 3.64 .13 91

12% 16% 25% 27% 20% 3.26 .01 21,35911% 15% 26% 29% 19% 3.29 .01 8,552

7% 12% 23% 29% 29% 3.60 .01 17,4087% 14% 24% 30% 25% 3.51 .01 9,2326% 12% 23% 30% 29% 3.65 .02 4,3719% 15% 24% 29% 23% 3.42 .01 7,1349% 20% 19% 23% 28% 3.42 .11 144

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 62: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 8aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

1% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .02 1,8391% 4% 13% 35% 48% 4.25 .00 99,6961% 2% 7% 30% 60% 4.47 .02 1,4061% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.32 .00 55,9111% 5% 13% 36% 45% 4.19 .04 4331% 5% 14% 36% 43% 4.15 .00 43,7851% 3% 9% 30% 57% 4.40 .02 1,4201% 16% 51% 31% 4.11 .09 700% 2% 5% 34% 58% 4.48 .04 343

17% 83% 4.67 .33 61% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.23 .00 85,7872% 3% 13% 38% 45% 4.22 .02 3,0701% 2% 8% 37% 52% 4.38 .01 9,9131% 3% 12% 30% 54% 4.32 .04 6431% 3% 9% 28% 59% 4.41 .03 711

3% 12% 29% 56% 4.38 .07 1211% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.48 .05 249

2% 8% 37% 53% 4.41 .06 1311% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.30 .06 198

20% 60% 20% 4.00 .21 101% 4% 14% 35% 46% 4.20 .01 33,0431% 4% 14% 35% 46% 4.22 .01 17,6301% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.27 .01 14,6391% 3% 12% 34% 50% 4.28 .01 13,6571% 3% 13% 37% 46% 4.24 .01 5,8901% 3% 13% 36% 47% 4.25 .03 8070% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.45 .02 1,2241% 3% 9% 37% 50% 4.32 .03 594

14% 71% 14% 3.86 .34 7 14% 64% 21% 4.07 .16 14

1% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.29 .00 57,9701% 4% 14% 36% 44% 4.18 .00 39,9823% 3% 15% 29% 50% 4.22 .05 3792% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.09 .04 6971% 4% 10% 28% 58% 4.39 .03 6561% 2% 8% 33% 56% 4.42 .02 1,1831% 4% 14% 35% 46% 4.21 .00 57,9781% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.31 .00 40,3051% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .02 1,8391% 4% 13% 39% 43% 4.20 .01 8,8701% 4% 15% 37% 43% 4.16 .01 7,9981% 4% 13% 37% 46% 4.22 .01 25,8381% 3% 13% 33% 49% 4.26 .01 22,4821% 3% 13% 33% 49% 4.26 .01 16,7221% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .01 17,7861% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .02 1,8391% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.26 .00 76,0611% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.20 .01 23,6351% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .02 1,8391% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.30 .02 2,4381% 4% 13% 35% 48% 4.24 .00 97,2581% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .02 1,8391% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.24 .00 76,2751% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.24 .01 20,5801% 3% 8% 29% 59% 4.43 .02 2,8411% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.41 .02 1,8391% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.21 .01 4,8521% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.30 .01 19,7271% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.23 .01 31,6211% 4% 13% 36% 47% 4.24 .00 43,496

4% 12% 30% 54% 4.35 .07 1361% 1% 7% 29% 62% 4.50 .03 6241% 2% 8% 31% 59% 4.46 .04 3771% 2% 6% 28% 64% 4.53 .05 195

1% 4% 45% 50% 4.43 .07 741% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.28 .01 17,8831% 3% 13% 37% 47% 4.25 .01 7,0581% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.39 .01 14,2691% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.36 .01 7,5971% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.39 .01 3,5211% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.28 .01 5,4731% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .08 110

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 63: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 8bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

4% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.06 .02 2,3084% 8% 17% 33% 38% 3.95 .00 120,0304% 6% 12% 29% 50% 4.15 .03 1,7673% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.08 .00 67,4894% 11% 21% 30% 34% 3.78 .05 5415% 10% 19% 35% 31% 3.78 .00 52,5414% 8% 15% 28% 45% 4.02 .03 1,7483% 7% 17% 25% 47% 4.06 .11 952% 4% 10% 34% 49% 4.24 .04 456

22% 11% 67% 4.44 .29 94% 8% 17% 34% 37% 3.91 .00 102,4914% 6% 12% 32% 46% 4.12 .02 3,8733% 5% 11% 32% 49% 4.20 .01 12,5144% 4% 14% 27% 52% 4.20 .04 7935% 9% 17% 28% 40% 3.89 .04 8636% 9% 13% 25% 48% 4.00 .10 1573% 4% 11% 29% 53% 4.25 .06 2953% 6% 12% 31% 47% 4.13 .08 1704% 6% 16% 28% 47% 4.08 .07 251

8% 42% 50% 4.42 .19 124% 9% 19% 34% 34% 3.85 .01 39,2394% 9% 18% 34% 35% 3.86 .01 21,2284% 8% 16% 34% 38% 3.93 .01 17,4833% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.01 .01 16,1693% 6% 14% 36% 41% 4.06 .01 7,1953% 8% 18% 30% 41% 3.99 .03 1,0084% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.05 .03 1,5453% 7% 14% 30% 46% 4.09 .04 738

11% 44% 44% 4.22 .32 9 13% 19% 44% 25% 3.81 .25 16

4% 8% 16% 33% 39% 3.96 .00 70,7954% 8% 17% 34% 37% 3.94 .00 47,1657% 10% 17% 33% 33% 3.73 .06 4366% 12% 19% 29% 34% 3.73 .04 8035% 10% 18% 29% 39% 3.86 .04 8023% 5% 12% 30% 50% 4.17 .03 1,5064% 10% 19% 34% 33% 3.83 .00 68,8903% 6% 13% 33% 45% 4.12 .00 49,4594% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.06 .02 2,3082% 7% 14% 35% 42% 4.07 .01 10,3126% 11% 18% 34% 32% 3.76 .01 9,7393% 8% 16% 35% 38% 3.96 .01 30,4724% 8% 17% 33% 38% 3.92 .01 26,7424% 9% 19% 33% 35% 3.85 .01 20,5713% 6% 14% 33% 43% 4.07 .01 22,1944% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.06 .02 2,3084% 8% 16% 33% 39% 3.95 .00 92,1824% 8% 17% 34% 37% 3.92 .01 27,8484% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.06 .02 2,3083% 7% 14% 32% 44% 4.07 .02 3,0684% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.94 .00 116,9624% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.06 .02 2,3083% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.00 .00 91,3516% 10% 18% 33% 33% 3.78 .01 25,3026% 9% 16% 30% 39% 3.88 .02 3,3774% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.06 .02 2,3083% 7% 16% 34% 39% 4.01 .01 5,7384% 8% 16% 32% 40% 3.96 .01 23,8643% 8% 17% 33% 38% 3.95 .01 38,2794% 8% 16% 34% 38% 3.93 .00 52,1491% 5% 20% 31% 43% 4.10 .08 1623% 5% 10% 26% 56% 4.28 .04 7966% 8% 13% 30% 42% 3.94 .06 4583% 5% 12% 31% 48% 4.16 .06 2642% 3% 9% 44% 41% 4.18 .10 874% 7% 16% 33% 39% 3.97 .01 21,2513% 8% 16% 35% 38% 3.97 .01 8,5022% 5% 12% 31% 50% 4.21 .01 17,3093% 6% 13% 33% 45% 4.10 .01 9,2612% 4% 11% 30% 54% 4.30 .01 4,3523% 6% 17% 35% 39% 4.02 .01 6,6803% 6% 11% 25% 54% 4.22 .09 134

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 64: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 9aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

1% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .02 1,8361% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 100,4661% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.35 .02 1,4011% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .00 56,2640% 1% 8% 34% 57% 4.47 .03 4350% 1% 9% 34% 55% 4.41 .00 44,2021% 2% 10% 33% 53% 4.36 .02 1,4161% 17% 44% 38% 4.17 .10 71

1% 6% 37% 57% 4.50 .03 343 33% 67% 4.67 .21 6

1% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.38 .00 86,3570% 2% 9% 39% 50% 4.36 .01 3,1330% 1% 7% 37% 55% 4.45 .01 10,0251% 2% 12% 33% 52% 4.34 .03 6550% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.43 .03 7091% 1% 11% 37% 51% 4.36 .07 1200% 3% 12% 27% 57% 4.38 .05 2482% 2% 12% 37% 47% 4.26 .08 1321% 4% 12% 42% 42% 4.19 .06 197

10% 70% 20% 4.00 .26 101% 2% 10% 33% 55% 4.41 .00 33,2671% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.38 .01 17,7311% 2% 11% 34% 53% 4.36 .01 14,7541% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .01 13,7110% 2% 11% 38% 48% 4.31 .01 5,9381% 1% 10% 36% 52% 4.37 .03 8200% 1% 9% 32% 58% 4.46 .02 1,2191% 3% 11% 39% 45% 4.24 .04 596

29% 43% 29% 4.00 .31 7 7% 7% 79% 7% 3.86 .18 14

0% 1% 8% 33% 57% 4.45 .00 58,4301% 2% 12% 37% 48% 4.30 .00 40,2651% 3% 14% 28% 53% 4.30 .05 3741% 4% 14% 32% 48% 4.22 .03 7190% 2% 8% 33% 57% 4.45 .03 6551% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.34 .02 1,1811% 1% 10% 34% 55% 4.40 .00 58,4061% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.37 .00 40,6211% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .02 1,8361% 2% 11% 39% 48% 4.31 .01 8,9341% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.37 .01 8,0780% 2% 9% 35% 53% 4.39 .00 26,1121% 2% 10% 32% 56% 4.41 .01 22,6321% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.38 .01 16,8101% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.40 .01 17,9001% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .02 1,8361% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 76,6010% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.38 .01 23,8651% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .02 1,8361% 2% 9% 36% 53% 4.39 .02 2,4591% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 98,0071% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .02 1,8361% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 76,8381% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.37 .01 20,7950% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.53 .01 2,8331% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .02 1,8360% 1% 9% 36% 53% 4.41 .01 4,9010% 2% 9% 33% 56% 4.43 .01 19,8681% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.38 .00 31,8641% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.37 .00 43,833

1% 13% 31% 54% 4.38 .07 1350% 3% 11% 33% 53% 4.36 .03 6201% 3% 11% 38% 47% 4.27 .04 3771% 3% 7% 31% 59% 4.45 .06 194

5% 45% 49% 4.44 .07 751% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .01 17,9691% 2% 10% 36% 51% 4.36 .01 7,0801% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .01 14,3461% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.35 .01 7,6430% 2% 8% 36% 55% 4.42 .01 3,5271% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.35 .01 5,5871% 3% 11% 26% 60% 4.41 .08 112

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 65: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 9bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

4% 9% 15% 33% 38% 3.92 .02 2,3156% 13% 21% 32% 28% 3.63 .00 121,4724% 7% 13% 33% 43% 4.03 .03 1,7675% 10% 18% 33% 33% 3.78 .00 68,2066% 16% 22% 31% 25% 3.54 .05 5488% 16% 24% 31% 22% 3.43 .01 53,2665% 10% 16% 31% 38% 3.86 .03 1,7522% 9% 5% 44% 40% 4.09 .10 963% 6% 13% 37% 41% 4.08 .05 458

11% 33% 56% 4.22 .43 97% 13% 21% 32% 27% 3.59 .00 103,5257% 10% 16% 34% 32% 3.73 .02 3,9975% 9% 16% 33% 37% 3.89 .01 12,7784% 7% 16% 29% 44% 4.04 .04 8006% 12% 19% 31% 33% 3.72 .04 8694% 10% 14% 28% 44% 3.97 .09 1563% 7% 12% 30% 48% 4.13 .06 2931% 9% 17% 30% 43% 4.04 .08 1726% 10% 14% 35% 36% 3.85 .07 250

8% 25% 42% 25% 3.83 .27 127% 14% 23% 31% 25% 3.55 .01 39,6137% 15% 22% 31% 25% 3.51 .01 21,4367% 13% 20% 32% 28% 3.62 .01 17,6656% 11% 20% 34% 30% 3.72 .01 16,2986% 11% 20% 34% 28% 3.68 .01 7,2946% 11% 21% 32% 31% 3.71 .04 1,0384% 9% 15% 31% 40% 3.93 .03 1,5564% 10% 16% 35% 36% 3.89 .04 734

22% 33% 22% 22% 3.44 .38 9 6% 13% 50% 31% 4.06 .21 16

7% 13% 20% 32% 28% 3.62 .00 71,6986% 12% 21% 33% 28% 3.65 .01 47,657

13% 12% 22% 28% 25% 3.41 .06 4408% 18% 23% 27% 23% 3.39 .04 8276% 13% 19% 30% 31% 3.68 .04 8073% 8% 13% 34% 42% 4.04 .03 1,5087% 15% 23% 31% 24% 3.48 .00 69,5965% 9% 18% 34% 34% 3.84 .01 50,1424% 9% 15% 33% 38% 3.92 .02 2,3154% 11% 20% 35% 30% 3.75 .01 10,452

10% 18% 22% 30% 21% 3.34 .01 9,8926% 13% 21% 33% 27% 3.62 .01 30,8767% 13% 21% 31% 28% 3.60 .01 27,0126% 13% 22% 31% 27% 3.61 .01 20,8086% 11% 18% 33% 33% 3.77 .01 22,4324% 9% 15% 33% 38% 3.92 .02 2,3156% 12% 20% 32% 29% 3.64 .00 93,2106% 14% 22% 32% 26% 3.58 .01 28,2624% 9% 15% 33% 38% 3.92 .02 2,3157% 10% 17% 32% 34% 3.76 .02 3,1116% 13% 21% 32% 28% 3.63 .00 118,3614% 9% 15% 33% 38% 3.92 .02 2,3156% 12% 21% 33% 29% 3.68 .00 92,3689% 16% 21% 30% 24% 3.44 .01 25,7096% 12% 19% 29% 34% 3.72 .02 3,3954% 9% 15% 33% 38% 3.92 .02 2,3155% 13% 23% 33% 26% 3.63 .01 5,8347% 12% 20% 31% 29% 3.64 .01 24,0715% 12% 21% 33% 29% 3.67 .01 38,7677% 13% 20% 32% 27% 3.59 .01 52,8004% 14% 21% 32% 28% 3.66 .09 1634% 8% 12% 30% 46% 4.06 .04 7942% 4% 12% 38% 44% 4.17 .04 4575% 8% 13% 31% 43% 3.99 .07 2643% 9% 13% 38% 36% 3.94 .11 897% 12% 20% 32% 29% 3.65 .01 21,4337% 13% 21% 33% 26% 3.57 .01 8,5684% 8% 16% 33% 38% 3.93 .01 17,4784% 9% 16% 33% 37% 3.90 .01 9,3614% 8% 15% 34% 40% 3.98 .02 4,3824% 10% 20% 34% 32% 3.79 .01 6,8454% 10% 15% 35% 36% 3.90 .09 139

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 66: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 10aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

2% 5% 12% 29% 53% 4.25 .02 1,8362% 3% 12% 29% 53% 4.29 .00 99,7582% 5% 12% 30% 51% 4.22 .03 1,3972% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.27 .00 55,8672% 3% 11% 25% 60% 4.38 .04 4391% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.32 .00 43,8912% 5% 12% 27% 53% 4.23 .03 1,4121% 19% 28% 51% 4.28 .10 741% 2% 9% 34% 53% 4.36 .05 344

17% 33% 17% 33% 3.67 .49 62% 4% 12% 29% 53% 4.28 .00 85,7552% 2% 10% 28% 58% 4.38 .02 3,1221% 3% 9% 32% 55% 4.36 .01 9,9532% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.30 .04 6372% 6% 12% 25% 56% 4.27 .04 7045% 4% 10% 31% 50% 4.17 .10 1213% 5% 11% 26% 55% 4.26 .07 2492% 9% 15% 31% 42% 4.02 .09 1312% 3% 14% 32% 49% 4.24 .07 197

10% 50% 40% 4.30 .21 102% 3% 13% 29% 54% 4.29 .01 33,0062% 3% 12% 30% 52% 4.28 .01 17,6352% 4% 13% 29% 52% 4.27 .01 14,6502% 4% 13% 29% 53% 4.28 .01 13,6211% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.30 .01 5,8962% 3% 12% 27% 56% 4.32 .03 8172% 4% 11% 27% 57% 4.34 .03 1,2243% 6% 13% 32% 45% 4.09 .04 590

14% 14% 71% 4.57 .30 77% 20% 20% 47% 7% 3.27 .28 151% 2% 9% 27% 60% 4.43 .00 58,1493% 5% 16% 33% 44% 4.10 .01 39,8563% 4% 15% 24% 55% 4.25 .05 3703% 3% 17% 29% 48% 4.16 .04 7152% 6% 11% 26% 55% 4.26 .04 6552% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.25 .03 1,1812% 3% 12% 29% 54% 4.30 .00 57,9762% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.29 .00 40,3692% 5% 12% 29% 53% 4.25 .02 1,8362% 3% 12% 32% 50% 4.25 .01 8,8472% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.30 .01 8,0132% 3% 12% 31% 52% 4.28 .01 25,9292% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.32 .01 22,4772% 3% 12% 28% 54% 4.30 .01 16,6782% 4% 11% 29% 54% 4.29 .01 17,8142% 5% 12% 29% 53% 4.25 .02 1,8362% 3% 12% 29% 53% 4.28 .00 76,0151% 3% 11% 29% 55% 4.33 .01 23,7432% 5% 12% 29% 53% 4.25 .02 1,8362% 4% 11% 28% 54% 4.29 .02 2,4442% 3% 12% 29% 53% 4.29 .00 97,3142% 5% 12% 29% 53% 4.25 .02 1,8362% 3% 12% 29% 53% 4.29 .00 76,3122% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.28 .01 20,6141% 3% 9% 25% 63% 4.46 .02 2,8322% 5% 12% 29% 53% 4.25 .02 1,8361% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.39 .01 4,8842% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.31 .01 19,6922% 3% 12% 29% 53% 4.30 .01 31,6692% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.27 .00 43,5131% 3% 11% 24% 60% 4.39 .08 1352% 5% 12% 30% 50% 4.21 .04 6222% 4% 14% 31% 49% 4.19 .05 3704% 9% 9% 28% 51% 4.13 .08 1951% 4% 8% 36% 51% 4.31 .10 752% 4% 12% 28% 55% 4.31 .01 17,8732% 4% 12% 31% 52% 4.27 .01 7,0462% 4% 13% 30% 51% 4.25 .01 14,2092% 4% 13% 29% 52% 4.25 .01 7,5552% 4% 11% 31% 52% 4.26 .02 3,5022% 3% 13% 31% 51% 4.25 .01 5,5713% 4% 10% 37% 47% 4.22 .09 111

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 67: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 10bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

6% 12% 20% 28% 33% 3.69 .03 2,2788% 14% 24% 30% 24% 3.48 .00 119,8455% 11% 20% 29% 35% 3.80 .03 1,7327% 13% 23% 30% 27% 3.57 .00 67,128

11% 17% 21% 26% 24% 3.35 .06 5469% 15% 25% 30% 20% 3.36 .01 52,7177% 14% 22% 26% 31% 3.60 .03 1,7263% 7% 17% 37% 36% 3.95 .11 953% 7% 16% 36% 38% 3.98 .05 449

13% 13% 25% 50% 3.88 .55 89% 15% 25% 30% 22% 3.43 .00 102,2449% 11% 19% 32% 29% 3.63 .02 3,9375% 9% 19% 33% 33% 3.80 .01 12,5084% 10% 19% 30% 36% 3.84 .04 7829% 15% 22% 24% 29% 3.49 .04 8548% 15% 17% 27% 33% 3.62 .10 1564% 8% 21% 29% 38% 3.89 .07 2893% 14% 24% 25% 35% 3.74 .09 1705% 15% 24% 30% 27% 3.58 .08 2458% 17% 58% 17% 3.58 .36 129% 16% 25% 29% 21% 3.39 .01 39,141

10% 16% 25% 29% 21% 3.36 .01 21,1768% 14% 25% 30% 23% 3.46 .01 17,4278% 13% 24% 31% 25% 3.52 .01 16,1087% 12% 22% 33% 26% 3.59 .01 7,2038% 14% 23% 28% 28% 3.53 .04 1,0167% 13% 20% 27% 34% 3.69 .03 1,5335% 11% 22% 32% 30% 3.71 .04 721

22% 22% 11% 11% 33% 3.11 .56 9 7% 13% 60% 20% 3.93 .21 15

9% 15% 23% 29% 24% 3.43 .00 70,9417% 12% 25% 32% 24% 3.56 .01 46,829

12% 15% 24% 27% 22% 3.33 .06 43111% 17% 25% 26% 21% 3.28 .04 81410% 16% 22% 24% 28% 3.44 .05 798

4% 10% 20% 31% 35% 3.83 .03 1,48010% 16% 25% 29% 20% 3.33 .00 68,755

6% 11% 22% 32% 30% 3.68 .01 49,3906% 12% 20% 28% 33% 3.69 .03 2,2786% 13% 24% 33% 24% 3.57 .01 10,299

14% 18% 25% 26% 17% 3.15 .01 9,7577% 14% 24% 32% 23% 3.49 .01 30,4609% 14% 23% 30% 25% 3.48 .01 26,6888% 14% 24% 30% 24% 3.48 .01 20,5397% 13% 23% 30% 27% 3.57 .01 22,1026% 12% 20% 28% 33% 3.69 .03 2,2788% 13% 24% 30% 25% 3.50 .00 91,8928% 15% 24% 30% 22% 3.42 .01 27,9536% 12% 20% 28% 33% 3.69 .03 2,2789% 14% 23% 28% 25% 3.46 .02 3,0578% 14% 24% 30% 24% 3.48 .00 116,7886% 12% 20% 28% 33% 3.69 .03 2,2787% 13% 24% 31% 25% 3.52 .00 91,209

11% 16% 24% 28% 20% 3.31 .01 25,2769% 14% 21% 26% 29% 3.53 .02 3,3606% 12% 20% 28% 33% 3.69 .03 2,2787% 14% 25% 32% 23% 3.49 .02 5,7708% 13% 24% 30% 24% 3.48 .01 23,7237% 13% 24% 31% 25% 3.54 .01 38,2749% 14% 23% 30% 23% 3.43 .01 52,0786% 16% 29% 31% 18% 3.39 .09 1604% 10% 19% 25% 42% 3.92 .04 7873% 9% 19% 35% 33% 3.86 .05 4458% 13% 21% 26% 31% 3.59 .08 2545% 8% 15% 42% 30% 3.85 .12 86

10% 15% 24% 28% 23% 3.39 .01 21,1638% 14% 24% 31% 22% 3.43 .01 8,4566% 10% 21% 31% 33% 3.75 .01 17,1785% 11% 22% 31% 31% 3.71 .01 9,1145% 11% 20% 32% 33% 3.77 .02 4,2957% 12% 24% 31% 25% 3.54 .01 6,7852% 7% 24% 34% 34% 3.90 .09 137

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 68: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 11aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

22% 11% 14% 20% 32% 3.28 .04 1,63818% 11% 15% 21% 34% 3.42 .01 85,32523% 11% 13% 20% 32% 3.27 .04 1,24718% 11% 15% 22% 35% 3.46 .01 48,02720% 12% 16% 20% 32% 3.33 .08 39119% 13% 16% 21% 32% 3.35 .01 37,29823% 12% 14% 19% 32% 3.23 .04 1,25722% 4% 24% 21% 28% 3.28 .18 6719% 9% 11% 26% 36% 3.51 .09 30833% 33% 33% 2.67 .56 618% 12% 15% 21% 34% 3.41 .01 73,26917% 11% 15% 23% 34% 3.46 .03 2,72020% 11% 14% 23% 33% 3.40 .02 8,52012% 8% 17% 22% 41% 3.72 .06 57225% 13% 14% 18% 29% 3.13 .06 62233% 13% 8% 15% 31% 2.98 .16 10620% 11% 12% 18% 39% 3.44 .10 22722% 17% 13% 16% 32% 3.18 .14 12617% 8% 18% 24% 33% 3.49 .11 169

14% 29% 43% 14% 3.57 .37 720% 12% 16% 20% 33% 3.33 .01 27,99417% 12% 15% 22% 34% 3.42 .01 14,94618% 11% 15% 21% 35% 3.45 .01 12,53717% 11% 15% 21% 36% 3.47 .01 11,73915% 10% 14% 24% 37% 3.57 .02 5,24817% 9% 17% 20% 37% 3.50 .06 68820% 12% 14% 19% 35% 3.36 .05 1,09928% 9% 14% 22% 28% 3.12 .07 519

33% 17% 17% 33% 3.50 .56 67% 36% 21% 21% 14% 3.00 .33 14

14% 11% 15% 22% 39% 3.59 .01 49,70324% 13% 16% 20% 27% 3.14 .01 34,04110% 6% 17% 20% 46% 3.84 .07 34413% 9% 16% 20% 43% 3.72 .06 63525% 13% 14% 18% 30% 3.15 .07 57421% 11% 14% 21% 33% 3.35 .05 1,06418% 12% 16% 21% 33% 3.39 .01 48,91418% 11% 15% 21% 35% 3.45 .01 35,15222% 11% 14% 20% 32% 3.28 .04 1,63823% 13% 16% 21% 26% 3.13 .02 7,22020% 13% 15% 21% 31% 3.30 .02 6,58120% 12% 15% 21% 32% 3.34 .01 21,69415% 11% 15% 22% 38% 3.58 .01 19,45015% 11% 16% 21% 37% 3.55 .01 14,66219% 12% 15% 20% 34% 3.38 .01 15,71822% 11% 14% 20% 32% 3.28 .04 1,63818% 11% 15% 21% 34% 3.41 .01 65,19317% 12% 15% 22% 34% 3.44 .01 20,13222% 11% 14% 20% 32% 3.28 .04 1,63819% 10% 16% 21% 34% 3.40 .03 2,05318% 11% 15% 21% 34% 3.42 .01 83,27222% 11% 14% 20% 32% 3.28 .04 1,63819% 11% 15% 21% 33% 3.39 .01 64,93417% 12% 15% 21% 34% 3.43 .01 17,767

9% 9% 14% 22% 47% 3.89 .03 2,62422% 11% 14% 20% 32% 3.28 .04 1,63816% 11% 16% 24% 33% 3.47 .02 4,04716% 10% 15% 21% 37% 3.53 .01 16,60217% 11% 15% 22% 35% 3.48 .01 27,56520% 12% 15% 21% 32% 3.31 .01 37,11127% 9% 15% 15% 34% 3.21 .15 12024% 11% 13% 19% 32% 3.23 .07 55820% 11% 13% 22% 33% 3.36 .08 33324% 12% 14% 22% 28% 3.17 .12 16819% 13% 9% 21% 38% 3.46 .19 6816% 10% 15% 22% 37% 3.55 .01 15,28020% 12% 15% 21% 31% 3.31 .02 5,83718% 11% 14% 21% 36% 3.47 .01 12,47318% 11% 15% 20% 36% 3.47 .02 6,45821% 11% 13% 22% 32% 3.33 .03 3,03219% 10% 15% 22% 34% 3.43 .02 4,84612% 6% 16% 25% 42% 3.78 .14 101

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 69: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 11bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

8% 11% 22% 25% 33% 3.64 .03 1,7768% 11% 26% 27% 27% 3.53 .00 92,7198% 10% 21% 25% 36% 3.71 .03 1,3608% 11% 26% 26% 29% 3.58 .01 52,311

10% 15% 24% 26% 25% 3.42 .06 4169% 12% 27% 28% 24% 3.47 .01 40,4089% 13% 23% 23% 32% 3.56 .04 1,3626% 4% 22% 31% 36% 3.87 .14 674% 7% 19% 32% 39% 3.93 .06 339

13% 38% 38% 13% 3.38 .42 89% 12% 27% 27% 26% 3.50 .00 79,908

10% 10% 23% 28% 30% 3.58 .02 2,9626% 8% 22% 29% 35% 3.79 .01 8,8676% 8% 26% 24% 37% 3.78 .05 660

11% 14% 23% 22% 30% 3.44 .05 66511% 12% 19% 27% 31% 3.55 .12 119

5% 9% 24% 25% 36% 3.78 .08 2376% 11% 27% 22% 35% 3.70 .10 1398% 13% 20% 24% 34% 3.62 .09 194

13% 75% 13% 3.88 .30 88% 12% 28% 27% 26% 3.50 .01 30,2659% 12% 28% 26% 24% 3.44 .01 16,4749% 11% 27% 26% 26% 3.49 .01 13,7078% 11% 25% 27% 28% 3.55 .01 12,6969% 11% 23% 29% 28% 3.55 .02 5,8278% 10% 27% 25% 30% 3.60 .04 7889% 12% 21% 24% 34% 3.62 .04 1,2066% 10% 24% 27% 32% 3.70 .05 548

25% 13% 38% 25% 3.38 .56 8 7% 21% 50% 21% 3.86 .23 14

9% 12% 25% 27% 26% 3.48 .01 54,6087% 9% 28% 28% 28% 3.61 .01 36,301

17% 15% 23% 24% 21% 3.18 .07 38916% 17% 24% 22% 22% 3.18 .05 68311% 15% 23% 23% 28% 3.42 .05 613

7% 9% 21% 27% 36% 3.77 .04 1,1639% 12% 28% 27% 24% 3.44 .01 52,9757% 10% 24% 27% 31% 3.67 .01 38,2498% 11% 22% 25% 33% 3.64 .03 1,7766% 9% 27% 29% 29% 3.65 .01 7,530

12% 14% 27% 26% 22% 3.32 .02 7,0058% 11% 27% 27% 27% 3.55 .01 22,7929% 11% 25% 27% 27% 3.52 .01 21,3109% 11% 27% 27% 26% 3.51 .01 16,8678% 11% 25% 26% 30% 3.58 .01 17,2158% 11% 22% 25% 33% 3.64 .03 1,7768% 11% 26% 27% 28% 3.55 .00 70,8059% 12% 26% 27% 25% 3.48 .01 21,9148% 11% 22% 25% 33% 3.64 .03 1,776

10% 12% 29% 24% 25% 3.42 .03 2,2468% 11% 26% 27% 27% 3.53 .00 90,4738% 11% 22% 25% 33% 3.64 .03 1,7767% 10% 27% 28% 28% 3.59 .00 70,013

12% 13% 26% 26% 23% 3.35 .01 19,71713% 14% 22% 23% 27% 3.38 .02 2,989

8% 11% 22% 25% 33% 3.64 .03 1,7768% 12% 27% 27% 26% 3.52 .02 4,3249% 11% 27% 26% 27% 3.52 .01 18,3407% 11% 26% 28% 28% 3.58 .01 30,5329% 11% 26% 27% 27% 3.50 .01 39,5239% 13% 30% 24% 23% 3.39 .11 1208% 10% 21% 20% 41% 3.75 .05 6224% 9% 19% 32% 37% 3.89 .06 356

12% 11% 21% 27% 30% 3.53 .09 19911% 11% 21% 30% 27% 3.51 .16 6311% 13% 27% 24% 25% 3.39 .01 16,628

7% 11% 28% 28% 25% 3.51 .02 6,3007% 9% 23% 26% 34% 3.73 .01 13,6806% 9% 24% 27% 34% 3.75 .01 6,9966% 9% 24% 27% 33% 3.72 .02 3,2367% 11% 27% 27% 28% 3.58 .02 5,3574% 7% 25% 26% 39% 3.89 .10 114

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 70: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 12aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

0% 0% 6% 25% 68% 4.60 .02 1,8650% 1% 9% 31% 59% 4.47 .00 101,0470% 0% 5% 24% 71% 4.64 .02 1,4270% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.52 .00 56,8700% 0% 10% 31% 59% 4.48 .03 4380% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 44,1770% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,436

8% 36% 55% 4.47 .08 74 5% 24% 71% 4.67 .03 350 20% 80% 4.80 .20 5

0% 1% 9% 31% 57% 4.44 .00 86,8210% 1% 5% 31% 63% 4.55 .01 3,1240% 0% 4% 27% 68% 4.64 .01 10,1591% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.54 .03 6570% 1% 7% 25% 68% 4.59 .03 717

1% 5% 22% 72% 4.66 .06 1220% 1% 4% 18% 76% 4.69 .04 251

3% 29% 68% 4.65 .05 1371% 11% 36% 53% 4.39 .05 200

33% 67% 4.67 .17 90% 1% 10% 32% 57% 4.43 .00 33,4030% 2% 10% 32% 56% 4.42 .01 17,7810% 1% 9% 30% 59% 4.46 .01 14,8451% 1% 8% 30% 60% 4.48 .01 13,7730% 1% 9% 35% 56% 4.44 .01 6,0590% 1% 9% 29% 61% 4.49 .02 8270% 0% 5% 22% 73% 4.67 .02 1,2370% 1% 7% 33% 59% 4.48 .03 607

29% 29% 43% 4.14 .34 7 14% 57% 29% 4.14 .18 14

0% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.51 .00 58,7541% 1% 10% 33% 55% 4.40 .00 40,5381% 2% 14% 32% 51% 4.29 .04 3782% 3% 15% 29% 51% 4.25 .03 7060% 0% 7% 26% 67% 4.58 .03 6630% 0% 5% 25% 69% 4.61 .02 1,2020% 1% 10% 32% 56% 4.42 .00 58,6010% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.53 .00 41,0190% 0% 6% 25% 68% 4.60 .02 1,8650% 1% 8% 33% 57% 4.45 .01 8,9690% 1% 10% 36% 52% 4.38 .01 8,0780% 1% 9% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 26,2680% 1% 9% 29% 60% 4.47 .00 22,7250% 1% 9% 30% 60% 4.48 .01 16,9270% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.53 .01 18,0800% 0% 6% 25% 68% 4.60 .02 1,8650% 1% 9% 31% 59% 4.46 .00 77,0870% 1% 8% 31% 59% 4.47 .00 23,9600% 0% 6% 25% 68% 4.60 .02 1,8650% 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.57 .01 2,5150% 1% 9% 31% 59% 4.46 .00 98,5320% 0% 6% 25% 68% 4.60 .02 1,8650% 1% 9% 31% 59% 4.46 .00 77,2900% 1% 9% 32% 58% 4.45 .01 20,9020% 1% 5% 23% 71% 4.63 .01 2,8550% 0% 6% 25% 68% 4.60 .02 1,8650% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.53 .01 4,9140% 1% 8% 29% 61% 4.50 .01 19,9470% 1% 9% 30% 59% 4.47 .00 32,1040% 1% 9% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 44,082

1% 4% 30% 65% 4.60 .05 1360% 0% 6% 22% 72% 4.64 .03 6300% 0% 3% 24% 72% 4.67 .03 3821% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .05 198

4% 26% 70% 4.67 .06 810% 1% 8% 30% 60% 4.48 .01 18,0200% 1% 8% 35% 56% 4.44 .01 7,1370% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .01 14,4740% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.58 .01 7,7150% 0% 6% 26% 68% 4.60 .01 3,5441% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.50 .01 5,8661% 1% 4% 21% 73% 4.64 .06 114

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 71: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 12bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

4% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.16 .02 2,3203% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.16 .00 122,0094% 4% 10% 32% 49% 4.18 .03 1,7723% 4% 13% 33% 47% 4.18 .00 68,8093% 5% 16% 32% 44% 4.09 .04 5482% 4% 14% 36% 43% 4.13 .00 53,2004% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.15 .03 1,7505% 2% 13% 31% 49% 4.17 .11 1004% 5% 9% 32% 50% 4.18 .05 461

22% 78% 4.56 .29 93% 4% 14% 36% 44% 4.14 .00 103,8934% 4% 11% 29% 53% 4.25 .02 4,0162% 3% 10% 29% 55% 4.32 .01 12,9003% 2% 11% 23% 61% 4.36 .03 8295% 6% 14% 32% 44% 4.04 .04 8711% 4% 10% 33% 53% 4.31 .07 1562% 4% 9% 26% 59% 4.35 .06 2912% 5% 8% 35% 49% 4.26 .07 1725% 3% 14% 33% 45% 4.11 .07 248

25% 50% 25% 4.00 .21 122% 4% 14% 35% 44% 4.16 .00 39,6793% 5% 15% 36% 41% 4.09 .01 21,4873% 5% 14% 35% 43% 4.11 .01 17,7563% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.15 .01 16,3762% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.19 .01 7,3802% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.21 .03 1,0424% 5% 11% 30% 49% 4.16 .03 1,5474% 5% 12% 33% 47% 4.15 .04 747

33% 44% 22% 3.89 .26 96% 18% 53% 24% 3.88 .24 172% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.19 .00 72,0773% 4% 14% 36% 43% 4.13 .00 47,8256% 4% 14% 35% 41% 4.01 .05 4405% 5% 16% 30% 43% 4.01 .04 8245% 5% 15% 31% 43% 4.02 .04 8103% 4% 10% 32% 51% 4.23 .03 1,5103% 5% 15% 36% 42% 4.10 .00 69,7272% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.25 .00 50,5604% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.16 .02 2,3202% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .01 10,4994% 6% 17% 35% 37% 3.95 .01 9,8902% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.19 .01 31,0653% 4% 14% 33% 45% 4.13 .01 27,0773% 4% 14% 35% 44% 4.13 .01 20,8862% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.21 .01 22,5924% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.16 .02 2,3203% 4% 14% 35% 45% 4.15 .00 93,6503% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.20 .01 28,3594% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.16 .02 2,3203% 4% 12% 31% 50% 4.22 .02 3,1733% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.16 .00 118,8364% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.16 .02 2,3202% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.21 .00 92,7944% 6% 16% 34% 40% 4.00 .01 25,8115% 5% 13% 31% 46% 4.08 .02 3,4044% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.16 .02 2,3201% 3% 11% 32% 53% 4.33 .01 5,8543% 4% 14% 34% 45% 4.15 .01 24,1732% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.19 .00 38,9703% 5% 13% 36% 43% 4.13 .00 53,0121% 4% 20% 45% 30% 3.98 .07 1633% 3% 7% 29% 58% 4.37 .03 7903% 4% 8% 34% 50% 4.25 .05 460

14% 10% 20% 26% 29% 3.46 .08 2651% 1% 6% 28% 64% 4.52 .08 943% 5% 15% 35% 42% 4.07 .01 21,4652% 4% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .01 8,5873% 3% 11% 31% 52% 4.26 .01 17,5572% 4% 11% 31% 52% 4.26 .01 9,4613% 4% 12% 32% 49% 4.21 .02 4,3862% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 .01 7,2112% 6% 14% 25% 53% 4.20 .09 142

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 72: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 13aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

0% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.60 .01 1,8670% 1% 9% 32% 57% 4.44 .00 101,1680% 0% 5% 23% 72% 4.66 .02 1,4270% 1% 7% 29% 62% 4.52 .00 57,0330% 2% 8% 39% 52% 4.40 .03 4400% 2% 11% 36% 50% 4.34 .00 44,1350% 1% 6% 26% 68% 4.59 .02 1,440

10% 34% 56% 4.47 .08 73 0% 3% 28% 68% 4.64 .03 349 20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 5

0% 2% 9% 33% 56% 4.42 .00 86,9240% 1% 6% 32% 61% 4.54 .01 3,1330% 0% 4% 30% 66% 4.61 .01 10,1691% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .03 6520% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.58 .02 718

3% 24% 73% 4.70 .05 1220% 2% 6% 18% 74% 4.63 .04 250

3% 32% 65% 4.63 .05 1390% 0% 9% 29% 61% 4.49 .05 202

33% 67% 4.67 .17 90% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 33,4220% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.40 .01 17,7870% 1% 9% 32% 58% 4.44 .01 14,8850% 2% 8% 31% 59% 4.47 .01 13,7990% 1% 8% 33% 58% 4.48 .01 6,0740% 1% 7% 32% 59% 4.49 .02 8280% 1% 4% 23% 72% 4.66 .02 1,2400% 1% 8% 32% 59% 4.49 .03 606

43% 14% 43% 4.00 .38 7 7% 79% 14% 4.07 .13 14

0% 1% 7% 31% 60% 4.49 .00 58,8601% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .00 40,5591% 3% 14% 29% 52% 4.27 .05 3801% 3% 15% 30% 51% 4.26 .03 7010% 1% 5% 28% 66% 4.58 .03 6640% 1% 6% 26% 68% 4.61 .02 1,2030% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.38 .00 58,6610% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.53 .00 41,0670% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.60 .01 1,8670% 1% 8% 34% 56% 4.43 .01 8,9770% 2% 10% 36% 52% 4.38 .01 8,1110% 2% 9% 35% 54% 4.40 .00 26,3140% 1% 9% 31% 57% 4.44 .01 22,7300% 1% 8% 30% 60% 4.47 .01 16,9440% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.51 .01 18,0920% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.60 .01 1,8670% 1% 9% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 77,1480% 2% 8% 32% 57% 4.45 .00 24,0200% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.60 .01 1,8670% 1% 6% 30% 62% 4.53 .01 2,5180% 1% 9% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 98,6500% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.60 .01 1,8670% 1% 9% 33% 57% 4.44 .00 77,3600% 1% 9% 33% 57% 4.43 .01 20,9470% 1% 4% 21% 75% 4.68 .01 2,8610% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.60 .01 1,8670% 1% 8% 34% 56% 4.43 .01 4,9270% 1% 9% 31% 58% 4.46 .01 19,9710% 1% 9% 31% 58% 4.45 .00 32,1190% 2% 8% 34% 56% 4.43 .00 44,151

4% 26% 70% 4.66 .05 1370% 1% 7% 18% 74% 4.66 .03 630

0% 3% 26% 70% 4.67 .03 382 1% 5% 23% 72% 4.66 .04 199 3% 34% 63% 4.61 .06 79

0% 1% 8% 29% 61% 4.50 .01 18,0970% 1% 8% 33% 57% 4.46 .01 7,1640% 1% 6% 27% 65% 4.55 .01 14,4940% 1% 6% 28% 65% 4.57 .01 7,7470% 1% 5% 29% 65% 4.58 .01 3,5520% 1% 7% 32% 59% 4.48 .01 5,8662% 5% 22% 71% 4.60 .07 113

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 73: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 13bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

7% 7% 15% 28% 43% 3.94 .03 2,3234% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.00 .00 121,9578% 8% 15% 27% 42% 3.89 .03 1,7755% 7% 15% 31% 41% 3.98 .00 68,8463% 5% 14% 30% 47% 4.12 .04 5483% 6% 15% 36% 40% 4.04 .00 53,1117% 8% 16% 27% 42% 3.91 .03 1,7567% 8% 10% 30% 45% 3.97 .13 987% 6% 11% 29% 47% 4.04 .06 460

22% 78% 4.56 .29 94% 7% 16% 34% 39% 3.98 .00 103,8335% 6% 12% 29% 48% 4.10 .02 4,0114% 6% 12% 29% 50% 4.16 .01 12,8943% 4% 11% 23% 58% 4.29 .04 8318% 9% 18% 26% 39% 3.79 .04 8703% 8% 15% 32% 42% 4.04 .08 1574% 7% 14% 25% 50% 4.11 .07 2945% 5% 16% 29% 45% 4.03 .09 1747% 7% 15% 30% 42% 3.93 .08 249

25% 17% 25% 33% 3.67 .36 123% 7% 16% 35% 39% 4.00 .01 39,6444% 7% 17% 35% 37% 3.93 .01 21,4754% 8% 16% 33% 39% 3.95 .01 17,7634% 7% 16% 34% 40% 3.98 .01 16,3654% 6% 13% 34% 43% 4.06 .01 7,3763% 4% 16% 32% 44% 4.10 .03 1,0407% 8% 15% 26% 44% 3.92 .03 1,5525% 7% 14% 31% 43% 4.00 .04 745

11% 22% 33% 33% 3.89 .35 912% 12% 12% 41% 24% 3.53 .32 17

4% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.02 .00 72,0734% 7% 16% 34% 40% 3.98 .00 47,7707% 6% 16% 34% 37% 3.89 .06 4447% 8% 17% 28% 40% 3.85 .04 8208% 9% 18% 27% 38% 3.78 .04 8106% 7% 13% 28% 47% 4.03 .03 1,5134% 7% 17% 35% 37% 3.95 .00 69,6864% 6% 13% 32% 45% 4.08 .00 50,5437% 7% 15% 28% 43% 3.94 .03 2,3232% 6% 13% 34% 45% 4.13 .01 10,4876% 8% 17% 34% 36% 3.86 .01 9,8833% 6% 15% 36% 40% 4.04 .01 31,0344% 8% 16% 32% 40% 3.96 .01 27,0384% 7% 17% 33% 38% 3.94 .01 20,9054% 6% 14% 32% 44% 4.06 .01 22,6107% 7% 15% 28% 43% 3.94 .03 2,3234% 7% 15% 34% 41% 4.01 .00 93,6074% 7% 15% 33% 40% 3.99 .01 28,3507% 7% 15% 28% 43% 3.94 .03 2,3234% 6% 15% 31% 44% 4.04 .02 3,1604% 7% 15% 34% 41% 4.00 .00 118,7977% 7% 15% 28% 43% 3.94 .03 2,3233% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.05 .00 92,7276% 9% 16% 32% 37% 3.86 .01 25,8168% 8% 16% 30% 39% 3.84 .02 3,4147% 7% 15% 28% 43% 3.94 .03 2,3232% 5% 14% 34% 44% 4.13 .01 5,8484% 7% 16% 32% 41% 3.97 .01 24,1504% 6% 15% 33% 42% 4.04 .01 38,9364% 7% 16% 34% 39% 3.98 .00 53,0232% 10% 26% 38% 24% 3.71 .08 1645% 8% 12% 24% 52% 4.09 .04 7916% 6% 16% 30% 41% 3.94 .05 461

23% 14% 18% 23% 22% 3.08 .09 2661% 2% 5% 29% 62% 4.49 .08 935% 8% 17% 33% 37% 3.87 .01 21,5085% 9% 18% 33% 35% 3.84 .01 8,5845% 6% 14% 30% 46% 4.06 .01 17,5544% 7% 14% 31% 44% 4.05 .01 9,4676% 8% 16% 29% 40% 3.89 .02 4,3952% 5% 12% 33% 48% 4.21 .01 7,2014% 7% 11% 25% 53% 4.17 .10 137

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 74: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 14aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

0% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .02 1,8551% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.41 .00 100,9160% 2% 9% 28% 61% 4.47 .02 1,4171% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.41 .00 56,7320% 3% 8% 31% 58% 4.44 .04 4380% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 44,1841% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.48 .02 1,435

4% 19% 36% 41% 4.13 .11 69 1% 8% 34% 56% 4.45 .04 346 20% 80% 4.60 .40 5

1% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.42 .00 86,8261% 2% 9% 36% 52% 4.38 .01 3,1021% 2% 8% 34% 55% 4.40 .01 10,0621% 2% 11% 26% 59% 4.39 .03 6431% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .03 717

2% 2% 24% 72% 4.66 .06 1221% 4% 9% 21% 65% 4.45 .06 2481% 2% 13% 32% 53% 4.34 .07 136

4% 9% 36% 50% 4.33 .06 203 11% 56% 33% 4.22 .22 9

1% 2% 10% 29% 59% 4.44 .00 33,4241% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.40 .01 17,7791% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .01 14,8341% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.40 .01 13,7830% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.39 .01 6,0541% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .03 8230% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .02 1,2341% 3% 10% 33% 54% 4.36 .03 600

14% 71% 14% 4.00 .22 7 14% 79% 7% 3.93 .13 14

0% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.46 .00 58,6831% 2% 12% 32% 53% 4.34 .00 40,4831% 3% 13% 26% 56% 4.33 .05 3771% 3% 14% 29% 53% 4.29 .03 7021% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .03 6620% 3% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .02 1,1930% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .00 58,7021% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.39 .00 40,7890% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .02 1,8551% 3% 11% 34% 52% 4.33 .01 8,9301% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.40 .01 8,1081% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.40 .00 26,2621% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.43 .01 22,6631% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.43 .01 16,9081% 2% 9% 30% 59% 4.44 .01 18,0450% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .02 1,8551% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 76,9661% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.40 .01 23,9500% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .02 1,8551% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.41 .02 2,5051% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.41 .00 98,4110% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .02 1,8551% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.41 .00 77,2081% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.41 .01 20,8570% 2% 7% 26% 65% 4.54 .01 2,8510% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.46 .02 1,8551% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.44 .01 4,9180% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .01 19,8861% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.43 .00 32,0721% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.39 .00 44,040

3% 9% 30% 58% 4.44 .07 1371% 2% 8% 27% 61% 4.45 .03 620

1% 7% 29% 63% 4.54 .03 384 2% 15% 25% 58% 4.41 .06 195 1% 10% 30% 59% 4.47 .08 81

1% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.37 .01 17,9791% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.36 .01 7,1191% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .01 14,4171% 2% 9% 30% 59% 4.46 .01 7,7341% 3% 9% 31% 56% 4.40 .01 3,5191% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.45 .01 5,8652% 1% 7% 27% 63% 4.47 .08 99

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 75: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 14bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

4% 10% 14% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,3056% 10% 16% 30% 38% 3.84 .00 121,4964% 11% 14% 27% 45% 3.98 .03 1,7625% 9% 15% 30% 41% 3.95 .00 68,3536% 10% 15% 32% 36% 3.83 .05 5438% 12% 16% 30% 34% 3.71 .01 53,1435% 12% 15% 27% 40% 3.87 .03 1,7453% 8% 10% 33% 46% 4.12 .11 933% 4% 13% 30% 50% 4.22 .05 458

11% 22% 67% 4.22 .40 96% 11% 16% 30% 36% 3.78 .00 103,6805% 7% 12% 30% 47% 4.08 .02 3,9623% 5% 11% 30% 52% 4.24 .01 12,6764% 4% 12% 24% 56% 4.24 .04 8086% 14% 17% 27% 36% 3.71 .04 8684% 12% 12% 25% 48% 4.01 .10 1532% 8% 13% 24% 53% 4.17 .06 2912% 14% 14% 27% 43% 3.94 .09 1714% 10% 15% 34% 38% 3.92 .07 250

8% 67% 25% 4.08 .23 128% 13% 17% 29% 33% 3.67 .01 39,6576% 11% 16% 31% 36% 3.79 .01 21,4426% 10% 16% 30% 38% 3.84 .01 17,6935% 9% 15% 31% 39% 3.91 .01 16,3205% 9% 15% 32% 39% 3.90 .01 7,3476% 9% 18% 29% 38% 3.85 .04 1,0434% 11% 14% 26% 45% 3.95 .03 1,5404% 9% 15% 33% 39% 3.94 .04 740

13% 13% 25% 13% 38% 3.50 .53 8 6% 24% 47% 24% 3.88 .21 17

6% 10% 15% 30% 39% 3.86 .00 71,7426% 10% 16% 30% 37% 3.82 .01 47,656

11% 12% 14% 30% 33% 3.61 .06 4418% 13% 19% 25% 34% 3.65 .05 8187% 15% 18% 28% 33% 3.65 .04 8073% 8% 13% 28% 48% 4.11 .03 1,4988% 12% 17% 30% 33% 3.69 .00 69,7484% 7% 14% 30% 45% 4.05 .00 50,0314% 10% 14% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,3055% 10% 15% 31% 38% 3.87 .01 10,4117% 12% 16% 31% 34% 3.72 .01 9,8905% 10% 15% 31% 39% 3.88 .01 30,9457% 10% 16% 29% 38% 3.81 .01 26,9647% 10% 16% 29% 38% 3.81 .01 20,7955% 10% 15% 29% 41% 3.90 .01 22,4914% 10% 14% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,3056% 10% 16% 30% 38% 3.85 .00 93,2457% 11% 15% 29% 39% 3.82 .01 28,2514% 10% 14% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,3055% 8% 14% 28% 46% 4.03 .02 3,1396% 10% 16% 30% 38% 3.84 .00 118,3574% 10% 14% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,3056% 10% 16% 30% 39% 3.87 .00 92,4247% 12% 16% 30% 35% 3.72 .01 25,6847% 7% 12% 26% 48% 4.01 .02 3,3884% 10% 14% 28% 43% 3.95 .02 2,3057% 11% 15% 28% 40% 3.84 .02 5,8357% 10% 16% 29% 38% 3.82 .01 24,0556% 10% 15% 29% 40% 3.88 .01 38,8136% 11% 16% 31% 37% 3.82 .01 52,7938% 14% 18% 32% 27% 3.57 .10 1613% 12% 14% 27% 44% 3.96 .04 7874% 10% 14% 24% 48% 4.03 .05 4583% 6% 13% 29% 49% 4.13 .07 2632% 6% 10% 30% 52% 4.23 .10 935% 10% 16% 31% 38% 3.86 .01 21,3297% 11% 17% 31% 35% 3.75 .01 8,5424% 8% 14% 30% 44% 4.01 .01 17,4474% 8% 14% 29% 44% 4.00 .01 9,4104% 9% 14% 29% 44% 3.99 .02 4,3463% 6% 12% 28% 50% 4.16 .01 7,1613% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.25 .09 118

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 76: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 15aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

0% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.51 .02 1,8551% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 100,5480% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.55 .02 1,4191% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .00 56,6600% 2% 11% 32% 54% 4.39 .04 4361% 3% 13% 34% 49% 4.28 .00 43,8880% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.49 .02 1,433

3% 8% 40% 49% 4.36 .09 73 0% 4% 29% 67% 4.63 .03 344 20% 20% 60% 4.40 .40 5

1% 3% 12% 32% 52% 4.33 .00 86,3370% 1% 6% 32% 60% 4.51 .01 3,1250% 1% 4% 28% 66% 4.60 .01 10,1481% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.49 .03 6520% 2% 9% 26% 63% 4.50 .03 717

3% 5% 23% 69% 4.57 .07 1210% 2% 6% 20% 72% 4.61 .05 251

4% 7% 32% 58% 4.44 .07 1351% 0% 12% 36% 50% 4.33 .06 201

50% 50% 4.50 .19 81% 3% 13% 32% 52% 4.31 .00 33,1931% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.31 .01 17,6911% 3% 12% 31% 53% 4.34 .01 14,7801% 3% 11% 31% 55% 4.37 .01 13,6810% 2% 11% 34% 52% 4.34 .01 6,0341% 1% 9% 31% 58% 4.45 .03 8310% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .02 1,2350% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .03 599

43% 29% 29% 3.86 .34 7 7% 7% 64% 21% 4.00 .21 14

0% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.44 .00 58,5071% 3% 14% 34% 49% 4.26 .00 40,3112% 5% 15% 27% 51% 4.21 .05 3761% 4% 15% 27% 52% 4.24 .04 6930% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.49 .03 6620% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.53 .02 1,1931% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.30 .00 58,2800% 2% 9% 30% 59% 4.45 .00 40,8500% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.51 .02 1,8551% 3% 11% 34% 52% 4.34 .01 8,9371% 4% 14% 36% 46% 4.23 .01 8,0321% 3% 12% 33% 52% 4.33 .01 26,1241% 2% 11% 30% 55% 4.37 .01 22,5941% 2% 11% 30% 57% 4.40 .01 16,8450% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.44 .01 18,0160% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.51 .02 1,8551% 2% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 76,6491% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.37 .01 23,8990% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.51 .02 1,8550% 2% 8% 27% 64% 4.52 .01 2,5091% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 98,0390% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.51 .02 1,8551% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 76,9051% 3% 11% 33% 53% 4.34 .01 20,7840% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.59 .01 2,8590% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.51 .02 1,8550% 1% 8% 29% 61% 4.49 .01 4,9130% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.41 .01 19,8561% 2% 11% 31% 55% 4.38 .00 31,9581% 3% 12% 34% 51% 4.32 .00 43,821

4% 7% 28% 61% 4.47 .07 1341% 1% 9% 25% 65% 4.52 .03 6250% 1% 4% 29% 66% 4.59 .03 384

2% 5% 25% 68% 4.60 .05 196 4% 24% 73% 4.69 .06 80

1% 2% 11% 30% 56% 4.39 .01 17,9501% 3% 11% 35% 51% 4.33 .01 7,1061% 2% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .01 14,3980% 2% 8% 29% 62% 4.49 .01 7,7140% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.51 .01 3,5460% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.42 .01 5,8331% 1% 6% 19% 73% 4.62 .07 113

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 77: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 15bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

3% 5% 11% 28% 52% 4.21 .02 2,3093% 4% 13% 30% 50% 4.20 .00 121,1154% 4% 11% 28% 54% 4.24 .02 1,7633% 4% 12% 29% 52% 4.24 .00 68,4413% 6% 14% 30% 47% 4.12 .05 5463% 5% 14% 32% 47% 4.16 .00 52,6744% 5% 12% 28% 51% 4.19 .03 1,7413% 2% 6% 29% 59% 4.40 .10 963% 4% 11% 28% 54% 4.26 .05 463

11% 22% 67% 4.56 .24 93% 5% 14% 31% 48% 4.17 .00 103,0763% 3% 8% 25% 62% 4.40 .02 4,0032% 3% 9% 25% 61% 4.40 .01 12,8313% 2% 10% 20% 65% 4.41 .03 8265% 6% 13% 28% 48% 4.09 .04 8681% 4% 10% 30% 56% 4.36 .07 1542% 2% 11% 25% 59% 4.36 .06 2922% 4% 8% 31% 54% 4.31 .07 1704% 6% 11% 31% 48% 4.13 .07 246

9% 45% 45% 4.36 .20 113% 5% 14% 31% 48% 4.17 .01 39,3403% 5% 14% 32% 46% 4.14 .01 21,3113% 5% 14% 31% 47% 4.15 .01 17,6273% 4% 13% 31% 49% 4.20 .01 16,2522% 4% 11% 32% 51% 4.26 .01 7,3293% 4% 12% 29% 52% 4.22 .03 1,0403% 4% 11% 27% 54% 4.24 .03 1,5474% 5% 12% 31% 49% 4.16 .04 736

11% 11% 56% 22% 3.78 .40 9 12% 12% 47% 29% 3.94 .23 17

3% 4% 12% 29% 51% 4.23 .00 71,5723% 4% 13% 32% 48% 4.17 .00 47,4506% 4% 13% 32% 45% 4.06 .05 4405% 7% 14% 24% 49% 4.05 .04 8065% 6% 15% 28% 47% 4.07 .04 8093% 4% 10% 29% 55% 4.29 .03 1,5003% 5% 14% 32% 46% 4.14 .00 69,1992% 3% 11% 29% 55% 4.30 .00 50,2013% 5% 11% 28% 52% 4.21 .02 2,3092% 3% 10% 30% 56% 4.35 .01 10,4365% 7% 17% 31% 41% 3.96 .01 9,7602% 4% 13% 32% 49% 4.22 .01 30,7783% 4% 13% 29% 50% 4.20 .01 26,9223% 4% 13% 31% 49% 4.18 .01 20,7523% 4% 12% 30% 52% 4.24 .01 22,4673% 5% 11% 28% 52% 4.21 .02 2,3093% 4% 13% 31% 49% 4.18 .00 92,8973% 4% 11% 29% 53% 4.26 .01 28,2183% 5% 11% 28% 52% 4.21 .02 2,3093% 3% 11% 26% 57% 4.32 .02 3,1503% 4% 13% 30% 50% 4.20 .00 117,9653% 5% 11% 28% 52% 4.21 .02 2,3092% 4% 12% 31% 51% 4.25 .00 92,0774% 6% 14% 30% 45% 4.05 .01 25,6375% 5% 11% 26% 52% 4.14 .02 3,4013% 5% 11% 28% 52% 4.21 .02 2,3092% 3% 10% 25% 60% 4.41 .01 5,8323% 4% 13% 29% 50% 4.20 .01 24,0423% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.23 .01 38,7113% 5% 13% 31% 48% 4.16 .00 52,5302% 6% 18% 36% 39% 4.04 .08 1602% 2% 9% 27% 60% 4.40 .03 7832% 4% 8% 31% 55% 4.34 .04 461

12% 9% 18% 24% 36% 3.62 .08 2662% 2% 8% 20% 68% 4.49 .09 934% 5% 14% 31% 47% 4.13 .01 21,3502% 4% 13% 33% 46% 4.17 .01 8,5273% 3% 11% 27% 56% 4.31 .01 17,4622% 4% 10% 28% 56% 4.32 .01 9,4333% 4% 11% 27% 56% 4.28 .02 4,3682% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.32 .01 7,1604% 8% 11% 18% 60% 4.21 .10 141

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 78: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 16aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

0% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .02 1,8541% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.41 .00 100,6490% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,4191% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.47 .00 56,6600% 2% 7% 30% 61% 4.50 .03 4351% 3% 12% 33% 52% 4.33 .00 43,9890% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.56 .02 1,432

3% 8% 42% 47% 4.33 .09 72 1% 3% 26% 70% 4.66 .03 345 20% 80% 4.60 .40 5

1% 3% 11% 31% 56% 4.37 .00 86,4730% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.50 .01 3,1190% 1% 4% 27% 68% 4.63 .01 10,1231% 2% 8% 23% 66% 4.52 .03 6500% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .03 7151% 2% 5% 22% 70% 4.60 .07 1210% 1% 3% 20% 76% 4.69 .04 2511% 3% 6% 32% 59% 4.45 .07 1361% 11% 38% 50% 4.36 .05 201

50% 50% 4.50 .19 81% 3% 11% 31% 55% 4.37 .00 33,2351% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.35 .01 17,7221% 3% 11% 30% 56% 4.39 .01 14,7881% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.41 .01 13,7381% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.37 .01 6,0400% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.46 .03 8280% 1% 5% 23% 72% 4.64 .02 1,2320% 2% 8% 32% 58% 4.45 .03 601

29% 29% 14% 29% 3.43 .48 7 14% 71% 14% 4.00 .15 14

0% 2% 8% 29% 61% 4.48 .00 58,5431% 3% 12% 32% 52% 4.31 .00 40,3713% 4% 16% 26% 51% 4.19 .05 3772% 6% 14% 26% 52% 4.21 .04 7010% 1% 7% 24% 67% 4.57 .03 6620% 1% 5% 27% 66% 4.57 .02 1,1921% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.35 .00 58,3831% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.48 .00 40,8670% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .02 1,8541% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.39 .01 8,9551% 4% 12% 35% 49% 4.27 .01 8,0621% 3% 10% 32% 55% 4.37 .01 26,1941% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.42 .01 22,5901% 2% 10% 29% 59% 4.42 .01 16,8261% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .01 18,0220% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .02 1,8541% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.41 .00 76,7441% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.41 .01 23,9050% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .02 1,8541% 2% 7% 25% 66% 4.54 .01 2,5211% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .00 98,1280% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .02 1,8541% 2% 10% 30% 57% 4.40 .00 77,0071% 2% 10% 31% 56% 4.40 .01 20,7981% 2% 6% 22% 70% 4.58 .01 2,8440% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .02 1,8540% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.53 .01 4,8971% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.46 .01 19,9061% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.42 .00 31,9591% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.36 .00 43,887

2% 8% 31% 59% 4.46 .06 1341% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.56 .03 6281% 1% 3% 28% 68% 4.62 .03 381

1% 2% 21% 76% 4.72 .04 195 2% 25% 73% 4.70 .06 81

1% 2% 10% 29% 59% 4.42 .01 17,9381% 3% 10% 33% 54% 4.37 .01 7,1211% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .01 14,4110% 2% 7% 27% 64% 4.53 .01 7,7130% 1% 6% 27% 65% 4.55 .01 3,5241% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.47 .01 5,8401% 1% 4% 21% 73% 4.64 .07 113

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 79: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 16bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

3% 4% 11% 25% 57% 4.29 .02 2,3123% 4% 12% 28% 53% 4.24 .00 121,4743% 3% 10% 26% 59% 4.34 .02 1,7643% 4% 11% 27% 55% 4.28 .00 68,5245% 6% 14% 23% 52% 4.12 .05 5483% 5% 13% 29% 50% 4.19 .00 52,9504% 4% 11% 25% 56% 4.26 .02 1,7482% 3% 7% 21% 66% 4.46 .09 953% 3% 11% 24% 59% 4.33 .05 460

22% 78% 4.78 .15 93% 5% 13% 29% 51% 4.21 .00 103,5073% 2% 7% 22% 65% 4.45 .01 3,9912% 3% 8% 23% 63% 4.43 .01 12,7794% 3% 8% 20% 66% 4.42 .03 8284% 6% 11% 25% 54% 4.18 .04 8751% 4% 7% 29% 59% 4.42 .07 1522% 2% 10% 21% 65% 4.45 .05 2932% 2% 12% 27% 58% 4.35 .07 1726% 2% 14% 27% 52% 4.18 .07 244

17% 50% 33% 4.17 .21 123% 5% 13% 28% 52% 4.20 .01 39,5393% 5% 13% 29% 50% 4.18 .01 21,4193% 5% 13% 29% 51% 4.19 .01 17,6943% 4% 13% 29% 52% 4.23 .01 16,2883% 3% 10% 30% 54% 4.28 .01 7,3524% 4% 12% 26% 55% 4.26 .03 1,0413% 4% 10% 24% 59% 4.32 .03 1,5474% 3% 12% 26% 54% 4.23 .04 739

11% 11% 56% 22% 3.89 .31 9 6% 12% 35% 47% 4.24 .22 17

3% 4% 12% 27% 54% 4.25 .00 71,7643% 4% 12% 29% 52% 4.23 .00 47,6166% 5% 12% 28% 49% 4.08 .06 4406% 6% 13% 23% 52% 4.09 .04 8154% 6% 12% 25% 53% 4.16 .04 8143% 2% 10% 25% 60% 4.36 .02 1,4983% 5% 13% 29% 50% 4.17 .00 69,4943% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.33 .00 50,2713% 4% 11% 25% 57% 4.29 .02 2,3122% 3% 9% 25% 61% 4.42 .01 10,4845% 7% 16% 28% 43% 3.96 .01 9,8382% 4% 12% 29% 53% 4.26 .01 30,9203% 4% 12% 27% 54% 4.24 .01 26,9443% 4% 13% 28% 52% 4.21 .01 20,7953% 4% 11% 27% 55% 4.28 .01 22,4933% 4% 11% 25% 57% 4.29 .02 2,3123% 4% 12% 28% 52% 4.22 .00 93,2243% 4% 11% 26% 57% 4.31 .01 28,2503% 4% 11% 25% 57% 4.29 .02 2,3123% 3% 10% 23% 61% 4.37 .02 3,1503% 4% 12% 28% 53% 4.24 .00 118,3243% 4% 11% 25% 57% 4.29 .02 2,3122% 4% 12% 28% 54% 4.28 .00 92,3715% 6% 14% 27% 49% 4.10 .01 25,7166% 5% 12% 25% 53% 4.13 .02 3,3873% 4% 11% 25% 57% 4.29 .02 2,3121% 3% 9% 22% 65% 4.46 .01 5,8183% 4% 12% 27% 54% 4.23 .01 24,0993% 4% 12% 27% 55% 4.28 .01 38,7933% 5% 13% 29% 51% 4.19 .00 52,7641% 2% 22% 37% 39% 4.09 .07 1612% 3% 6% 25% 64% 4.47 .03 7892% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.47 .04 456

10% 5% 19% 26% 40% 3.80 .08 2643% 1% 4% 17% 74% 4.59 .09 944% 5% 13% 28% 50% 4.17 .01 21,3843% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.23 .01 8,5453% 3% 10% 25% 59% 4.35 .01 17,4862% 3% 10% 25% 60% 4.37 .01 9,4262% 3% 10% 25% 60% 4.36 .01 4,3552% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.35 .01 7,1904% 7% 9% 22% 58% 4.23 .09 138

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 80: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 17aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

0% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.67 .01 1,8560% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 100,7380% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.66 .02 1,4210% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.60 .00 56,5081% 3% 22% 74% 4.69 .03 4350% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .00 44,2300% 1% 4% 22% 72% 4.65 .02 1,430

5% 30% 64% 4.59 .07 73 3% 18% 79% 4.76 .03 347 17% 83% 4.83 .17 6

0% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.56 .00 86,5380% 1% 4% 21% 74% 4.68 .01 3,1350% 0% 2% 17% 80% 4.77 .00 10,1371% 1% 6% 21% 70% 4.57 .03 6491% 1% 4% 22% 72% 4.65 .02 717

6% 23% 72% 4.66 .05 120 1% 4% 17% 78% 4.72 .04 252 1% 2% 29% 68% 4.63 .05 136 2% 7% 24% 67% 4.55 .05 195 30% 70% 4.70 .15 10

0% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .00 33,2990% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.54 .01 17,7260% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.57 .01 14,7980% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.57 .01 13,7300% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .01 6,0350% 1% 6% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 8280% 0% 3% 18% 77% 4.72 .02 1,2330% 1% 5% 28% 66% 4.57 .03 602

17% 33% 50% 4.33 .33 6 7% 60% 33% 4.27 .15 15

0% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.66 .00 58,5471% 2% 9% 28% 62% 4.49 .00 40,4501% 2% 12% 26% 59% 4.38 .05 3751% 2% 13% 24% 59% 4.38 .03 7091% 0% 3% 23% 72% 4.66 .03 663

1% 4% 21% 74% 4.67 .02 1,1930% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.55 .00 58,4660% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .00 40,8700% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.67 .01 1,8560% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .01 8,9220% 1% 7% 28% 64% 4.54 .01 8,0640% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 26,2261% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.57 .00 22,6640% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .01 16,8410% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.64 .00 18,0210% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.67 .01 1,8560% 1% 6% 24% 69% 4.59 .00 76,8060% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 23,9320% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.67 .01 1,8560% 1% 4% 19% 76% 4.70 .01 2,4940% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .00 98,2440% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.67 .01 1,8560% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.59 .00 77,0470% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .00 20,8440% 1% 3% 16% 80% 4.74 .01 2,8470% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.67 .01 1,8560% 1% 6% 23% 71% 4.63 .01 4,9270% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .00 19,8900% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .00 31,9630% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.57 .00 43,958

1% 7% 21% 71% 4.63 .06 1350% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.65 .03 622

1% 4% 22% 73% 4.66 .03 386 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.68 .04 198 1% 23% 76% 4.75 .05 80

1% 1% 7% 22% 69% 4.59 .01 17,9800% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.56 .01 7,1111% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 14,3370% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 7,6610% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.68 .01 3,5351% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.57 .01 5,7822% 1% 4% 13% 80% 4.69 .08 102

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 81: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 17bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

3% 5% 11% 33% 49% 4.21 .02 2,3102% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.20 .00 121,9013% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.27 .02 1,7672% 3% 10% 33% 51% 4.29 .00 68,5843% 7% 14% 39% 37% 4.00 .04 5432% 5% 14% 39% 39% 4.09 .00 53,3173% 4% 11% 32% 49% 4.21 .02 1,7433% 3% 12% 33% 49% 4.22 .10 1003% 5% 10% 34% 48% 4.19 .05 458

44% 56% 4.56 .18 92% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.17 .00 103,7602% 3% 8% 32% 55% 4.34 .01 4,0322% 3% 7% 31% 57% 4.39 .01 12,9203% 4% 10% 24% 59% 4.34 .03 8232% 5% 13% 34% 46% 4.17 .03 8622% 3% 12% 31% 51% 4.27 .08 1542% 3% 8% 31% 57% 4.39 .05 2962% 5% 11% 30% 52% 4.25 .08 1715% 6% 10% 31% 48% 4.11 .07 2488% 8% 25% 33% 25% 3.58 .36 122% 4% 14% 37% 43% 4.15 .00 39,6822% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.12 .01 21,4542% 4% 12% 36% 45% 4.17 .01 17,7072% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.22 .01 16,3502% 3% 9% 36% 50% 4.30 .01 7,3652% 3% 11% 32% 51% 4.26 .03 1,0333% 4% 11% 31% 50% 4.22 .03 1,5433% 5% 11% 36% 46% 4.19 .04 742

63% 38% 4.38 .18 86% 6% 47% 41% 4.12 .27 172% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.21 .00 72,0502% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.19 .00 47,7635% 8% 13% 32% 43% 4.01 .05 4395% 5% 16% 33% 42% 4.03 .04 8322% 5% 13% 35% 45% 4.15 .03 8023% 4% 10% 32% 51% 4.24 .03 1,5082% 5% 14% 38% 41% 4.11 .00 69,6962% 3% 9% 33% 53% 4.32 .00 50,5073% 5% 11% 33% 49% 4.21 .02 2,3101% 3% 10% 36% 50% 4.31 .01 10,4563% 6% 14% 38% 39% 4.06 .01 9,8682% 4% 12% 37% 46% 4.20 .01 31,0702% 4% 13% 35% 44% 4.15 .01 27,0882% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.19 .01 20,8652% 3% 10% 34% 50% 4.28 .01 22,5543% 5% 11% 33% 49% 4.21 .02 2,3102% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.20 .00 93,5262% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 28,3753% 5% 11% 33% 49% 4.21 .02 2,3103% 4% 11% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 3,1632% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.20 .00 118,7383% 5% 11% 33% 49% 4.21 .02 2,3102% 3% 12% 36% 47% 4.24 .00 92,7253% 6% 14% 36% 41% 4.07 .01 25,7694% 6% 11% 30% 48% 4.13 .02 3,4073% 5% 11% 33% 49% 4.21 .02 2,3101% 2% 11% 33% 53% 4.34 .01 5,8702% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.21 .01 24,1372% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.21 .00 38,9582% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.17 .00 52,9366% 9% 22% 32% 31% 3.75 .09 1622% 3% 8% 29% 58% 4.37 .03 7901% 2% 7% 33% 57% 4.42 .04 4605% 6% 17% 33% 39% 3.95 .07 2631% 1% 4% 29% 64% 4.54 .08 923% 5% 13% 35% 45% 4.15 .01 21,4622% 4% 12% 37% 46% 4.21 .01 8,5742% 3% 9% 31% 55% 4.35 .01 17,4781% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.42 .01 9,4181% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.40 .01 4,3671% 2% 9% 33% 55% 4.37 .01 7,1543% 1% 7% 27% 62% 4.44 .08 131

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 82: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 18aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

0% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.60 .02 1,8450% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .00 100,0100% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.59 .02 1,4091% 2% 7% 25% 65% 4.53 .00 55,8441% 0% 6% 22% 71% 4.63 .03 4360% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .00 44,1660% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.58 .02 1,419

7% 36% 58% 4.51 .07 730% 3% 22% 75% 4.71 .03 347

17% 50% 33% 4.17 .31 60% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 86,0270% 1% 5% 23% 70% 4.62 .01 3,0900% 1% 3% 20% 76% 4.70 .01 9,9801% 2% 9% 21% 68% 4.53 .03 6331% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.59 .03 711

11% 20% 69% 4.59 .06 121 2% 5% 17% 76% 4.67 .04 248 1% 9% 29% 61% 4.50 .06 133 3% 11% 26% 61% 4.44 .06 196 30% 70% 4.70 .15 10

0% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.51 .00 33,1760% 2% 9% 27% 62% 4.49 .01 17,6170% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.51 .01 14,6861% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .01 13,6300% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.51 .01 5,9750% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .02 8140% 0% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .02 1,2260% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.46 .03 598

17% 50% 33% 4.17 .31 6 13% 60% 27% 4.13 .17 15

0% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .00 58,0891% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.42 .00 40,1841% 2% 12% 28% 57% 4.36 .05 3751% 3% 15% 25% 57% 4.35 .03 7021% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.58 .03 6570% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.61 .02 1,1880% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .00 58,1660% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .00 40,4340% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.60 .02 1,8450% 1% 7% 27% 64% 4.52 .01 8,8360% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.48 .01 8,0280% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.52 .00 26,0101% 2% 8% 25% 65% 4.52 .01 22,5550% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .01 16,7160% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.58 .01 17,8650% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.60 .02 1,8450% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .00 76,2450% 2% 8% 27% 64% 4.52 .00 23,7650% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.60 .02 1,8450% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.61 .01 2,4790% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.53 .00 97,5310% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.60 .02 1,8450% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.53 .00 76,4921% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .01 20,6840% 1% 4% 17% 78% 4.71 .01 2,8340% 1% 6% 23% 69% 4.60 .02 1,8450% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .01 4,8800% 1% 7% 24% 66% 4.55 .01 19,7440% 1% 8% 26% 65% 4.53 .00 31,7231% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.51 .00 43,6631% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.53 .07 1350% 1% 7% 22% 69% 4.58 .03 619

2% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .03 382 1% 6% 23% 71% 4.64 .04 195 3% 23% 74% 4.72 .06 78

1% 2% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .01 17,9200% 2% 8% 28% 63% 4.50 .01 7,0871% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.54 .01 14,1871% 2% 7% 25% 66% 4.54 .01 7,6210% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 3,4911% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.49 .01 5,4382% 6% 18% 74% 4.62 .08 100

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 83: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 18bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

2% 4% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .02 2,2882% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.24 .00 120,8862% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,7442% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.27 .00 67,6342% 4% 12% 39% 43% 4.16 .04 5442% 4% 12% 38% 44% 4.19 .00 53,2522% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.23 .02 1,7303% 1% 12% 35% 48% 4.25 .09 992% 4% 10% 36% 47% 4.21 .05 450

56% 44% 4.44 .18 92% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.21 .00 103,0533% 3% 8% 32% 55% 4.33 .01 3,9752% 3% 7% 31% 57% 4.38 .01 12,6843% 4% 8% 25% 60% 4.36 .03 8082% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.24 .03 8551% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.31 .07 1571% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.40 .05 2932% 6% 9% 37% 46% 4.17 .08 1675% 6% 15% 35% 39% 3.98 .07 246

17% 8% 42% 33% 3.92 .31 122% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.23 .00 39,5112% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.18 .01 21,2982% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.19 .01 17,5822% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 16,2042% 3% 10% 35% 51% 4.29 .01 7,2682% 4% 9% 36% 49% 4.26 .03 1,0212% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .02 1,5252% 4% 10% 40% 44% 4.20 .03 738

13% 38% 50% 4.38 .26 8 12% 53% 35% 4.12 .22 17

2% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.25 .00 71,3212% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.22 .00 47,4675% 5% 13% 32% 45% 4.05 .05 4405% 5% 14% 33% 43% 4.04 .04 8242% 3% 12% 36% 46% 4.23 .03 7962% 4% 10% 33% 49% 4.23 .03 1,4922% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.18 .00 69,2622% 3% 9% 33% 53% 4.32 .00 49,9132% 4% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .02 2,2881% 3% 9% 35% 53% 4.35 .01 10,3582% 5% 13% 38% 42% 4.12 .01 9,8122% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.26 .01 30,7582% 4% 13% 35% 46% 4.19 .01 26,9432% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.20 .01 20,7062% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .01 22,3092% 4% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .02 2,2882% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.23 .00 92,7212% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.26 .01 28,1652% 4% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .02 2,2883% 3% 11% 32% 51% 4.25 .02 3,1252% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.24 .00 117,7612% 4% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .02 2,2882% 3% 11% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 91,9343% 5% 13% 36% 43% 4.11 .01 25,5574% 5% 11% 29% 50% 4.17 .02 3,3952% 4% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .02 2,2881% 2% 9% 33% 55% 4.39 .01 5,8032% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.24 .01 23,9322% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.25 .00 38,6382% 4% 11% 36% 47% 4.21 .00 52,5132% 7% 25% 35% 29% 3.81 .08 1612% 4% 8% 30% 56% 4.34 .03 7852% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.31 .04 4543% 5% 14% 39% 38% 4.04 .06 2571% 1% 5% 34% 59% 4.48 .08 873% 5% 12% 35% 46% 4.16 .01 21,4082% 4% 11% 37% 47% 4.24 .01 8,5402% 3% 10% 31% 54% 4.32 .01 17,2402% 3% 9% 30% 56% 4.36 .01 9,3321% 3% 8% 32% 56% 4.40 .01 4,3221% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .01 6,6652% 2% 7% 28% 61% 4.43 .08 127

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 84: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 19aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

1% 1% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .02 1,8271% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 98,3861% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.52 .02 1,3951% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.48 .00 54,3971% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .03 4320% 1% 7% 28% 63% 4.52 .00 43,9891% 1% 8% 23% 66% 4.53 .02 1,412

4% 8% 31% 57% 4.40 .10 721% 1% 5% 24% 70% 4.61 .04 337

83% 17% 4.17 .17 61% 2% 8% 27% 62% 4.49 .00 84,9381% 2% 6% 26% 64% 4.51 .01 2,9971% 1% 5% 23% 70% 4.59 .01 9,5502% 2% 7% 24% 65% 4.49 .03 6261% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.55 .03 706

1% 13% 26% 60% 4.45 .07 121 1% 7% 20% 72% 4.63 .04 249 2% 9% 23% 65% 4.52 .07 130

1% 3% 12% 28% 57% 4.39 .06 196 30% 70% 4.70 .15 10

1% 1% 8% 28% 63% 4.50 .00 32,9061% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.48 .01 17,3981% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.49 .01 14,4851% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.49 .01 13,4031% 2% 8% 27% 61% 4.46 .01 5,8171% 1% 7% 24% 68% 4.56 .03 8121% 1% 6% 21% 71% 4.60 .02 1,2160% 2% 10% 29% 58% 4.42 .03 591

17% 67% 17% 4.00 .26 6 7% 64% 29% 4.21 .15 14

1% 1% 6% 25% 67% 4.56 .00 56,9831% 2% 10% 30% 58% 4.42 .00 39,7072% 2% 13% 30% 54% 4.32 .05 3702% 3% 12% 26% 56% 4.32 .04 6831% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.53 .03 6540% 2% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .02 1,1731% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .00 57,5951% 2% 7% 25% 66% 4.52 .00 39,4281% 1% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .02 1,8271% 2% 7% 29% 62% 4.50 .01 8,6311% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.46 .01 7,9371% 1% 8% 28% 63% 4.50 .00 25,5781% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.50 .01 22,2471% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .01 16,4931% 2% 7% 25% 65% 4.52 .01 17,5001% 1% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .02 1,8271% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 74,9500% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.51 .00 23,4361% 1% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .02 1,8271% 1% 7% 24% 67% 4.56 .02 2,4241% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 95,9621% 1% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .02 1,8271% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .00 75,1861% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.46 .01 20,3891% 1% 3% 16% 79% 4.72 .01 2,8111% 1% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .02 1,8270% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.55 .01 4,8091% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.52 .01 19,4971% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .00 31,1591% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.48 .00 42,921

2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .06 1330% 1% 10% 21% 66% 4.52 .03 6191% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.46 .04 375

1% 5% 19% 75% 4.69 .04 1963% 6% 3% 29% 60% 4.38 .12 721% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .01 17,6531% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.45 .01 6,9981% 2% 8% 25% 63% 4.46 .01 13,7181% 2% 8% 26% 62% 4.46 .01 7,3321% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 3,4692% 2% 9% 26% 61% 4.42 .01 5,1282% 1% 5% 18% 74% 4.61 .08 99

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 85: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 19bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

4% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.01 .02 2,2763% 7% 17% 35% 38% 3.98 .00 118,6484% 7% 15% 32% 43% 4.03 .03 1,7333% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.05 .00 65,5063% 8% 15% 37% 36% 3.94 .05 5433% 8% 18% 37% 34% 3.90 .00 53,1424% 8% 15% 32% 41% 4.00 .03 1,7256% 5% 11% 39% 38% 3.98 .11 974% 6% 13% 37% 41% 4.05 .05 445

11% 44% 44% 4.33 .24 93% 8% 17% 35% 37% 3.96 .00 101,7503% 6% 13% 33% 45% 4.10 .02 3,8053% 5% 13% 32% 47% 4.15 .01 11,9403% 6% 12% 25% 55% 4.23 .04 7973% 7% 17% 32% 40% 3.99 .04 8563% 8% 15% 33% 41% 4.03 .08 1574% 4% 14% 30% 48% 4.13 .06 2911% 12% 12% 30% 45% 4.07 .08 1657% 9% 14% 34% 36% 3.82 .08 244

17% 17% 42% 25% 3.75 .30 123% 7% 18% 35% 37% 3.96 .01 39,2213% 8% 18% 36% 35% 3.91 .01 21,0693% 8% 17% 35% 37% 3.94 .01 17,3203% 7% 17% 35% 38% 3.98 .01 15,9103% 6% 14% 35% 42% 4.08 .01 7,0543% 6% 13% 33% 45% 4.10 .03 1,0094% 7% 16% 31% 42% 4.01 .03 1,5164% 7% 13% 37% 39% 4.01 .04 736

13% 63% 25% 4.00 .33 8 6% 13% 31% 50% 4.25 .23 16

3% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.97 .00 69,7943% 7% 16% 35% 39% 4.01 .00 46,8107% 9% 20% 32% 33% 3.76 .06 4336% 10% 17% 31% 35% 3.79 .04 8053% 7% 18% 34% 38% 3.97 .04 7954% 7% 13% 33% 43% 4.03 .03 1,4813% 8% 18% 36% 35% 3.92 .00 68,6743% 6% 15% 33% 43% 4.07 .00 48,3034% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.01 .02 2,2762% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.06 .01 10,1163% 8% 17% 37% 35% 3.91 .01 9,6853% 8% 17% 35% 38% 3.97 .01 30,1313% 7% 18% 34% 38% 3.96 .01 26,5883% 8% 17% 34% 38% 3.96 .01 20,3823% 7% 15% 34% 41% 4.05 .01 21,7464% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.01 .02 2,2763% 7% 17% 35% 38% 3.97 .00 90,8223% 7% 16% 34% 40% 4.02 .01 27,8264% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.01 .02 2,2764% 7% 15% 32% 41% 3.99 .02 3,0333% 7% 17% 35% 38% 3.98 .00 115,6154% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.01 .02 2,2763% 7% 16% 35% 39% 4.01 .00 90,1904% 8% 18% 35% 34% 3.88 .01 25,0975% 8% 15% 29% 43% 3.97 .02 3,3614% 7% 15% 33% 41% 4.01 .02 2,2762% 6% 14% 33% 45% 4.14 .01 5,7253% 7% 16% 34% 41% 4.03 .01 23,5673% 7% 16% 35% 39% 4.00 .01 37,9003% 8% 17% 35% 36% 3.93 .00 51,4568% 13% 25% 30% 23% 3.47 .10 1613% 7% 14% 31% 46% 4.09 .04 7823% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.12 .05 4465% 8% 15% 32% 40% 3.95 .07 2622% 2% 10% 29% 56% 4.34 .10 824% 8% 18% 34% 37% 3.93 .01 21,0423% 8% 16% 36% 37% 3.98 .01 8,3692% 6% 15% 32% 45% 4.11 .01 16,5472% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.16 .01 8,9052% 5% 11% 32% 50% 4.24 .01 4,3043% 5% 15% 34% 44% 4.12 .01 6,2162% 5% 9% 27% 57% 4.31 .09 123

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 86: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 20aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

1% 3% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .02 1,8731% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .00 100,6381% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .02 1,4321% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 .00 56,3040% 4% 10% 36% 50% 4.32 .04 4411% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.22 .00 44,3341% 3% 10% 32% 55% 4.37 .02 1,448

4% 7% 39% 50% 4.34 .10 700% 2% 5% 32% 61% 4.51 .04 349

67% 33% 4.33 .21 61% 4% 13% 33% 49% 4.25 .00 86,6311% 3% 8% 35% 53% 4.37 .01 3,0841% 2% 8% 35% 54% 4.40 .01 10,0092% 3% 12% 31% 52% 4.29 .04 6341% 3% 10% 32% 55% 4.36 .03 724

3% 12% 32% 52% 4.34 .07 1221% 3% 10% 24% 62% 4.44 .05 255

2% 7% 41% 50% 4.39 .06 1381% 1% 12% 34% 52% 4.35 .06 199

10% 60% 30% 4.20 .20 101% 4% 13% 33% 49% 4.25 .00 33,4081% 4% 13% 33% 48% 4.22 .01 17,7341% 4% 13% 33% 49% 4.24 .01 14,7731% 4% 13% 33% 50% 4.25 .01 13,7541% 3% 10% 35% 51% 4.32 .01 6,0141% 4% 13% 30% 52% 4.28 .03 8281% 2% 8% 30% 60% 4.46 .02 1,2441% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.28 .03 607

57% 43% 4.43 .20 7 20% 60% 20% 4.00 .17 15

1% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.34 .00 58,5302% 4% 14% 35% 45% 4.17 .00 40,3812% 4% 15% 31% 47% 4.17 .05 3793% 5% 16% 32% 43% 4.08 .04 7091% 4% 10% 30% 56% 4.36 .03 6701% 2% 8% 33% 56% 4.41 .02 1,2031% 4% 13% 34% 48% 4.24 .00 58,5721% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .00 40,6721% 3% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .02 1,8731% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.18 .01 8,8621% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.22 .01 8,0851% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.30 .01 26,1891% 4% 13% 33% 49% 4.24 .01 22,6491% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.26 .01 16,8101% 3% 10% 32% 53% 4.33 .01 18,0431% 3% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .02 1,8731% 4% 12% 33% 51% 4.28 .00 76,8121% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 23,8261% 3% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .02 1,8731% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.26 .02 2,4791% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .00 98,1591% 3% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .02 1,8731% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.27 .00 76,9551% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.24 .01 20,8211% 3% 8% 29% 59% 4.44 .02 2,8621% 3% 9% 32% 56% 4.40 .02 1,8732% 5% 13% 38% 43% 4.15 .01 4,8821% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.25 .01 19,9131% 4% 12% 33% 51% 4.29 .00 31,9071% 4% 12% 34% 50% 4.27 .00 43,9361% 1% 7% 34% 56% 4.43 .07 1371% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.36 .03 6330% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .04 3851% 3% 7% 36% 54% 4.40 .06 198

4% 32% 65% 4.61 .06 791% 4% 13% 33% 49% 4.24 .01 17,9701% 4% 12% 37% 47% 4.23 .01 7,1381% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.34 .01 14,2621% 3% 9% 30% 57% 4.41 .01 7,6711% 3% 9% 34% 52% 4.33 .01 3,5361% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.35 .01 5,6442% 5% 8% 35% 49% 4.24 .11 83

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 87: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 20bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

1% 2% 7% 29% 60% 4.44 .02 2,3282% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.39 .00 121,6701% 2% 7% 29% 61% 4.46 .02 1,7752% 3% 9% 29% 57% 4.38 .00 68,2732% 4% 8% 28% 58% 4.37 .04 5531% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.41 .00 53,3971% 3% 7% 28% 61% 4.44 .02 1,7631% 6% 30% 63% 4.54 .07 972% 2% 8% 32% 57% 4.39 .04 459

44% 56% 4.56 .18 91% 3% 10% 30% 57% 4.38 .00 103,7842% 2% 6% 28% 62% 4.44 .01 3,9742% 2% 6% 26% 65% 4.50 .01 12,7502% 4% 8% 24% 63% 4.42 .03 8011% 4% 7% 26% 61% 4.43 .03 874

8% 29% 63% 4.56 .05 1561% 2% 8% 25% 65% 4.51 .04 297

2% 6% 34% 58% 4.47 .05 1733% 3% 8% 31% 55% 4.31 .06 251

8% 33% 58% 4.50 .19 121% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.42 .00 39,7391% 3% 10% 31% 55% 4.36 .01 21,4792% 3% 10% 31% 54% 4.33 .01 17,6861% 3% 10% 31% 55% 4.35 .01 16,3232% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.34 .01 7,3522% 3% 10% 29% 56% 4.35 .03 1,0371% 2% 7% 27% 63% 4.49 .02 1,5592% 4% 8% 32% 54% 4.32 .03 743

11% 22% 67% 4.56 .24 9 6% 41% 53% 4.47 .15 17

1% 2% 8% 28% 60% 4.43 .00 71,9472% 3% 10% 31% 55% 4.34 .00 47,6394% 5% 12% 30% 49% 4.13 .05 4423% 4% 15% 32% 46% 4.12 .04 8321% 3% 8% 27% 60% 4.42 .03 8142% 2% 7% 30% 60% 4.45 .02 1,5141% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.39 .00 69,7832% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.40 .00 50,2031% 2% 7% 29% 60% 4.44 .02 2,3281% 2% 7% 29% 61% 4.47 .01 10,3812% 3% 10% 32% 54% 4.33 .01 9,8841% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.44 .00 30,9952% 3% 11% 29% 55% 4.33 .01 27,0322% 3% 10% 30% 56% 4.36 .01 20,8051% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.42 .01 22,5731% 2% 7% 29% 60% 4.44 .02 2,3282% 3% 9% 29% 58% 4.39 .00 93,4131% 2% 8% 29% 58% 4.41 .01 28,2571% 2% 7% 29% 60% 4.44 .02 2,3281% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.41 .02 3,1382% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.39 .00 118,5321% 2% 7% 29% 60% 4.44 .02 2,3281% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.42 .00 92,5232% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.30 .01 25,7353% 3% 8% 26% 60% 4.37 .02 3,4121% 2% 7% 29% 60% 4.44 .02 2,3281% 2% 7% 29% 61% 4.49 .01 5,8272% 3% 10% 29% 57% 4.36 .01 24,1521% 2% 9% 28% 59% 4.41 .00 38,8532% 3% 9% 30% 57% 4.38 .00 52,838

2% 9% 32% 56% 4.42 .06 1612% 3% 8% 28% 59% 4.41 .03 7981% 1% 5% 26% 67% 4.58 .03 4602% 2% 7% 33% 57% 4.42 .05 2652% 1% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .09 912% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.30 .01 21,4161% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.38 .01 8,5852% 2% 9% 28% 59% 4.40 .01 17,3751% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .01 9,4161% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .01 4,3881% 2% 8% 29% 59% 4.42 .01 6,9913% 1% 10% 27% 59% 4.38 .09 102

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 88: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 21aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

2% 8% 15% 37% 38% 4.01 .02 1,8592% 7% 17% 37% 36% 3.98 .00 100,1192% 8% 14% 37% 39% 4.03 .03 1,4192% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.02 .00 55,8861% 10% 18% 38% 33% 3.92 .05 4402% 8% 18% 38% 34% 3.93 .00 44,2332% 9% 16% 36% 38% 3.98 .03 1,440

9% 21% 47% 24% 3.85 .11 681% 4% 12% 42% 40% 4.16 .05 345

50% 33% 17% 3.67 .33 62% 8% 18% 37% 35% 3.96 .00 86,2381% 5% 16% 43% 35% 4.05 .02 3,0611% 5% 13% 43% 38% 4.12 .01 9,9192% 5% 16% 33% 45% 4.13 .04 6292% 9% 17% 35% 37% 3.96 .04 7193% 6% 11% 40% 40% 4.08 .09 1212% 8% 15% 29% 46% 4.09 .07 2552% 14% 11% 37% 36% 3.89 .09 1383% 7% 18% 43% 30% 3.92 .07 197

20% 10% 50% 20% 3.70 .33 102% 8% 18% 36% 35% 3.94 .01 33,2842% 8% 18% 37% 35% 3.94 .01 17,6342% 7% 18% 36% 36% 3.98 .01 14,7092% 7% 17% 37% 37% 3.99 .01 13,6782% 7% 17% 39% 35% 3.98 .01 5,9812% 6% 17% 35% 39% 4.03 .04 8272% 8% 14% 36% 41% 4.07 .03 1,2352% 8% 18% 40% 31% 3.89 .04 602

14% 29% 29% 29% 3.57 .53 7 7% 20% 73% 3.67 .16 15

2% 7% 15% 38% 38% 4.04 .00 58,2312% 8% 20% 37% 33% 3.89 .01 40,1714% 7% 20% 33% 36% 3.91 .06 3793% 8% 23% 36% 30% 3.80 .04 7072% 10% 17% 34% 38% 3.95 .04 6642% 7% 14% 39% 38% 4.04 .03 1,1952% 8% 18% 37% 34% 3.94 .00 58,3452% 7% 16% 38% 38% 4.04 .00 40,3892% 8% 15% 37% 38% 4.01 .02 1,8592% 8% 19% 40% 30% 3.89 .01 8,7742% 10% 20% 39% 30% 3.85 .01 8,0462% 7% 18% 39% 34% 3.97 .01 26,0812% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.03 .01 22,5352% 7% 17% 36% 39% 4.02 .01 16,7412% 8% 16% 37% 38% 4.01 .01 17,9422% 8% 15% 37% 38% 4.01 .02 1,8592% 7% 17% 37% 36% 3.98 .00 76,3982% 7% 18% 38% 35% 3.97 .01 23,7212% 8% 15% 37% 38% 4.01 .02 1,8592% 6% 16% 37% 38% 4.04 .02 2,4652% 7% 17% 38% 36% 3.98 .00 97,6542% 8% 15% 37% 38% 4.01 .02 1,8592% 7% 17% 38% 36% 3.99 .00 76,5672% 9% 19% 38% 32% 3.90 .01 20,6961% 3% 10% 31% 56% 4.39 .02 2,8562% 8% 15% 37% 38% 4.01 .02 1,8592% 6% 17% 40% 35% 4.02 .01 4,8792% 7% 17% 37% 39% 4.04 .01 19,7922% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.02 .01 31,7312% 8% 18% 38% 33% 3.92 .00 43,7171% 6% 12% 46% 35% 4.07 .08 1363% 8% 16% 35% 38% 3.97 .04 6242% 8% 12% 37% 42% 4.09 .05 3832% 9% 15% 35% 39% 4.00 .07 197

3% 13% 42% 43% 4.25 .09 792% 7% 18% 37% 37% 4.00 .01 17,8802% 8% 18% 40% 31% 3.91 .01 7,0872% 7% 16% 36% 40% 4.05 .01 14,0922% 6% 15% 37% 40% 4.07 .01 7,5982% 7% 16% 38% 38% 4.04 .02 3,5202% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.02 .01 5,6246% 4% 18% 29% 44% 4.01 .12 85

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 89: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 21bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

2% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .02 2,3222% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.23 .00 121,2272% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.27 .02 1,7692% 4% 12% 34% 47% 4.22 .00 67,8871% 2% 7% 34% 56% 4.41 .03 5532% 3% 11% 35% 48% 4.26 .00 53,3402% 3% 10% 33% 52% 4.32 .02 1,757

4% 14% 33% 48% 4.26 .09 992% 4% 9% 38% 47% 4.25 .04 457

44% 56% 4.56 .18 92% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.24 .00 103,4423% 5% 11% 35% 46% 4.15 .02 3,9452% 4% 11% 32% 50% 4.24 .01 12,6832% 4% 9% 30% 55% 4.32 .03 7951% 1% 9% 33% 55% 4.40 .03 8701% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.37 .06 1561% 4% 9% 31% 55% 4.35 .05 2962% 6% 15% 31% 46% 4.14 .08 1733% 5% 15% 33% 44% 4.09 .07 250

8% 42% 50% 4.42 .19 121% 3% 10% 35% 51% 4.32 .00 39,6452% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.21 .01 21,3792% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.17 .01 17,6372% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.17 .01 16,2852% 4% 13% 37% 44% 4.16 .01 7,3012% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.25 .03 1,0321% 3% 10% 33% 53% 4.34 .02 1,5542% 4% 11% 37% 47% 4.24 .03 742

33% 33% 33% 4.00 .29 9 12% 18% 35% 35% 3.94 .25 17

2% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.27 .00 71,6402% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.19 .00 47,5084% 8% 13% 37% 38% 3.97 .05 4384% 7% 17% 35% 36% 3.92 .04 8271% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.38 .03 8092% 4% 11% 34% 50% 4.26 .02 1,5132% 3% 12% 35% 48% 4.25 .00 69,5732% 4% 12% 34% 47% 4.21 .00 49,9622% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .02 2,3221% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .01 10,3242% 4% 12% 38% 43% 4.17 .01 9,8432% 4% 11% 35% 49% 4.25 .01 30,8992% 4% 13% 34% 46% 4.18 .01 26,9172% 3% 13% 35% 48% 4.23 .01 20,7392% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.27 .01 22,5052% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .02 2,3222% 4% 12% 35% 47% 4.23 .00 93,0132% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.25 .01 28,2142% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .02 2,3222% 3% 12% 33% 50% 4.26 .02 3,1222% 4% 12% 35% 48% 4.23 .00 118,1052% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .02 2,3222% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.26 .00 92,1772% 4% 13% 36% 44% 4.14 .01 25,6474% 4% 10% 30% 52% 4.21 .02 3,4032% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.30 .02 2,3222% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.28 .01 5,8382% 4% 12% 34% 48% 4.23 .01 24,0272% 3% 12% 34% 49% 4.26 .00 38,6952% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.21 .00 52,6671% 7% 12% 36% 44% 4.16 .07 1612% 3% 10% 32% 52% 4.28 .03 7931% 3% 13% 33% 50% 4.29 .04 4602% 2% 11% 36% 49% 4.29 .05 2641% 4% 10% 37% 47% 4.25 .09 912% 4% 13% 35% 44% 4.15 .01 21,3772% 3% 13% 37% 46% 4.23 .01 8,5422% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.24 .01 17,1852% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.23 .01 9,3312% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.28 .01 4,3712% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.27 .01 6,9822% 2% 11% 28% 57% 4.35 .09 99

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 90: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 22aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

1% 6% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .02 1,8582% 7% 18% 36% 36% 3.98 .00 99,9481% 6% 15% 36% 42% 4.11 .03 1,4182% 6% 17% 36% 39% 4.04 .00 55,8521% 6% 16% 38% 38% 4.06 .05 4402% 8% 20% 37% 33% 3.91 .00 44,0962% 7% 15% 36% 40% 4.05 .03 1,441

6% 22% 41% 31% 3.97 .11 681% 2% 12% 37% 49% 4.31 .04 343

33% 67% 3.67 .21 62% 8% 19% 36% 35% 3.95 .00 86,0591% 5% 15% 42% 38% 4.10 .02 3,0611% 3% 12% 41% 43% 4.23 .01 9,9352% 4% 15% 32% 48% 4.19 .04 6252% 6% 18% 35% 39% 4.03 .04 7212% 7% 17% 36% 39% 4.02 .09 1210% 7% 9% 35% 48% 4.23 .06 2551% 12% 11% 37% 39% 4.00 .09 1372% 7% 16% 41% 35% 3.99 .07 197

10% 10% 70% 10% 3.80 .25 102% 8% 19% 36% 35% 3.94 .01 33,2022% 8% 19% 36% 35% 3.92 .01 17,6042% 8% 19% 35% 36% 3.96 .01 14,6632% 7% 18% 36% 37% 3.98 .01 13,6532% 7% 19% 38% 34% 3.95 .01 5,9902% 7% 18% 35% 39% 4.01 .04 8231% 5% 14% 35% 45% 4.17 .03 1,2332% 7% 16% 40% 35% 4.00 .04 603

29% 43% 14% 14% 3.14 .40 7 40% 27% 33% 2.93 .23 15

1% 6% 16% 37% 39% 4.05 .00 58,1682% 8% 21% 36% 33% 3.88 .01 40,0754% 9% 22% 30% 36% 3.86 .06 3734% 12% 23% 30% 31% 3.71 .04 6972% 6% 18% 33% 40% 4.03 .04 6671% 6% 13% 39% 41% 4.14 .03 1,1912% 8% 19% 36% 34% 3.92 .00 58,2171% 6% 16% 37% 40% 4.07 .00 40,3711% 6% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .02 1,8582% 8% 20% 39% 32% 3.91 .01 8,7612% 10% 20% 38% 30% 3.84 .01 8,0272% 8% 19% 37% 35% 3.95 .01 26,0262% 6% 17% 36% 38% 4.03 .01 22,4992% 7% 17% 34% 39% 4.02 .01 16,6972% 7% 16% 36% 39% 4.04 .01 17,9381% 6% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .02 1,8582% 7% 18% 36% 37% 3.99 .00 76,2892% 7% 19% 37% 35% 3.97 .01 23,6591% 6% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .02 1,8581% 6% 15% 36% 42% 4.11 .02 2,4582% 7% 18% 36% 36% 3.98 .00 97,4901% 6% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .02 1,8582% 7% 18% 37% 36% 3.99 .00 76,4912% 8% 19% 36% 34% 3.91 .01 20,6171% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.40 .02 2,8401% 6% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .02 1,8582% 6% 17% 39% 37% 4.02 .01 4,8752% 6% 17% 35% 40% 4.05 .01 19,7922% 7% 18% 36% 38% 4.02 .01 31,6732% 8% 19% 37% 34% 3.92 .00 43,608

7% 13% 41% 39% 4.12 .08 1352% 6% 17% 35% 40% 4.06 .04 6261% 7% 13% 38% 41% 4.11 .05 3831% 5% 14% 36% 44% 4.17 .07 1961% 6% 10% 27% 55% 4.28 .11 782% 6% 18% 36% 39% 4.04 .01 17,7912% 8% 19% 39% 32% 3.91 .01 7,0652% 6% 16% 35% 41% 4.08 .01 14,1432% 6% 15% 36% 41% 4.09 .01 7,6211% 5% 14% 38% 41% 4.12 .02 3,5102% 7% 17% 36% 38% 4.02 .01 5,6303% 5% 15% 30% 46% 4.10 .11 92

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 91: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 22bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

1% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.35 .02 2,3102% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 121,0581% 3% 9% 34% 53% 4.34 .02 1,7612% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 67,9251% 2% 9% 32% 55% 4.38 .04 5491% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.28 .00 53,1331% 2% 9% 33% 55% 4.38 .02 1,7484% 2% 12% 35% 46% 4.18 .10 992% 3% 9% 36% 50% 4.29 .04 454

56% 44% 4.44 .18 91% 3% 12% 36% 49% 4.27 .00 103,2413% 4% 11% 35% 48% 4.21 .02 3,9532% 3% 10% 33% 52% 4.32 .01 12,6922% 3% 10% 29% 56% 4.34 .03 8001% 2% 8% 32% 58% 4.43 .03 8661% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.39 .06 1531% 2% 9% 28% 60% 4.45 .05 2941% 5% 10% 35% 50% 4.28 .07 1733% 4% 10% 39% 44% 4.18 .06 250

17% 42% 42% 4.25 .22 121% 2% 11% 34% 51% 4.32 .00 39,5402% 3% 13% 37% 47% 4.24 .01 21,3432% 3% 12% 36% 47% 4.23 .01 17,6111% 3% 13% 36% 47% 4.25 .01 16,2552% 3% 12% 37% 46% 4.23 .01 7,2932% 3% 12% 33% 50% 4.28 .03 1,0291% 2% 8% 32% 56% 4.40 .02 1,5442% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.25 .03 740

11% 33% 33% 22% 3.67 .33 9 12% 47% 41% 4.29 .17 17

1% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.31 .00 71,5092% 3% 13% 37% 46% 4.22 .00 47,4644% 6% 14% 33% 43% 4.05 .05 4405% 5% 17% 35% 38% 3.96 .04 8211% 2% 9% 33% 56% 4.41 .03 8042% 3% 9% 34% 53% 4.32 .02 1,5061% 3% 12% 36% 49% 4.28 .00 69,4022% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.28 .00 49,9621% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.35 .02 2,3101% 2% 10% 35% 53% 4.36 .01 10,3462% 4% 14% 39% 42% 4.14 .01 9,8101% 2% 10% 35% 51% 4.33 .00 30,8452% 3% 13% 34% 47% 4.21 .01 26,9192% 3% 13% 35% 47% 4.23 .01 20,6951% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.34 .01 22,4431% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.35 .02 2,3101% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 92,8932% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.28 .01 28,1651% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.35 .02 2,3102% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.24 .02 3,1171% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.28 .00 117,9411% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.35 .02 2,3101% 2% 11% 35% 50% 4.30 .00 92,0762% 3% 13% 37% 45% 4.18 .01 25,5854% 5% 12% 29% 49% 4.15 .02 3,3971% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.35 .02 2,3101% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.38 .01 5,8212% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.29 .01 24,0371% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.29 .00 38,6402% 3% 12% 36% 47% 4.25 .00 52,5602% 10% 25% 33% 30% 3.77 .08 1622% 2% 8% 31% 58% 4.42 .03 7881% 1% 7% 36% 56% 4.45 .03 4582% 5% 9% 37% 48% 4.26 .06 2631% 2% 3% 42% 51% 4.40 .08 902% 4% 14% 35% 45% 4.16 .01 21,3341% 3% 12% 38% 46% 4.24 .01 8,5371% 2% 11% 34% 52% 4.32 .01 17,2711% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.37 .01 9,3321% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .01 4,3571% 2% 12% 36% 49% 4.29 .01 6,9833% 2% 13% 25% 58% 4.33 .09 111

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 92: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 23aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

2% 4% 10% 33% 52% 4.29 .02 1,8311% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.29 .00 98,1032% 4% 10% 33% 51% 4.27 .03 1,3912% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .00 54,0611% 3% 8% 34% 54% 4.38 .04 4401% 2% 11% 33% 53% 4.36 .00 44,0422% 4% 10% 32% 53% 4.31 .02 1,4231% 3% 16% 38% 41% 4.15 .11 682% 6% 7% 34% 51% 4.26 .05 334

33% 67% 3.67 .21 61% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.30 .00 84,8323% 4% 10% 35% 48% 4.21 .02 2,9822% 4% 9% 35% 51% 4.28 .01 9,4272% 4% 11% 30% 53% 4.29 .04 6041% 4% 10% 31% 55% 4.34 .03 7142% 2% 9% 34% 52% 4.31 .08 1220% 3% 10% 28% 58% 4.41 .05 2522% 6% 10% 36% 46% 4.19 .09 1283% 3% 12% 41% 42% 4.16 .07 197

10% 60% 30% 4.20 .20 101% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.30 .00 32,9011% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.30 .01 17,4241% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.31 .01 14,4171% 3% 11% 31% 53% 4.31 .01 13,3542% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.23 .01 5,8191% 4% 11% 31% 53% 4.30 .03 8121% 4% 9% 30% 56% 4.36 .03 1,2143% 5% 12% 38% 43% 4.15 .04 598

14% 43% 43% 4.14 .40 7 8% 75% 17% 4.08 .15 12

1% 3% 10% 31% 55% 4.35 .00 56,8902% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.22 .00 39,5632% 4% 15% 30% 50% 4.22 .05 3712% 3% 14% 33% 47% 4.19 .04 6812% 3% 10% 31% 53% 4.31 .04 6592% 4% 9% 34% 51% 4.28 .03 1,1721% 3% 12% 33% 50% 4.29 .00 57,5752% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.31 .00 39,2162% 4% 10% 33% 52% 4.29 .02 1,8311% 4% 11% 36% 48% 4.26 .01 8,5251% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.24 .01 7,9101% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.31 .01 25,5031% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.28 .01 22,1821% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.33 .01 16,4692% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.30 .01 17,5142% 4% 10% 33% 52% 4.29 .02 1,8311% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.29 .00 74,8081% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.30 .01 23,2952% 4% 10% 33% 52% 4.29 .02 1,8312% 4% 10% 32% 52% 4.29 .02 2,3991% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.29 .00 95,7042% 4% 10% 33% 52% 4.29 .02 1,8311% 3% 11% 33% 51% 4.30 .00 74,9832% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.24 .01 20,2911% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.63 .01 2,8292% 4% 10% 33% 52% 4.29 .02 1,8311% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.33 .01 4,7631% 3% 12% 33% 51% 4.30 .01 19,3881% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.31 .01 31,0642% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.28 .00 42,888

1% 8% 33% 57% 4.46 .06 1352% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .04 6223% 7% 9% 32% 49% 4.18 .05 373

2% 7% 32% 59% 4.49 .05 1979% 6% 13% 36% 36% 3.83 .16 641% 4% 11% 31% 53% 4.30 .01 17,5431% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.21 .01 6,9802% 5% 12% 31% 50% 4.22 .01 13,6302% 5% 12% 32% 49% 4.20 .01 7,3201% 3% 9% 33% 55% 4.38 .01 3,4843% 5% 14% 33% 45% 4.13 .01 5,0194% 1% 11% 33% 52% 4.28 .10 85

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 93: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 23bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

4% 8% 14% 30% 43% 4.00 .02 2,2734% 8% 16% 31% 40% 3.96 .00 118,4735% 11% 16% 28% 40% 3.89 .03 1,7224% 9% 17% 30% 40% 3.93 .00 65,2222% 2% 8% 36% 53% 4.36 .04 5513% 7% 16% 32% 41% 4.00 .00 53,2514% 9% 15% 28% 44% 3.99 .03 1,7302% 8% 9% 36% 44% 4.11 .10 963% 7% 13% 38% 39% 4.02 .05 438

11% 56% 33% 4.22 .22 94% 8% 17% 31% 39% 3.94 .00 101,6615% 7% 13% 31% 44% 4.03 .02 3,8033% 6% 14% 30% 47% 4.10 .01 11,8522% 6% 12% 26% 54% 4.22 .04 7894% 6% 14% 27% 48% 4.09 .04 8622% 14% 18% 26% 40% 3.87 .09 1544% 11% 12% 29% 44% 3.98 .07 2954% 14% 19% 25% 38% 3.80 .09 1617% 10% 16% 28% 39% 3.82 .08 246

8% 50% 42% 4.33 .19 123% 6% 15% 32% 44% 4.07 .01 39,2244% 9% 18% 32% 37% 3.87 .01 21,0665% 10% 18% 31% 36% 3.84 .01 17,2885% 10% 18% 30% 36% 3.82 .01 15,8604% 9% 16% 32% 39% 3.92 .01 7,0593% 7% 16% 27% 47% 4.09 .03 1,0054% 10% 14% 29% 43% 3.98 .03 1,5224% 5% 15% 31% 44% 4.06 .04 728

11% 22% 44% 22% 3.44 .47 9 14% 14% 43% 29% 3.86 .27 14

4% 8% 16% 31% 41% 3.96 .00 69,6484% 7% 17% 32% 40% 3.97 .01 46,7926% 10% 16% 32% 35% 3.79 .06 4348% 11% 21% 28% 33% 3.68 .04 7964% 6% 14% 29% 47% 4.09 .04 7984% 10% 14% 30% 41% 3.95 .03 1,4753% 7% 16% 32% 41% 3.99 .00 68,6565% 9% 17% 30% 40% 3.92 .01 48,1524% 8% 14% 30% 43% 4.00 .02 2,2732% 7% 15% 32% 44% 4.07 .01 10,0345% 9% 16% 33% 38% 3.90 .01 9,7224% 8% 16% 31% 41% 3.98 .01 30,1383% 7% 15% 32% 43% 4.04 .01 26,5285% 9% 19% 31% 37% 3.87 .01 20,3304% 9% 17% 30% 40% 3.91 .01 21,7214% 8% 14% 30% 43% 4.00 .02 2,2734% 8% 16% 31% 40% 3.96 .00 90,7164% 8% 16% 31% 41% 3.97 .01 27,7574% 8% 14% 30% 43% 4.00 .02 2,2734% 8% 15% 29% 45% 4.02 .02 3,0274% 8% 16% 31% 40% 3.96 .00 115,4464% 8% 14% 30% 43% 4.00 .02 2,2733% 7% 16% 31% 42% 4.01 .00 89,9645% 10% 18% 32% 36% 3.83 .01 25,1389% 12% 21% 24% 34% 3.60 .02 3,3714% 8% 14% 30% 43% 4.00 .02 2,2733% 7% 15% 31% 44% 4.07 .01 5,7014% 7% 15% 31% 44% 4.05 .01 23,5354% 7% 16% 31% 42% 4.00 .01 37,7885% 9% 17% 31% 38% 3.88 .01 51,4493% 9% 14% 33% 40% 3.98 .09 1624% 11% 17% 26% 42% 3.91 .04 7827% 15% 19% 25% 34% 3.63 .06 4483% 6% 10% 32% 49% 4.16 .07 2614% 3% 16% 48% 29% 3.94 .12 695% 10% 18% 30% 37% 3.84 .01 21,0284% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.01 .01 8,3964% 8% 17% 29% 41% 3.95 .01 16,4765% 9% 17% 29% 39% 3.88 .01 8,8753% 8% 14% 29% 45% 4.05 .02 4,3363% 6% 16% 32% 43% 4.05 .01 6,0083% 6% 12% 23% 56% 4.24 .10 103

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 94: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 24aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

1% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.21 .02 1,8251% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.19 .00 97,7531% 4% 13% 36% 44% 4.18 .02 1,3862% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.18 .00 53,9590% 3% 12% 38% 47% 4.29 .04 4391% 4% 14% 38% 43% 4.19 .00 43,7941% 4% 14% 36% 45% 4.21 .02 1,419

4% 17% 41% 38% 4.12 .10 692% 5% 8% 37% 47% 4.23 .05 331

33% 67% 3.67 .21 61% 4% 14% 36% 44% 4.18 .00 84,4962% 4% 11% 40% 43% 4.17 .02 2,9902% 4% 10% 39% 45% 4.22 .01 9,4132% 4% 12% 31% 50% 4.23 .04 6031% 4% 13% 36% 46% 4.23 .03 7142% 2% 15% 31% 49% 4.21 .09 1210% 2% 14% 32% 51% 4.31 .05 2502% 5% 16% 39% 38% 4.07 .08 1311% 5% 14% 45% 35% 4.09 .06 193

10% 60% 30% 4.20 .20 101% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.19 .00 32,7571% 4% 14% 37% 43% 4.17 .01 17,3201% 4% 14% 35% 45% 4.19 .01 14,3561% 4% 14% 35% 46% 4.20 .01 13,3282% 5% 13% 38% 42% 4.14 .01 5,8121% 3% 14% 33% 48% 4.24 .03 8141% 3% 12% 34% 49% 4.27 .03 1,2132% 5% 14% 42% 38% 4.10 .04 592

14% 14% 43% 29% 3.86 .40 7 62% 31% 8% 3.46 .18 13

1% 4% 12% 36% 47% 4.24 .00 56,7852% 4% 16% 37% 41% 4.11 .00 39,3492% 4% 17% 33% 44% 4.12 .05 3632% 5% 20% 31% 41% 4.04 .04 6681% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.25 .03 6571% 4% 13% 38% 44% 4.19 .03 1,1681% 4% 14% 37% 43% 4.17 .00 57,3292% 4% 12% 36% 46% 4.21 .00 39,1421% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.21 .02 1,8251% 4% 14% 39% 41% 4.15 .01 8,4841% 5% 16% 39% 39% 4.10 .01 7,8821% 4% 14% 38% 43% 4.18 .01 25,4501% 4% 14% 36% 45% 4.20 .01 22,0341% 3% 13% 34% 48% 4.24 .01 16,3712% 4% 13% 36% 45% 4.18 .01 17,5321% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.21 .02 1,8251% 4% 14% 36% 45% 4.18 .00 74,6331% 4% 14% 38% 44% 4.20 .01 23,1201% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.21 .02 1,8251% 4% 12% 34% 49% 4.26 .02 2,4071% 4% 14% 37% 44% 4.18 .00 95,3461% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.21 .02 1,8251% 4% 14% 37% 45% 4.19 .00 74,7892% 5% 15% 38% 41% 4.12 .01 20,1471% 2% 6% 26% 65% 4.54 .01 2,8171% 4% 13% 37% 45% 4.21 .02 1,8251% 3% 12% 39% 45% 4.23 .01 4,7251% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.23 .01 19,3761% 4% 13% 35% 47% 4.22 .01 30,8932% 4% 14% 38% 42% 4.14 .00 42,759

4% 12% 42% 42% 4.21 .07 1341% 4% 15% 37% 43% 4.18 .04 6162% 6% 13% 35% 44% 4.14 .05 371

3% 9% 32% 56% 4.42 .05 1957% 7% 17% 39% 30% 3.77 .14 701% 4% 14% 35% 46% 4.21 .01 17,4191% 5% 14% 39% 41% 4.14 .01 6,9372% 4% 14% 34% 46% 4.16 .01 13,5952% 5% 12% 34% 47% 4.19 .01 7,2801% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.30 .01 3,4522% 5% 16% 34% 42% 4.08 .01 5,1915% 2% 9% 31% 53% 4.25 .11 85

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 95: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 24bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

2% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 2,2732% 5% 15% 35% 42% 4.09 .00 118,7073% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.06 .02 1,7243% 6% 16% 34% 42% 4.05 .00 65,5382% 5% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .04 5492% 5% 14% 36% 44% 4.14 .00 53,1692% 6% 13% 33% 45% 4.12 .02 1,7314% 7% 18% 31% 40% 3.96 .11 972% 5% 16% 37% 39% 4.06 .05 436

78% 22% 4.22 .15 92% 5% 15% 35% 42% 4.10 .00 101,8934% 6% 15% 34% 41% 4.01 .02 3,8143% 6% 16% 33% 42% 4.07 .01 11,8592% 5% 11% 30% 52% 4.25 .04 7922% 5% 13% 32% 48% 4.21 .03 8621% 7% 13% 34% 46% 4.17 .08 1563% 7% 10% 36% 44% 4.10 .06 2891% 6% 20% 31% 42% 4.07 .08 1666% 8% 15% 36% 35% 3.87 .07 246

8% 8% 50% 33% 4.08 .26 122% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.20 .00 39,2452% 5% 16% 35% 41% 4.07 .01 21,1183% 6% 16% 35% 40% 4.03 .01 17,3353% 7% 17% 34% 39% 4.01 .01 15,9443% 7% 16% 36% 38% 3.99 .01 7,0832% 5% 17% 32% 44% 4.10 .03 1,0142% 6% 14% 32% 45% 4.11 .03 1,5193% 5% 13% 38% 41% 4.11 .04 730

11% 44% 11% 22% 11% 2.78 .43 9 7% 27% 40% 27% 3.87 .24 15

2% 6% 15% 34% 44% 4.11 .00 69,8632% 5% 16% 36% 41% 4.08 .00 46,8206% 7% 18% 33% 35% 3.83 .06 4336% 7% 21% 33% 33% 3.79 .04 8032% 5% 13% 33% 47% 4.20 .03 8013% 6% 15% 35% 41% 4.05 .03 1,4722% 5% 15% 35% 44% 4.14 .00 68,7693% 6% 16% 34% 41% 4.03 .00 48,3092% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 2,2732% 5% 14% 34% 46% 4.18 .01 10,0513% 6% 16% 36% 39% 4.04 .01 9,7292% 5% 14% 35% 45% 4.16 .01 30,1903% 6% 16% 34% 42% 4.06 .01 26,5333% 6% 18% 34% 39% 3.99 .01 20,3572% 5% 15% 34% 43% 4.11 .01 21,8472% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 2,2732% 5% 15% 35% 42% 4.09 .00 90,9362% 5% 15% 34% 43% 4.10 .01 27,7712% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 2,2733% 6% 15% 33% 43% 4.05 .02 3,0442% 5% 15% 35% 42% 4.09 .00 115,6632% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 2,2732% 5% 15% 34% 44% 4.13 .00 90,2593% 6% 17% 36% 38% 3.99 .01 25,0806% 8% 17% 29% 39% 3.87 .02 3,3682% 6% 14% 34% 43% 4.10 .02 2,2732% 4% 14% 34% 46% 4.20 .01 5,7132% 5% 14% 34% 45% 4.14 .01 23,6232% 5% 15% 34% 43% 4.11 .01 37,8273% 6% 16% 35% 40% 4.05 .00 51,5443% 10% 22% 37% 28% 3.75 .08 1633% 6% 14% 33% 45% 4.12 .04 7812% 6% 16% 35% 40% 4.05 .05 4442% 6% 11% 35% 45% 4.14 .06 2613% 5% 16% 39% 37% 4.03 .12 754% 7% 18% 34% 38% 3.95 .01 20,9952% 5% 15% 36% 42% 4.11 .01 8,4003% 6% 16% 33% 43% 4.08 .01 16,4933% 6% 15% 32% 44% 4.09 .01 8,9122% 5% 14% 33% 46% 4.15 .02 4,3202% 5% 15% 34% 44% 4.12 .01 6,3203% 4% 13% 28% 52% 4.21 .10 98

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 96: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 25aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

5% 6% 15% 28% 46% 4.04 .03 1,6645% 6% 17% 29% 44% 4.02 .00 91,0205% 6% 13% 28% 47% 4.05 .03 1,2694% 5% 16% 28% 46% 4.06 .00 50,7195% 5% 21% 28% 42% 3.98 .06 3955% 6% 18% 29% 41% 3.96 .01 40,3015% 7% 16% 26% 47% 4.03 .03 1,2915% 21% 31% 44% 4.08 .13 627% 5% 10% 34% 44% 4.04 .07 305

17% 83% 4.33 .67 65% 6% 17% 28% 44% 4.00 .00 78,3684% 4% 12% 32% 47% 4.15 .02 2,8154% 4% 13% 32% 46% 4.10 .01 9,0175% 3% 14% 24% 54% 4.19 .05 5835% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.01 .04 6365% 5% 18% 21% 50% 4.07 .11 1194% 8% 13% 21% 54% 4.11 .08 228

10% 5% 12% 28% 46% 3.95 .11 1253% 8% 17% 30% 43% 4.02 .08 175

50% 50% 4.50 .19 85% 7% 19% 28% 42% 3.94 .01 30,2684% 6% 18% 28% 43% 4.00 .01 16,0194% 6% 17% 28% 46% 4.05 .01 13,3475% 6% 16% 27% 47% 4.07 .01 12,4484% 5% 15% 30% 45% 4.07 .01 5,4295% 3% 17% 29% 46% 4.07 .04 7474% 5% 13% 27% 51% 4.17 .03 1,0959% 8% 18% 27% 38% 3.79 .05 551

33% 50% 17% 3.83 .31 6 8% 33% 42% 17% 3.67 .26 12

3% 5% 15% 29% 48% 4.15 .00 53,1817% 8% 19% 28% 38% 3.82 .01 36,3297% 6% 15% 25% 48% 4.01 .07 3366% 5% 19% 19% 50% 4.02 .05 6074% 7% 17% 28% 43% 4.00 .05 5916% 5% 14% 27% 48% 4.06 .04 1,0735% 6% 18% 28% 42% 3.96 .00 52,7454% 5% 15% 29% 47% 4.09 .01 37,0495% 6% 15% 28% 46% 4.04 .03 1,6646% 7% 17% 28% 42% 3.94 .01 8,0555% 7% 18% 30% 39% 3.92 .01 7,1505% 6% 18% 29% 43% 3.99 .01 23,4204% 6% 17% 28% 45% 4.04 .01 20,4324% 5% 16% 27% 47% 4.09 .01 15,3835% 6% 16% 28% 45% 4.04 .01 16,5805% 6% 15% 28% 46% 4.04 .03 1,6645% 6% 17% 28% 44% 4.02 .00 69,6365% 6% 16% 29% 44% 4.01 .01 21,3845% 6% 15% 28% 46% 4.04 .03 1,6644% 5% 15% 29% 47% 4.09 .02 2,2355% 6% 17% 29% 44% 4.02 .00 88,7855% 6% 15% 28% 46% 4.04 .03 1,6645% 6% 17% 29% 44% 4.02 .00 69,9205% 7% 18% 29% 42% 3.95 .01 18,4232% 2% 10% 26% 60% 4.41 .02 2,6775% 6% 15% 28% 46% 4.04 .03 1,6643% 5% 15% 29% 47% 4.12 .02 4,4614% 5% 16% 28% 46% 4.07 .01 17,9244% 5% 16% 28% 46% 4.07 .01 29,0795% 6% 18% 29% 42% 3.95 .01 39,5566% 5% 18% 35% 37% 3.92 .10 1235% 7% 13% 25% 51% 4.10 .05 5765% 4% 14% 28% 49% 4.09 .06 3347% 9% 12% 28% 44% 3.95 .10 1679% 6% 12% 32% 42% 3.93 .15 694% 5% 16% 28% 47% 4.08 .01 16,2325% 7% 17% 31% 40% 3.94 .01 6,3865% 5% 15% 27% 48% 4.08 .01 12,8764% 4% 15% 28% 49% 4.14 .01 6,8286% 6% 14% 28% 46% 4.03 .02 3,1395% 6% 16% 27% 46% 4.06 .02 5,1554% 9% 17% 16% 54% 4.08 .12 103

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 97: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 25bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

3% 4% 21% 32% 41% 4.03 .02 1,9933% 5% 20% 35% 37% 3.98 .00 108,5393% 4% 19% 32% 43% 4.08 .03 1,5223% 5% 20% 33% 39% 3.99 .00 60,5782% 6% 28% 30% 34% 3.88 .05 4713% 5% 21% 37% 35% 3.96 .00 47,9613% 5% 22% 31% 40% 4.01 .03 1,5314% 4% 19% 34% 39% 4.01 .12 793% 3% 17% 36% 41% 4.09 .05 374

11% 22% 67% 4.22 .40 93% 5% 21% 35% 36% 3.97 .00 92,9795% 5% 19% 34% 36% 3.90 .02 3,4763% 4% 17% 34% 43% 4.11 .01 11,0354% 3% 16% 27% 50% 4.17 .04 7292% 5% 23% 30% 41% 4.03 .04 7533% 3% 22% 31% 41% 4.04 .08 1463% 4% 17% 28% 47% 4.13 .06 2672% 4% 26% 30% 38% 3.98 .08 1485% 5% 24% 34% 32% 3.83 .08 207

20% 10% 40% 30% 3.80 .36 102% 4% 20% 35% 39% 4.03 .01 35,6224% 5% 22% 35% 35% 3.91 .01 19,2354% 6% 21% 34% 35% 3.92 .01 15,8864% 6% 20% 34% 36% 3.94 .01 14,6774% 6% 20% 36% 35% 3.93 .01 6,4864% 5% 21% 30% 40% 3.98 .04 9203% 4% 21% 29% 43% 4.06 .03 1,3303% 4% 20% 36% 37% 3.99 .04 641

25% 38% 25% 13% 3.25 .37 8 7% 36% 36% 21% 3.71 .24 14

3% 5% 20% 34% 38% 3.99 .00 64,5353% 4% 20% 36% 36% 3.98 .00 42,1678% 12% 18% 31% 32% 3.67 .06 3959% 10% 26% 25% 29% 3.55 .05 6962% 4% 23% 32% 39% 4.01 .04 7003% 4% 19% 32% 42% 4.04 .03 1,2933% 5% 21% 36% 35% 3.95 .00 62,2433% 5% 18% 34% 40% 4.03 .00 44,7713% 4% 21% 32% 41% 4.03 .02 1,9932% 4% 18% 36% 41% 4.09 .01 9,3424% 6% 23% 35% 31% 3.83 .01 8,5913% 5% 20% 36% 37% 3.99 .01 27,2044% 6% 21% 33% 36% 3.93 .01 24,2343% 5% 19% 35% 38% 3.99 .01 18,8643% 4% 20% 34% 39% 4.03 .01 20,3043% 4% 21% 32% 41% 4.03 .02 1,9933% 5% 20% 35% 37% 3.99 .00 83,4533% 5% 20% 34% 37% 3.95 .01 25,0863% 4% 21% 32% 41% 4.03 .02 1,9934% 4% 20% 32% 40% 4.01 .02 2,7813% 5% 20% 35% 37% 3.98 .00 105,7583% 4% 21% 32% 41% 4.03 .02 1,9933% 4% 19% 35% 39% 4.03 .00 83,0155% 7% 24% 34% 31% 3.80 .01 22,3526% 5% 16% 29% 43% 3.97 .02 3,1723% 4% 21% 32% 41% 4.03 .02 1,9933% 5% 19% 35% 39% 4.03 .01 5,3204% 5% 21% 33% 37% 3.95 .01 21,5693% 5% 19% 34% 39% 4.03 .01 35,0363% 5% 21% 36% 36% 3.95 .00 46,6143% 9% 26% 36% 26% 3.72 .09 1403% 3% 16% 29% 49% 4.16 .04 7062% 3% 17% 36% 43% 4.15 .05 3904% 5% 26% 32% 33% 3.85 .07 2131% 5% 12% 37% 44% 4.16 .11 734% 6% 21% 33% 35% 3.89 .01 19,2573% 5% 22% 36% 34% 3.93 .01 7,5403% 4% 19% 31% 43% 4.07 .01 15,3943% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .01 8,2022% 4% 19% 32% 43% 4.08 .02 3,7473% 4% 18% 34% 40% 4.06 .01 6,3144% 3% 22% 25% 46% 4.06 .10 124

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 98: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 26aImportance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

6% 7% 16% 27% 45% 3.99 .03 1,6255% 6% 18% 27% 43% 3.96 .00 89,0166% 7% 14% 27% 46% 4.01 .03 1,2485% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.01 .01 49,5536% 6% 21% 25% 42% 3.91 .06 3776% 7% 19% 28% 40% 3.89 .01 39,4635% 7% 16% 25% 46% 3.99 .03 1,2675% 25% 30% 41% 4.02 .14 618% 6% 12% 33% 42% 3.95 .07 291

17% 83% 4.33 .67 65% 7% 18% 27% 43% 3.95 .00 76,8166% 5% 14% 31% 44% 4.03 .02 2,7126% 5% 14% 31% 43% 4.00 .01 8,6764% 5% 16% 22% 53% 4.15 .05 5655% 7% 16% 29% 43% 3.98 .05 6238% 7% 18% 18% 49% 3.94 .12 1164% 9% 14% 17% 56% 4.11 .08 224

10% 6% 16% 25% 44% 3.87 .12 1244% 8% 19% 29% 41% 3.95 .09 171

33% 67% 4.67 .17 96% 7% 20% 27% 40% 3.89 .01 29,6595% 7% 19% 27% 42% 3.95 .01 15,6885% 6% 17% 26% 45% 4.00 .01 13,0865% 6% 16% 26% 46% 4.02 .01 12,2145% 6% 15% 29% 45% 4.04 .02 5,3266% 4% 17% 28% 46% 4.04 .04 7324% 6% 14% 27% 50% 4.13 .03 1,075

10% 9% 19% 26% 37% 3.71 .06 532 50% 33% 17% 3.67 .33 6 8% 33% 42% 17% 3.67 .26 12

3% 5% 16% 28% 47% 4.10 .00 51,8618% 8% 20% 27% 37% 3.76 .01 35,6447% 4% 15% 24% 49% 4.03 .07 3396% 6% 19% 19% 50% 4.00 .05 5935% 7% 17% 28% 43% 3.97 .05 5796% 6% 15% 26% 46% 4.00 .04 1,0466% 7% 19% 28% 41% 3.91 .01 51,6775% 6% 15% 27% 46% 4.03 .01 36,1276% 7% 16% 27% 45% 3.99 .03 1,6256% 8% 18% 28% 40% 3.88 .01 7,9076% 7% 19% 29% 38% 3.85 .01 6,9356% 7% 19% 28% 41% 3.92 .01 22,8875% 6% 17% 27% 44% 3.99 .01 19,9655% 6% 17% 27% 46% 4.04 .01 15,0876% 6% 16% 27% 45% 4.00 .01 16,2356% 7% 16% 27% 45% 3.99 .03 1,6255% 6% 18% 27% 43% 3.96 .00 68,0915% 7% 17% 28% 43% 3.96 .01 20,9256% 7% 16% 27% 45% 3.99 .03 1,6255% 5% 16% 27% 45% 4.02 .02 2,1775% 7% 18% 27% 43% 3.96 .00 86,8396% 7% 16% 27% 45% 3.99 .03 1,6255% 6% 18% 28% 43% 3.96 .00 68,3906% 7% 18% 28% 41% 3.90 .01 18,0032% 2% 11% 25% 59% 4.38 .02 2,6236% 7% 16% 27% 45% 3.99 .03 1,6254% 6% 16% 29% 45% 4.06 .02 4,3535% 6% 18% 26% 45% 4.00 .01 17,4935% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.01 .01 28,4496% 7% 18% 28% 40% 3.89 .01 38,7217% 5% 18% 34% 36% 3.86 .11 1155% 7% 15% 24% 49% 4.05 .05 5675% 6% 14% 28% 47% 4.05 .06 3338% 7% 11% 31% 43% 3.93 .10 164

10% 7% 9% 30% 43% 3.90 .16 695% 6% 17% 26% 46% 4.03 .01 15,8596% 7% 19% 29% 39% 3.87 .01 6,1935% 6% 16% 26% 47% 4.04 .01 12,6195% 5% 16% 26% 48% 4.07 .01 6,6777% 6% 15% 28% 45% 3.97 .02 3,0575% 6% 17% 26% 46% 4.02 .02 5,0535% 8% 19% 18% 49% 3.98 .13 95

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 99: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 26bSatisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General

(without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

3% 4% 20% 31% 43% 4.08 .02 1,9253% 4% 21% 34% 38% 4.00 .00 105,6763% 3% 18% 31% 46% 4.14 .03 1,4793% 4% 20% 33% 40% 4.03 .00 58,8342% 6% 27% 32% 33% 3.87 .05 4463% 4% 21% 36% 36% 3.97 .00 46,8422% 4% 21% 30% 43% 4.07 .03 1,4844% 5% 20% 32% 39% 3.97 .12 763% 3% 16% 37% 41% 4.10 .05 356

22% 11% 67% 4.44 .29 93% 4% 21% 34% 38% 3.99 .00 90,9995% 5% 20% 33% 37% 3.92 .02 3,2763% 3% 18% 33% 43% 4.11 .01 10,3784% 3% 15% 25% 52% 4.19 .04 7002% 4% 23% 29% 42% 4.06 .04 7302% 4% 17% 28% 48% 4.16 .08 1392% 3% 15% 28% 51% 4.22 .06 2611% 3% 22% 33% 41% 4.08 .08 1436% 3% 23% 35% 34% 3.89 .08 200

9% 27% 36% 27% 3.82 .30 112% 4% 20% 34% 39% 4.05 .01 34,9293% 5% 22% 34% 36% 3.95 .01 18,7753% 5% 21% 34% 36% 3.95 .01 15,5493% 5% 21% 34% 37% 3.97 .01 14,3753% 5% 20% 35% 36% 3.96 .01 6,3214% 4% 21% 31% 40% 4.00 .03 8932% 4% 20% 29% 44% 4.10 .03 1,2833% 4% 19% 35% 40% 4.05 .04 620

25% 38% 25% 13% 3.25 .37 8 7% 43% 29% 21% 3.64 .25 14

3% 5% 20% 34% 39% 4.01 .00 62,6393% 4% 21% 35% 38% 4.00 .00 41,2259% 10% 21% 27% 33% 3.65 .06 390

10% 9% 26% 26% 29% 3.56 .05 6732% 4% 23% 31% 40% 4.02 .04 6803% 3% 18% 31% 44% 4.11 .03 1,2453% 4% 22% 35% 36% 3.97 .00 60,8843% 4% 19% 33% 41% 4.05 .00 43,2693% 4% 20% 31% 43% 4.08 .02 1,9252% 3% 18% 35% 42% 4.12 .01 9,0994% 6% 24% 34% 32% 3.85 .01 8,2893% 4% 21% 35% 38% 4.01 .01 26,4684% 5% 21% 33% 37% 3.95 .01 23,5763% 4% 20% 34% 38% 4.00 .01 18,4782% 4% 20% 33% 41% 4.06 .01 19,7663% 4% 20% 31% 43% 4.08 .02 1,9253% 4% 21% 34% 38% 4.01 .00 81,2563% 5% 20% 34% 38% 3.99 .01 24,4203% 4% 20% 31% 43% 4.08 .02 1,9253% 4% 20% 33% 39% 4.02 .02 2,6593% 4% 21% 34% 38% 4.00 .00 103,0173% 4% 20% 31% 43% 4.08 .02 1,9252% 4% 20% 34% 40% 4.05 .00 80,8434% 6% 24% 33% 32% 3.82 .01 21,7236% 5% 16% 28% 45% 4.02 .02 3,1103% 4% 20% 31% 43% 4.08 .02 1,9252% 4% 19% 34% 40% 4.07 .01 5,1513% 4% 21% 33% 38% 3.98 .01 20,9563% 4% 19% 34% 40% 4.04 .01 34,1573% 5% 21% 35% 37% 3.97 .00 45,4125% 4% 28% 32% 30% 3.78 .09 1353% 2% 15% 28% 53% 4.25 .04 6871% 2% 17% 34% 44% 4.18 .05 3804% 4% 24% 32% 35% 3.89 .07 2081% 3% 14% 38% 43% 4.19 .11 694% 6% 21% 33% 37% 3.92 .01 18,7753% 5% 22% 35% 36% 3.97 .01 7,2583% 4% 18% 31% 44% 4.10 .01 15,0002% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .01 7,9332% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.11 .02 3,6122% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.08 .01 6,1403% 3% 23% 22% 47% 4.07 .10 116

Florida State UniversityAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls & Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining HallsStudentFacultyAdministration/ StaffOther

Respondent Type - YOURINSTITUTION

StudentFacultyAdministration/StaffOther

Respondent Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - YOURINSTITUTION

First yearSophomoreJuniorSeniorGraduateOther

Student Class Status - ENTIRESAMPLE

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - YOUR INSTITUTION

FemaleMaleTransgenderOther Identity

Gender - ENTIRE SAMPLE

On campusOff campus

Live... - YOUR INSTITUTION

On campusOff campus

Live... - ENTIRE SAMPLE

SouthernNACUFS Region - YOURINSTITUTION Continental

Mid-AtlanticMidwestNortheastPacificSouthern

NACUFS Region - ENTIRE SAMPLE

PublicInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPublicPrivate

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Primarily 4-yearInstitution Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONPrimarily 2-yearPrimarily 4-year

Institution Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Mainly ContractedOperation Type - YOUR INSTITUTIONMainly Self-operatedMainly ContractedCombination of Both

Operation Type - ENTIRE SAMPLE

Over 20,000Total Current Enrollment - YOURINSTITUTION Under 2,500

2,500 to 10,00010,001 to 20,000Over 20,000

Total Current Enrollment - ENTIRESAMPLE

Food CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** # Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 100: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 27BY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS***

4% 10% 22% 42% 23% 3.69 .05 4474% 9% 22% 41% 23% 3.70 .00 46,1675% 13% 28% 35% 19% 3.49 .07 2263% 6% 15% 49% 26% 3.90 .06 221

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 5% 13% 41% 37% 4.03 .03 1,4924% 7% 17% 40% 32% 3.90 .00 59,7374% 6% 21% 43% 25% 3.79 .09 1264% 4% 9% 37% 46% 4.18 .04 6633% 5% 12% 46% 35% 4.06 .05 3967% 9% 20% 40% 25% 3.68 .08 2251% 4% 13% 49% 33% 4.09 .09 825% 8% 19% 38% 29% 3.77 .01 18,7654% 8% 21% 42% 25% 3.75 .01 7,3863% 5% 15% 39% 38% 4.02 .01 15,1893% 6% 16% 40% 35% 3.98 .01 8,2784% 5% 15% 41% 36% 4.00 .02 3,6733% 5% 16% 42% 34% 3.99 .01 6,3203% 6% 15% 36% 40% 4.05 .09 1267% 11% 19% 39% 24% 3.63 .09 1534% 3% 8% 36% 49% 4.22 .05 4284% 6% 21% 43% 25% 3.79 .09 1262% 7% 15% 27% 49% 4.15 .14 552% 7% 9% 46% 37% 4.09 .09 1032% 2% 10% 52% 35% 4.15 .11 52

7% 20% 40% 33% 4.00 .24 15 7% 20% 47% 27% 3.93 .23 15

4% 4% 12% 40% 40% 4.09 .12 773% 4% 11% 40% 42% 4.15 .09 1067% 4% 21% 40% 28% 3.78 .13 723% 10% 51% 36% 4.16 .11 61

6% 10% 55% 29% 4.08 .08 1064% 7% 14% 43% 32% 3.91 .10 123

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the diningservices provided by your college/university?

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.***Consult the beginning of this report, page iv, or your order form for the Dining Hall and Retail Unit names.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 101: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 28aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

1% 7% 23% 68% 4.59 .03 4450% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.53 .00 45,103

1% 9% 21% 68% 4.58 .05 219 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.60 .04 226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.59 .02 1,4400% 1% 8% 27% 64% 4.52 .00 57,5601% 5% 29% 65% 4.58 .06 1370% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.64 .03 6451% 2% 6% 29% 63% 4.53 .04 376

1% 8% 23% 69% 4.59 .05 200 7% 35% 57% 4.50 .07 82

0% 1% 9% 27% 62% 4.50 .01 18,2880% 1% 8% 29% 62% 4.52 .01 7,2270% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.56 .01 14,6591% 1% 8% 28% 62% 4.50 .01 7,7290% 1% 6% 24% 70% 4.62 .01 3,6050% 1% 9% 29% 61% 4.48 .01 5,9341% 1% 8% 22% 69% 4.57 .07 118

1% 6% 23% 71% 4.63 .05 1330% 1% 5% 22% 72% 4.63 .03 4051% 5% 29% 65% 4.58 .06 137

6% 15% 80% 4.74 .08 54 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .07 103 6% 29% 65% 4.59 .08 51 53% 47% 4.47 .13 15 19% 38% 44% 4.25 .19 16 4% 25% 71% 4.67 .06 83 1% 6% 21% 73% 4.65 .06 106 1% 12% 22% 64% 4.49 .09 67

3% 6% 32% 59% 4.43 .11 63 3% 4% 36% 57% 4.47 .07 102 2% 7% 29% 63% 4.52 .07 105 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 102: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 28bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Overall

4% 10% 24% 39% 22% 3.65 .05 5534% 10% 24% 43% 20% 3.65 .00 53,8197% 17% 30% 31% 15% 3.29 .07 2771% 4% 17% 48% 30% 4.01 .05 276

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 3% 10% 37% 48% 4.24 .02 1,7763% 6% 15% 41% 35% 3.98 .00 69,0834% 5% 20% 51% 20% 3.79 .07 1622% 2% 4% 32% 59% 4.43 .03 8031% 3% 9% 40% 46% 4.28 .04 4504% 8% 20% 35% 34% 3.88 .07 2662% 1% 11% 43% 43% 4.24 .09 954% 8% 18% 41% 29% 3.83 .01 21,6523% 7% 19% 44% 27% 3.85 .01 8,6443% 4% 12% 39% 42% 4.13 .01 17,6392% 5% 14% 40% 39% 4.08 .01 9,3142% 4% 12% 39% 42% 4.15 .01 4,4392% 5% 16% 44% 33% 4.02 .01 7,2473% 9% 14% 35% 40% 4.01 .09 1483% 9% 18% 36% 33% 3.87 .08 1812% 2% 4% 27% 64% 4.49 .04 5234% 5% 20% 51% 20% 3.79 .07 1623% 8% 3% 34% 52% 4.23 .13 64

2% 4% 50% 44% 4.37 .06 1173% 2% 8% 41% 46% 4.25 .12 61

6% 65% 29% 4.24 .14 17 24% 29% 47% 4.24 .20 17

3% 1% 8% 35% 53% 4.33 .09 99 1% 4% 35% 60% 4.55 .06 121

5% 4% 25% 31% 36% 3.91 .12 85 1% 9% 39% 51% 4.39 .08 75

1% 5% 9% 48% 36% 4.14 .08 1182% 5% 13% 40% 40% 4.11 .08 136

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Food: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 103: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 29aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

0% 3% 16% 80% 4.75 .03 4430% 1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .00 45,189

0% 5% 17% 77% 4.70 .04 219 0% 1% 16% 83% 4.80 .03 224 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 0% 4% 16% 80% 4.75 .01 1,4370% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.67 .00 57,685

1% 1% 16% 82% 4.79 .04 1380% 1% 4% 14% 81% 4.75 .02 6390% 0% 4% 17% 79% 4.74 .03 3821% 1% 4% 15% 80% 4.74 .04 198

3% 24% 74% 4.71 .06 800% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.65 .00 18,4010% 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.67 .01 7,2540% 1% 4% 18% 77% 4.70 .01 14,6400% 1% 5% 20% 75% 4.67 .01 7,7480% 0% 3% 15% 81% 4.76 .01 3,6120% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .01 5,9111% 1% 5% 14% 79% 4.70 .06 119

2% 14% 85% 4.83 .04 1310% 1% 5% 14% 81% 4.74 .03 399

1% 1% 16% 82% 4.79 .04 138 4% 13% 84% 4.80 .07 55 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.69 .06 102 2% 8% 90% 4.88 .06 49 53% 47% 4.47 .13 15 6% 44% 50% 4.44 .16 16 2% 13% 84% 4.82 .05 83 3% 12% 85% 4.82 .04 106

1% 1% 7% 18% 72% 4.57 .10 672% 2% 5% 16% 76% 4.63 .10 63

6% 24% 70% 4.64 .06 107 3% 14% 83% 4.80 .05 106 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 104: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 29bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Taste

6% 13% 24% 35% 22% 3.55 .05 5564% 12% 27% 39% 18% 3.54 .00 53,7819% 20% 28% 29% 14% 3.18 .07 2792% 7% 19% 41% 31% 3.91 .06 277

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 4% 8% 32% 53% 4.31 .02 1,7773% 6% 15% 39% 37% 4.01 .00 69,0052% 7% 19% 47% 24% 3.84 .07 1652% 2% 6% 26% 63% 4.46 .03 8011% 3% 7% 33% 56% 4.41 .04 4525% 8% 12% 37% 39% 3.97 .07 2652% 1% 7% 48% 41% 4.26 .08 944% 8% 18% 39% 31% 3.85 .01 21,6433% 8% 18% 42% 30% 3.89 .01 8,6412% 5% 12% 36% 45% 4.16 .01 17,6313% 5% 14% 37% 42% 4.11 .01 9,3112% 5% 12% 37% 45% 4.18 .01 4,4242% 5% 16% 42% 35% 4.03 .01 7,2073% 7% 16% 36% 38% 4.00 .08 1485% 7% 13% 37% 38% 3.97 .08 1803% 3% 5% 22% 68% 4.50 .04 5192% 7% 19% 47% 24% 3.84 .07 1652% 6% 8% 27% 58% 4.33 .12 66

2% 7% 44% 47% 4.37 .06 1173% 7% 42% 48% 4.32 .11 60

76% 24% 4.24 .11 17 6% 18% 41% 35% 4.06 .22 17

2% 1% 11% 23% 63% 4.43 .09 991% 1% 2% 23% 74% 4.68 .06 1214% 11% 9% 36% 40% 3.99 .12 85

3% 4% 36% 57% 4.48 .08 75 4% 10% 47% 39% 4.20 .07 118

2% 4% 9% 29% 56% 4.33 .08 138 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Taste

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 105: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 30aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

2% 11% 21% 35% 31% 3.82 .05 4433% 13% 22% 34% 28% 3.71 .01 45,0151% 14% 26% 29% 30% 3.72 .07 2193% 8% 17% 40% 32% 3.91 .07 224

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 9% 17% 34% 39% 3.99 .03 1,4322% 9% 18% 34% 37% 3.93 .00 57,4952% 7% 20% 32% 39% 3.99 .09 1371% 10% 18% 32% 39% 3.97 .04 6341% 8% 16% 37% 38% 4.02 .05 3812% 11% 15% 33% 39% 3.97 .08 198

10% 11% 40% 39% 4.09 .10 822% 9% 18% 34% 37% 3.95 .01 18,3083% 13% 21% 34% 29% 3.75 .01 7,2322% 8% 17% 33% 39% 4.00 .01 14,5942% 9% 17% 35% 37% 3.97 .01 7,7302% 9% 16% 35% 38% 3.99 .02 3,6052% 10% 20% 35% 34% 3.88 .01 5,9061% 6% 13% 28% 53% 4.26 .09 1202% 11% 15% 34% 38% 3.95 .09 1312% 9% 18% 29% 42% 4.01 .05 3962% 7% 20% 32% 39% 3.99 .09 137

4% 13% 34% 49% 4.28 .12 532% 15% 18% 36% 29% 3.76 .11 103

8% 12% 41% 39% 4.12 .13 51 7% 7% 53% 33% 4.13 .22 15 19% 13% 25% 44% 3.94 .30 16

1% 13% 16% 35% 34% 3.88 .12 821% 11% 20% 34% 35% 3.90 .10 1071% 10% 16% 30% 42% 4.00 .13 673% 6% 13% 29% 48% 4.13 .14 621% 4% 11% 53% 32% 4.11 .08 1041% 9% 19% 31% 41% 4.01 .10 108

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 106: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 30bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Eye appeal

5% 13% 23% 36% 23% 3.58 .05 5564% 11% 28% 36% 21% 3.59 .00 53,5768% 19% 25% 33% 15% 3.28 .07 2802% 8% 20% 39% 31% 3.89 .06 276

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.20 .02 1,7623% 7% 20% 36% 35% 3.94 .00 68,8172% 9% 29% 42% 18% 3.64 .08 1623% 4% 10% 30% 53% 4.27 .03 7930% 2% 11% 36% 51% 4.36 .04 4503% 5% 15% 37% 40% 4.06 .06 2622% 4% 12% 43% 39% 4.13 .09 954% 9% 22% 36% 29% 3.77 .01 21,5643% 8% 24% 39% 27% 3.80 .01 8,6052% 5% 17% 35% 41% 4.06 .01 17,5842% 5% 16% 34% 43% 4.12 .01 9,3091% 5% 16% 36% 42% 4.12 .01 4,4142% 6% 21% 38% 33% 3.95 .01 7,1932% 3% 14% 37% 44% 4.18 .08 1482% 4% 12% 41% 41% 4.14 .07 1793% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.32 .04 5162% 9% 29% 42% 18% 3.64 .08 1625% 5% 13% 16% 62% 4.25 .14 631% 5% 12% 46% 36% 4.11 .08 1163% 3% 10% 43% 41% 4.15 .12 61

12% 59% 29% 4.18 .15 17 12% 18% 29% 41% 4.00 .26 17

2% 4% 8% 41% 45% 4.22 .09 98 11% 39% 50% 4.39 .06 119

5% 8% 19% 29% 39% 3.88 .13 83 3% 8% 37% 52% 4.39 .09 75 3% 8% 34% 55% 4.42 .07 118

1% 2% 14% 33% 49% 4.25 .08 138 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eye appeal

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 107: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 31aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

0% 1% 5% 20% 73% 4.66 .03 4420% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.58 .00 44,941

1% 5% 23% 70% 4.62 .04 2200% 0% 5% 18% 77% 4.69 .04 222

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 5% 21% 72% 4.64 .02 1,4240% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .00 57,355

1% 5% 24% 70% 4.62 .06 1360% 1% 6% 20% 73% 4.64 .03 6331% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.66 .03 376

1% 8% 23% 69% 4.59 .05 197 4% 23% 73% 4.70 .06 82

0% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.57 .01 18,2550% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.57 .01 7,2250% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 14,5610% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .01 7,7021% 1% 5% 22% 73% 4.65 .01 3,5890% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.56 .01 5,9021% 2% 7% 17% 74% 4.62 .07 121

6% 25% 69% 4.63 .05 1320% 2% 6% 20% 71% 4.61 .04 398

1% 5% 24% 70% 4.62 .06 136 2% 11% 87% 4.85 .05 55 1% 4% 25% 70% 4.64 .06 99 2% 14% 84% 4.82 .06 51 47% 53% 4.53 .13 15 13% 31% 56% 4.44 .18 16 6% 21% 73% 4.67 .07 81 4% 17% 79% 4.75 .05 106 3% 11% 18% 68% 4.51 .10 65

2% 3% 16% 79% 4.71 .09 621% 1% 4% 25% 70% 4.61 .07 105

1% 6% 26% 67% 4.59 .06 103 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 108: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 31bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Freshness

7% 16% 21% 30% 26% 3.51 .05 5526% 14% 27% 33% 20% 3.47 .00 53,611

11% 24% 24% 25% 16% 3.10 .08 2773% 9% 17% 35% 36% 3.93 .06 275

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 5% 14% 32% 46% 4.14 .02 1,7644% 8% 20% 33% 35% 3.87 .00 68,7122% 10% 24% 40% 24% 3.75 .08 1652% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.29 .03 7971% 3% 15% 35% 47% 4.24 .04 4467% 11% 16% 30% 36% 3.78 .08 2631% 4% 10% 45% 40% 4.18 .09 935% 10% 22% 33% 30% 3.71 .01 21,5444% 10% 23% 35% 28% 3.75 .01 8,6083% 6% 17% 32% 41% 4.02 .01 17,5592% 7% 17% 33% 41% 4.03 .01 9,2703% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.07 .02 4,4003% 9% 21% 35% 32% 3.85 .01 7,1823% 5% 16% 33% 44% 4.10 .08 1498% 8% 17% 31% 36% 3.80 .09 1793% 3% 9% 27% 58% 4.33 .04 5152% 10% 24% 40% 24% 3.75 .08 1652% 2% 20% 20% 58% 4.30 .12 661% 6% 12% 41% 41% 4.14 .08 1162% 3% 8% 43% 43% 4.23 .11 60

6% 71% 24% 4.18 .13 17 13% 19% 25% 44% 4.00 .27 16

2% 6% 11% 28% 53% 4.24 .10 100 10% 32% 58% 4.48 .06 119

5% 17% 15% 29% 35% 3.71 .14 84 4% 12% 32% 51% 4.31 .10 74

1% 4% 14% 42% 39% 4.14 .08 1182% 4% 21% 31% 42% 4.07 .09 135

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Freshness

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 109: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 32aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

0% 3% 10% 26% 60% 4.43 .04 4411% 3% 11% 28% 58% 4.39 .00 44,840

3% 11% 25% 60% 4.42 .06 2181% 3% 9% 26% 61% 4.43 .06 223

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 5% 13% 28% 52% 4.23 .03 1,4371% 3% 12% 28% 55% 4.32 .00 57,1741% 4% 12% 27% 56% 4.33 .08 1382% 5% 13% 28% 52% 4.23 .04 6411% 6% 13% 28% 52% 4.25 .05 3763% 7% 17% 25% 49% 4.11 .08 1991% 2% 8% 40% 48% 4.31 .09 831% 3% 11% 27% 57% 4.36 .01 18,2121% 3% 12% 31% 54% 4.33 .01 7,2041% 4% 12% 29% 54% 4.31 .01 14,5172% 4% 12% 29% 54% 4.29 .01 7,6762% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.31 .02 3,5691% 3% 13% 29% 53% 4.29 .01 5,8843% 4% 14% 26% 53% 4.21 .10 1121% 5% 17% 28% 50% 4.22 .08 1322% 6% 17% 29% 45% 4.09 .05 4011% 4% 12% 27% 56% 4.33 .08 1382% 2% 18% 78% 4.71 .09 551% 5% 10% 28% 56% 4.33 .09 1022% 4% 12% 37% 46% 4.21 .13 52

47% 53% 4.53 .13 15 6% 44% 50% 4.44 .16 16

2% 2% 5% 28% 63% 4.46 .10 83 9% 9% 31% 50% 4.22 .09 107

6% 12% 16% 18% 48% 3.90 .16 675% 3% 7% 25% 61% 4.33 .14 61

5% 15% 33% 47% 4.22 .09 104 5% 18% 23% 54% 4.26 .09 104 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 110: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 32bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Nutritional content

9% 15% 27% 28% 21% 3.37 .05 5478% 14% 28% 32% 19% 3.40 .01 53,163

13% 22% 31% 22% 13% 3.00 .07 2765% 8% 24% 34% 30% 3.75 .07 271

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 10% 24% 31% 32% 3.78 .03 1,7506% 11% 26% 31% 26% 3.60 .00 67,9487% 13% 35% 28% 17% 3.33 .09 1632% 8% 22% 29% 38% 3.93 .04 7941% 8% 24% 36% 31% 3.87 .05 4449% 16% 26% 26% 22% 3.37 .08 2572% 7% 18% 43% 29% 3.91 .10 928% 14% 28% 29% 22% 3.44 .01 21,3236% 13% 27% 33% 21% 3.49 .01 8,5194% 9% 25% 31% 31% 3.74 .01 17,3554% 9% 26% 31% 30% 3.74 .01 9,1464% 9% 24% 32% 31% 3.78 .02 4,3326% 11% 26% 33% 25% 3.60 .01 7,1332% 6% 24% 35% 33% 3.90 .09 1408% 15% 26% 29% 22% 3.42 .09 1773% 10% 25% 27% 35% 3.80 .05 5147% 13% 35% 28% 17% 3.33 .09 1633% 3% 6% 22% 66% 4.45 .12 65

4% 17% 39% 40% 4.14 .08 1162% 3% 22% 42% 31% 3.97 .12 596% 6% 12% 47% 29% 3.88 .27 17

19% 13% 44% 25% 3.75 .27 162% 4% 20% 35% 38% 4.04 .10 991% 3% 27% 36% 33% 3.98 .08 120

11% 18% 28% 21% 23% 3.26 .15 80 8% 16% 42% 33% 4.00 .11 73

1% 9% 26% 39% 25% 3.79 .09 1173% 13% 22% 28% 34% 3.77 .10 134

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Nutritional content

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 111: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 33aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

1% 2% 11% 27% 59% 4.42 .04 4311% 3% 15% 32% 49% 4.25 .00 43,7251% 1% 14% 27% 57% 4.36 .06 212

3% 9% 26% 62% 4.48 .05 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.56 .02 1,4181% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .00 57,0201% 1% 11% 24% 64% 4.49 .07 1350% 1% 8% 24% 67% 4.55 .03 6291% 1% 6% 29% 64% 4.55 .04 378

2% 8% 20% 71% 4.60 .05 1951% 1% 28% 69% 4.64 .07 811% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .01 18,1340% 2% 9% 29% 59% 4.45 .01 7,1651% 1% 8% 25% 65% 4.53 .01 14,4751% 1% 9% 26% 64% 4.50 .01 7,6920% 1% 7% 26% 65% 4.55 .01 3,5561% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.50 .01 5,8803% 2% 5% 24% 67% 4.51 .08 118

2% 5% 20% 73% 4.65 .06 131 2% 9% 24% 65% 4.52 .04 392

1% 1% 11% 24% 64% 4.49 .07 135 5% 24% 71% 4.65 .08 55

1% 6% 21% 72% 4.63 .07 992% 2% 20% 76% 4.68 .10 50

53% 47% 4.47 .13 15 31% 69% 4.69 .12 16

1% 6% 25% 67% 4.58 .08 83 4% 20% 76% 4.72 .05 104 2% 13% 20% 66% 4.50 .10 64

3% 10% 25% 62% 4.43 .11 63 3% 8% 37% 53% 4.39 .07 104 1% 3% 31% 65% 4.61 .06 107 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 112: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 33bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)FOOD: Value

10% 15% 23% 26% 27% 3.45 .06 5368% 13% 28% 30% 20% 3.41 .01 51,950

17% 17% 25% 20% 20% 3.11 .08 2693% 12% 20% 31% 34% 3.79 .07 267

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5% 11% 20% 32% 32% 3.75 .03 1,7519% 14% 24% 28% 24% 3.43 .00 68,2009% 13% 31% 32% 15% 3.32 .09 1634% 8% 18% 31% 39% 3.94 .04 7893% 12% 23% 33% 28% 3.71 .05 4468% 16% 19% 28% 29% 3.56 .08 2627% 16% 11% 38% 27% 3.64 .13 91

12% 16% 25% 27% 20% 3.26 .01 21,35911% 15% 26% 29% 19% 3.29 .01 8,5527% 12% 23% 29% 29% 3.60 .01 17,4087% 14% 24% 30% 25% 3.51 .01 9,2326% 12% 23% 30% 29% 3.65 .02 4,3719% 15% 24% 29% 23% 3.42 .01 7,1349% 20% 19% 23% 28% 3.42 .11 1447% 16% 18% 32% 28% 3.58 .09 1803% 7% 17% 30% 43% 4.04 .05 5139% 13% 31% 32% 15% 3.32 .09 163

12% 15% 17% 20% 35% 3.51 .18 651% 8% 16% 47% 28% 3.94 .09 1137% 14% 12% 38% 29% 3.69 .16 586% 6% 18% 41% 29% 3.82 .27 176% 38% 38% 19% 3.25 .34 165% 10% 27% 27% 32% 3.69 .12 982% 8% 17% 35% 38% 3.98 .10 121

10% 15% 23% 20% 33% 3.51 .15 82 10% 25% 28% 38% 3.93 .12 72

3% 13% 32% 37% 15% 3.50 .09 1186% 17% 21% 31% 25% 3.53 .10 135

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Value

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 113: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 34aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

1% 5% 13% 36% 45% 4.19 .04 4331% 5% 14% 36% 43% 4.15 .00 43,7850% 7% 13% 33% 45% 4.16 .06 2161% 3% 13% 38% 45% 4.23 .06 217

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 7% 30% 60% 4.47 .02 1,4061% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.32 .00 55,911

4% 12% 30% 54% 4.35 .07 1361% 1% 7% 29% 62% 4.50 .03 6241% 2% 8% 31% 59% 4.46 .04 3771% 2% 6% 28% 64% 4.53 .05 195

1% 4% 45% 50% 4.43 .07 741% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.28 .01 17,8831% 3% 13% 37% 47% 4.25 .01 7,0581% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.39 .01 14,2691% 2% 10% 33% 54% 4.36 .01 7,5971% 2% 9% 34% 54% 4.39 .01 3,5211% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.28 .01 5,4731% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .08 110

1% 5% 28% 66% 4.59 .06 1311% 2% 7% 28% 63% 4.50 .04 398

4% 12% 30% 54% 4.35 .07 1362% 2% 6% 32% 58% 4.42 .12 501% 5% 33% 61% 4.53 .07 100

6% 44% 50% 4.44 .09 48 7% 57% 36% 4.21 .21 14 33% 67% 4.67 .14 12 3% 11% 24% 63% 4.47 .09 76

1% 3% 9% 29% 59% 4.42 .08 1052% 3% 8% 28% 59% 4.41 .11 642% 2% 7% 32% 58% 4.43 .11 601% 2% 5% 36% 56% 4.45 .07 105

10% 27% 63% 4.52 .07 107 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 114: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 34bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Availability of posted menu items

4% 11% 21% 30% 34% 3.78 .05 5415% 10% 19% 35% 31% 3.78 .00 52,5414% 14% 24% 26% 31% 3.65 .07 2714% 7% 18% 34% 37% 3.91 .07 270

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 6% 12% 29% 50% 4.15 .03 1,7673% 6% 14% 33% 44% 4.08 .00 67,4891% 5% 20% 31% 43% 4.10 .08 1623% 5% 10% 26% 56% 4.28 .04 7966% 8% 13% 30% 42% 3.94 .06 4583% 5% 12% 31% 48% 4.16 .06 2642% 3% 9% 44% 41% 4.18 .10 874% 7% 16% 33% 39% 3.97 .01 21,2513% 8% 16% 35% 38% 3.97 .01 8,5022% 5% 12% 31% 50% 4.21 .01 17,3093% 6% 13% 33% 45% 4.10 .01 9,2612% 4% 11% 30% 54% 4.30 .01 4,3523% 6% 17% 35% 39% 4.02 .01 6,6803% 6% 11% 25% 54% 4.22 .09 1343% 6% 12% 29% 49% 4.16 .08 1804% 6% 12% 24% 54% 4.18 .05 5181% 5% 20% 31% 43% 4.10 .08 162

3% 5% 32% 61% 4.50 .09 66 4% 6% 32% 58% 4.43 .07 116

3% 3% 8% 40% 45% 4.20 .13 60 7% 7% 57% 29% 4.07 .22 14 15% 46% 38% 4.23 .20 13

3% 1% 6% 26% 64% 4.46 .09 961% 2% 8% 31% 58% 4.42 .07 1214% 4% 12% 36% 45% 4.15 .11 844% 7% 12% 29% 48% 4.11 .13 755% 7% 14% 34% 39% 3.97 .10 119

13% 15% 17% 27% 28% 3.43 .11 143 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of posted menu items

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 115: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 35aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

0% 1% 8% 34% 57% 4.47 .03 4350% 1% 9% 34% 55% 4.41 .00 44,2020% 1% 10% 35% 54% 4.40 .05 216

1% 5% 33% 61% 4.53 .04 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.35 .02 1,4011% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .00 56,264

1% 13% 31% 54% 4.38 .07 1350% 3% 11% 33% 53% 4.36 .03 6201% 3% 11% 38% 47% 4.27 .04 3771% 3% 7% 31% 59% 4.45 .06 194

5% 45% 49% 4.44 .07 751% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .01 17,9691% 2% 10% 36% 51% 4.36 .01 7,0801% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.37 .01 14,3461% 2% 10% 35% 52% 4.35 .01 7,6430% 2% 8% 36% 55% 4.42 .01 3,5271% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.35 .01 5,5871% 3% 11% 26% 60% 4.41 .08 112

2% 7% 31% 60% 4.50 .06 1291% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.34 .04 392

1% 13% 31% 54% 4.38 .07 135 14% 18% 68% 4.54 .10 50

1% 5% 8% 39% 48% 4.27 .09 101 6% 45% 49% 4.43 .09 47 7% 50% 43% 4.36 .17 14 43% 57% 4.57 .14 14 4% 8% 26% 62% 4.47 .09 77

2% 4% 8% 41% 46% 4.25 .09 1052% 5% 8% 31% 55% 4.34 .11 652% 3% 10% 36% 49% 4.27 .12 591% 3% 12% 38% 46% 4.25 .08 1051% 1% 13% 35% 50% 4.32 .08 108

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 116: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 35bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of menu choices

6% 16% 22% 31% 25% 3.54 .05 5488% 16% 24% 31% 22% 3.43 .01 53,2669% 22% 21% 26% 21% 3.28 .08 2763% 9% 22% 36% 29% 3.80 .06 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 7% 13% 33% 43% 4.03 .03 1,7675% 10% 18% 33% 33% 3.78 .00 68,2064% 14% 21% 32% 28% 3.66 .09 1634% 8% 12% 30% 46% 4.06 .04 7942% 4% 12% 38% 44% 4.17 .04 4575% 8% 13% 31% 43% 3.99 .07 2643% 9% 13% 38% 36% 3.94 .11 897% 12% 20% 32% 29% 3.65 .01 21,4337% 13% 21% 33% 26% 3.57 .01 8,5684% 8% 16% 33% 38% 3.93 .01 17,4784% 9% 16% 33% 37% 3.90 .01 9,3614% 8% 15% 34% 40% 3.98 .02 4,3824% 10% 20% 34% 32% 3.79 .01 6,8454% 10% 15% 35% 36% 3.90 .09 1392% 4% 12% 31% 50% 4.22 .07 1795% 10% 14% 30% 41% 3.90 .05 5144% 14% 21% 32% 28% 3.66 .09 1632% 5% 6% 35% 53% 4.33 .11 66

5% 10% 34% 50% 4.30 .08 1175% 8% 14% 36% 37% 3.92 .15 59

7% 7% 47% 40% 4.20 .22 15 13% 20% 40% 27% 3.80 .26 15

3% 12% 23% 62% 4.40 .09 97 2% 10% 39% 49% 4.34 .07 121

11% 16% 13% 32% 28% 3.51 .15 853% 1% 14% 34% 48% 4.23 .11 732% 3% 17% 36% 42% 4.12 .09 1214% 7% 10% 42% 38% 4.04 .09 142

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 117: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 36aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

2% 3% 11% 25% 60% 4.38 .04 4391% 3% 12% 29% 55% 4.32 .00 43,8912% 2% 8% 25% 62% 4.42 .06 2201% 4% 14% 24% 58% 4.34 .06 219

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 5% 12% 30% 51% 4.22 .03 1,3972% 4% 12% 30% 53% 4.27 .00 55,8671% 3% 11% 24% 60% 4.39 .08 1352% 5% 12% 30% 50% 4.21 .04 6222% 4% 14% 31% 49% 4.19 .05 3704% 9% 9% 28% 51% 4.13 .08 1951% 4% 8% 36% 51% 4.31 .10 752% 4% 12% 28% 55% 4.31 .01 17,8732% 4% 12% 31% 52% 4.27 .01 7,0462% 4% 13% 30% 51% 4.25 .01 14,2092% 4% 13% 29% 52% 4.25 .01 7,5552% 4% 11% 31% 52% 4.26 .02 3,5022% 3% 13% 31% 51% 4.25 .01 5,5713% 4% 10% 37% 47% 4.22 .09 1112% 5% 9% 29% 54% 4.27 .09 1293% 7% 16% 31% 44% 4.07 .05 3951% 3% 11% 24% 60% 4.39 .08 1352% 2% 20% 76% 4.69 .10 512% 5% 6% 38% 50% 4.28 .09 1012% 4% 13% 38% 44% 4.17 .14 48

43% 57% 4.57 .14 14 8% 23% 69% 4.54 .24 13 1% 9% 25% 64% 4.52 .08 75

2% 6% 17% 27% 49% 4.14 .10 1056% 15% 9% 26% 44% 3.86 .16 662% 2% 9% 36% 52% 4.34 .11 584% 3% 12% 37% 43% 4.13 .10 992% 5% 16% 25% 53% 4.22 .10 108

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 118: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 36bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of healthy menu choices

11% 17% 21% 26% 24% 3.35 .06 5469% 15% 25% 30% 20% 3.36 .01 52,717

16% 24% 22% 21% 17% 3.00 .08 2746% 11% 21% 32% 31% 3.69 .07 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5% 11% 20% 29% 35% 3.80 .03 1,7327% 13% 23% 30% 27% 3.57 .00 67,1286% 16% 29% 31% 18% 3.39 .09 1604% 10% 19% 25% 42% 3.92 .04 7873% 9% 19% 35% 33% 3.86 .05 4458% 13% 21% 26% 31% 3.59 .08 2545% 8% 15% 42% 30% 3.85 .12 86

10% 15% 24% 28% 23% 3.39 .01 21,1638% 14% 24% 31% 22% 3.43 .01 8,4566% 10% 21% 31% 33% 3.75 .01 17,1785% 11% 22% 31% 31% 3.71 .01 9,1145% 11% 20% 32% 33% 3.77 .02 4,2957% 12% 24% 31% 25% 3.54 .01 6,7852% 7% 24% 34% 34% 3.90 .09 1376% 9% 22% 26% 36% 3.76 .09 1745% 13% 22% 23% 36% 3.72 .05 5106% 16% 29% 31% 18% 3.39 .09 1602% 8% 27% 63% 4.51 .10 63

3% 15% 34% 47% 4.25 .08 1175% 7% 19% 37% 32% 3.82 .15 577% 7% 67% 20% 3.93 .25 15

21% 7% 36% 36% 3.86 .31 144% 4% 14% 22% 56% 4.21 .11 97

6% 18% 36% 40% 4.11 .08 11913% 23% 19% 24% 23% 3.21 .15 806% 6% 24% 36% 29% 3.76 .13 704% 8% 18% 38% 32% 3.84 .10 1144% 15% 18% 32% 31% 3.72 .10 142

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of healthy menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 119: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 37aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

20% 12% 16% 20% 32% 3.33 .08 39119% 13% 16% 21% 32% 3.35 .01 37,29820% 14% 16% 20% 31% 3.28 .11 19320% 10% 17% 20% 33% 3.38 .11 198

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23% 11% 13% 20% 32% 3.27 .04 1,24718% 11% 15% 22% 35% 3.46 .01 48,02727% 9% 15% 15% 34% 3.21 .15 12024% 11% 13% 19% 32% 3.23 .07 55820% 11% 13% 22% 33% 3.36 .08 33324% 12% 14% 22% 28% 3.17 .12 16819% 13% 9% 21% 38% 3.46 .19 6816% 10% 15% 22% 37% 3.55 .01 15,28020% 12% 15% 21% 31% 3.31 .02 5,83718% 11% 14% 21% 36% 3.47 .01 12,47318% 11% 15% 20% 36% 3.47 .02 6,45821% 11% 13% 22% 32% 3.33 .03 3,03219% 10% 15% 22% 34% 3.43 .02 4,84612% 6% 16% 25% 42% 3.78 .14 10121% 14% 15% 24% 27% 3.23 .14 11026% 13% 13% 19% 28% 3.10 .08 34927% 9% 15% 15% 34% 3.21 .15 12014% 4% 12% 14% 56% 3.94 .21 5023% 9% 8% 23% 38% 3.43 .17 8826% 9% 12% 19% 35% 3.28 .25 43

23% 8% 31% 38% 3.85 .34 1317% 17% 17% 50% 3.67 .48 1224% 13% 17% 20% 27% 3.13 .18 7117% 14% 20% 16% 33% 3.33 .16 9231% 9% 12% 19% 29% 3.07 .22 5822% 9% 4% 28% 37% 3.48 .22 5416% 10% 10% 34% 30% 3.53 .15 9027% 11% 14% 12% 35% 3.18 .17 97

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 120: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 37bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)MENU: Variety of vegetarian menu choices

10% 15% 24% 26% 25% 3.42 .06 4169% 12% 27% 28% 24% 3.47 .01 40,408

14% 17% 24% 27% 18% 3.20 .09 2066% 13% 24% 25% 32% 3.63 .08 210

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8% 10% 21% 25% 36% 3.71 .03 1,3608% 11% 26% 26% 29% 3.58 .01 52,3119% 13% 30% 24% 23% 3.39 .11 1208% 10% 21% 20% 41% 3.75 .05 6224% 9% 19% 32% 37% 3.89 .06 356

12% 11% 21% 27% 30% 3.53 .09 19911% 11% 21% 30% 27% 3.51 .16 6311% 13% 27% 24% 25% 3.39 .01 16,6287% 11% 28% 28% 25% 3.51 .02 6,3007% 9% 23% 26% 34% 3.73 .01 13,6806% 9% 24% 27% 34% 3.75 .01 6,9966% 9% 24% 27% 33% 3.72 .02 3,2367% 11% 27% 27% 28% 3.58 .02 5,3574% 7% 25% 26% 39% 3.89 .10 114

11% 8% 20% 27% 33% 3.63 .11 14211% 12% 25% 18% 34% 3.54 .07 3909% 13% 30% 24% 23% 3.39 .11 1203% 3% 18% 75% 4.62 .11 613% 10% 15% 26% 45% 4.00 .12 91

16% 13% 24% 24% 24% 3.26 .23 38 21% 43% 36% 4.14 .21 14

9% 18% 9% 36% 27% 3.55 .41 115% 8% 23% 26% 39% 3.86 .13 801% 3% 18% 36% 42% 4.15 .09 95

12% 18% 23% 25% 23% 3.28 .18 575% 13% 13% 36% 34% 3.80 .16 564% 7% 21% 35% 33% 3.85 .11 986% 13% 20% 25% 36% 3.74 .12 107

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 121: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 38aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

0% 0% 10% 31% 59% 4.48 .03 4380% 2% 10% 34% 54% 4.39 .00 44,177

0% 14% 28% 57% 4.42 .05 2170% 0% 5% 33% 61% 4.53 .04 221

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 0% 5% 24% 71% 4.64 .02 1,4270% 1% 7% 29% 63% 4.52 .00 56,870

1% 4% 30% 65% 4.60 .05 1360% 0% 6% 22% 72% 4.64 .03 6300% 0% 3% 24% 72% 4.67 .03 3821% 1% 7% 23% 69% 4.59 .05 198

4% 26% 70% 4.67 .06 810% 1% 8% 30% 60% 4.48 .01 18,0200% 1% 8% 35% 56% 4.44 .01 7,1370% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .01 14,4740% 1% 6% 26% 67% 4.58 .01 7,7150% 0% 6% 26% 68% 4.60 .01 3,5441% 1% 7% 30% 61% 4.50 .01 5,8661% 1% 4% 21% 73% 4.64 .06 114

1% 4% 23% 73% 4.67 .05 1320% 1% 5% 19% 74% 4.67 .03 397

1% 4% 30% 65% 4.60 .05 1362% 2% 25% 72% 4.64 .10 53

10% 29% 61% 4.51 .07 101 2% 18% 80% 4.78 .07 50 7% 47% 47% 4.40 .16 15 6% 31% 63% 4.56 .16 16 4% 25% 71% 4.67 .06 79 7% 25% 69% 4.62 .06 106

2% 2% 12% 23% 62% 4.42 .11 662% 2% 29% 68% 4.61 .09 62

4% 25% 71% 4.67 .05 106 1% 1% 20% 78% 4.75 .05 108 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 122: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 38bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Overall

3% 5% 16% 32% 44% 4.09 .04 5482% 4% 14% 36% 43% 4.13 .00 53,2004% 8% 22% 32% 34% 3.84 .07 2742% 3% 9% 32% 55% 4.34 .05 274

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 4% 10% 32% 49% 4.18 .03 1,7723% 4% 13% 33% 47% 4.18 .00 68,8091% 4% 20% 45% 30% 3.98 .07 1633% 3% 7% 29% 58% 4.37 .03 7903% 4% 8% 34% 50% 4.25 .05 460

14% 10% 20% 26% 29% 3.46 .08 2651% 1% 6% 28% 64% 4.52 .08 943% 5% 15% 35% 42% 4.07 .01 21,4652% 4% 15% 37% 41% 4.10 .01 8,5873% 3% 11% 31% 52% 4.26 .01 17,5572% 4% 11% 31% 52% 4.26 .01 9,4613% 4% 12% 32% 49% 4.21 .02 4,3862% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 .01 7,2112% 6% 14% 25% 53% 4.20 .09 142

17% 10% 21% 25% 27% 3.35 .10 1823% 2% 5% 26% 65% 4.48 .04 5161% 4% 20% 45% 30% 3.98 .07 163

3% 11% 36% 50% 4.33 .10 644% 3% 11% 39% 43% 4.14 .09 1142% 2% 2% 23% 72% 4.62 .10 60

18% 35% 47% 4.29 .19 17 12% 35% 53% 4.41 .17 17

4% 5% 13% 34% 44% 4.08 .11 961% 2% 12% 37% 49% 4.32 .07 1208% 11% 18% 29% 34% 3.69 .14 831% 3% 8% 37% 52% 4.35 .09 792% 7% 6% 33% 53% 4.28 .09 1206% 6% 8% 32% 48% 4.10 .10 141

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Service: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 123: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 39aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

0% 2% 8% 39% 52% 4.40 .03 4400% 2% 11% 36% 50% 4.34 .00 44,135

3% 10% 39% 48% 4.31 .05 2210% 0% 5% 38% 56% 4.48 .04 219

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 0% 5% 23% 72% 4.66 .02 1,4270% 1% 7% 29% 62% 4.52 .00 57,033

4% 26% 70% 4.66 .05 1370% 1% 7% 18% 74% 4.66 .03 630

0% 3% 26% 70% 4.67 .03 382 1% 5% 23% 72% 4.66 .04 199 3% 34% 63% 4.61 .06 79

0% 1% 8% 29% 61% 4.50 .01 18,0970% 1% 8% 33% 57% 4.46 .01 7,1640% 1% 6% 27% 65% 4.55 .01 14,4940% 1% 6% 28% 65% 4.57 .01 7,7470% 1% 5% 29% 65% 4.58 .01 3,5520% 1% 7% 32% 59% 4.48 .01 5,8662% 5% 22% 71% 4.60 .07 113

1% 4% 21% 74% 4.69 .05 1310% 1% 6% 17% 76% 4.67 .03 396

4% 26% 70% 4.66 .05 1372% 4% 20% 74% 4.65 .10 54

12% 19% 69% 4.57 .07 101 27% 73% 4.73 .06 48 7% 53% 40% 4.33 .16 15 6% 38% 56% 4.50 .16 16 5% 22% 73% 4.68 .06 79 3% 26% 71% 4.68 .05 107 7% 25% 68% 4.60 .08 68 5% 26% 69% 4.65 .07 62 1% 3% 31% 65% 4.60 .06 106 3% 21% 76% 4.73 .05 107 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 124: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 39bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Speed of service

3% 5% 14% 30% 47% 4.12 .04 5483% 6% 15% 36% 40% 4.04 .00 53,1115% 7% 19% 32% 37% 3.89 .07 2762% 3% 10% 29% 57% 4.35 .06 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8% 8% 15% 27% 42% 3.89 .03 1,7755% 7% 15% 31% 41% 3.98 .00 68,8462% 10% 26% 38% 24% 3.71 .08 1645% 8% 12% 24% 52% 4.09 .04 7916% 6% 16% 30% 41% 3.94 .05 461

23% 14% 18% 23% 22% 3.08 .09 2661% 2% 5% 29% 62% 4.49 .08 935% 8% 17% 33% 37% 3.87 .01 21,5085% 9% 18% 33% 35% 3.84 .01 8,5845% 6% 14% 30% 46% 4.06 .01 17,5544% 7% 14% 31% 44% 4.05 .01 9,4676% 8% 16% 29% 40% 3.89 .02 4,3952% 5% 12% 33% 48% 4.21 .01 7,2014% 7% 11% 25% 53% 4.17 .10 137

28% 14% 17% 22% 19% 2.90 .11 1813% 5% 8% 24% 61% 4.35 .04 5122% 10% 26% 38% 24% 3.71 .08 1648% 3% 20% 28% 42% 3.92 .15 65

11% 15% 19% 18% 37% 3.55 .13 1162% 2% 2% 22% 73% 4.63 .10 59

6% 6% 41% 47% 4.29 .21 17 18% 41% 41% 4.24 .18 17

9% 16% 19% 26% 30% 3.50 .13 988% 5% 21% 30% 36% 3.80 .11 120

12% 13% 21% 25% 29% 3.47 .15 854% 6% 14% 27% 49% 4.11 .12 793% 5% 11% 37% 45% 4.16 .09 1198% 8% 18% 27% 38% 3.78 .11 143

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Speed of service

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 125: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 40aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

0% 3% 8% 31% 58% 4.44 .04 4380% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.42 .00 44,1840% 3% 10% 31% 55% 4.38 .05 220

2% 6% 30% 61% 4.51 .05 218 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 2% 9% 28% 61% 4.47 .02 1,4171% 2% 10% 31% 57% 4.41 .00 56,732

3% 9% 30% 58% 4.44 .07 1371% 2% 8% 27% 61% 4.45 .03 620

1% 7% 29% 63% 4.54 .03 384 2% 15% 25% 58% 4.41 .06 195 1% 10% 30% 59% 4.47 .08 81

1% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.37 .01 17,9791% 2% 10% 34% 53% 4.36 .01 7,1191% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .01 14,4171% 2% 9% 30% 59% 4.46 .01 7,7341% 3% 9% 31% 56% 4.40 .01 3,5191% 2% 9% 29% 60% 4.45 .01 5,8652% 1% 7% 27% 63% 4.47 .08 99

2% 18% 25% 55% 4.33 .07 1291% 2% 7% 26% 63% 4.48 .04 392

3% 9% 30% 58% 4.44 .07 1372% 2% 12% 27% 58% 4.37 .13 521% 4% 6% 35% 54% 4.37 .08 100

10% 26% 64% 4.54 .10 50 13% 40% 47% 4.33 .19 15 6% 6% 31% 56% 4.38 .22 16

1% 1% 14% 22% 61% 4.39 .10 76 9% 29% 62% 4.52 .06 107 9% 26% 65% 4.56 .08 66 2% 8% 34% 56% 4.45 .09 62 2% 6% 35% 58% 4.49 .07 107 2% 4% 22% 72% 4.65 .06 108 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 126: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 40bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Hours of operation

6% 10% 15% 32% 36% 3.83 .05 5438% 12% 16% 30% 34% 3.71 .01 53,1436% 14% 19% 32% 29% 3.63 .07 2726% 6% 12% 32% 44% 4.04 .07 271

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 11% 14% 27% 45% 3.98 .03 1,7625% 9% 15% 30% 41% 3.95 .00 68,3538% 14% 18% 32% 27% 3.57 .10 1613% 12% 14% 27% 44% 3.96 .04 7874% 10% 14% 24% 48% 4.03 .05 4583% 6% 13% 29% 49% 4.13 .07 2632% 6% 10% 30% 52% 4.23 .10 935% 10% 16% 31% 38% 3.86 .01 21,3297% 11% 17% 31% 35% 3.75 .01 8,5424% 8% 14% 30% 44% 4.01 .01 17,4474% 8% 14% 29% 44% 4.00 .01 9,4104% 9% 14% 29% 44% 3.99 .02 4,3463% 6% 12% 28% 50% 4.16 .01 7,1613% 3% 12% 30% 53% 4.25 .09 1184% 6% 17% 33% 40% 3.98 .08 1783% 11% 14% 25% 47% 4.04 .05 5108% 14% 18% 32% 27% 3.57 .10 1612% 20% 19% 23% 36% 3.72 .15 642% 6% 8% 34% 51% 4.26 .09 1163% 3% 10% 27% 57% 4.30 .13 60

6% 6% 44% 44% 4.25 .21 16 18% 12% 29% 41% 3.94 .28 17

6% 24% 19% 29% 23% 3.38 .13 978% 16% 23% 23% 30% 3.53 .12 1202% 7% 2% 20% 68% 4.45 .11 853% 14% 18% 27% 38% 3.85 .13 783% 6% 11% 33% 47% 4.14 .10 1202% 5% 7% 14% 71% 4.48 .08 140

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Hours of operation

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 127: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 41aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

0% 2% 11% 32% 54% 4.39 .04 4361% 3% 13% 34% 49% 4.28 .00 43,888

2% 15% 32% 51% 4.32 .05 2190% 2% 7% 32% 58% 4.45 .05 217

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.55 .02 1,4191% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.43 .00 56,660

4% 7% 28% 61% 4.47 .07 1341% 1% 9% 25% 65% 4.52 .03 6250% 1% 4% 29% 66% 4.59 .03 384

2% 5% 25% 68% 4.60 .05 196 4% 24% 73% 4.69 .06 80

1% 2% 11% 30% 56% 4.39 .01 17,9501% 3% 11% 35% 51% 4.33 .01 7,1061% 2% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .01 14,3980% 2% 8% 29% 62% 4.49 .01 7,7140% 1% 7% 30% 62% 4.51 .01 3,5460% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.42 .01 5,8331% 1% 6% 19% 73% 4.62 .07 113

2% 4% 23% 72% 4.65 .06 1301% 1% 9% 20% 69% 4.56 .04 392

4% 7% 28% 61% 4.47 .07 1342% 2% 4% 31% 61% 4.48 .11 541% 1% 11% 32% 55% 4.39 .08 100

18% 82% 4.82 .05 50 7% 40% 53% 4.47 .17 15 13% 27% 60% 4.47 .19 15 3% 5% 33% 59% 4.49 .08 79 1% 6% 27% 66% 4.58 .06 106 2% 8% 29% 62% 4.52 .09 66

2% 2% 35% 61% 4.53 .09 62 1% 6% 33% 61% 4.53 .06 107 2% 3% 22% 73% 4.67 .06 109 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 128: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 41bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Helpfulness of staff

3% 6% 14% 30% 47% 4.12 .05 5463% 5% 14% 32% 47% 4.16 .00 52,6744% 10% 19% 29% 38% 3.86 .07 2742% 2% 8% 31% 57% 4.38 .05 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 4% 11% 28% 54% 4.24 .02 1,7633% 4% 12% 29% 52% 4.24 .00 68,4412% 6% 18% 36% 39% 4.04 .08 1602% 2% 9% 27% 60% 4.40 .03 7832% 4% 8% 31% 55% 4.34 .04 461

12% 9% 18% 24% 36% 3.62 .08 2662% 2% 8% 20% 68% 4.49 .09 934% 5% 14% 31% 47% 4.13 .01 21,3502% 4% 13% 33% 46% 4.17 .01 8,5273% 3% 11% 27% 56% 4.31 .01 17,4622% 4% 10% 28% 56% 4.32 .01 9,4333% 4% 11% 27% 56% 4.28 .02 4,3682% 4% 11% 28% 55% 4.32 .01 7,1604% 8% 11% 18% 60% 4.21 .10 141

14% 10% 17% 24% 34% 3.52 .11 1813% 2% 7% 25% 64% 4.46 .04 5062% 6% 18% 36% 39% 4.04 .08 160

5% 6% 23% 66% 4.51 .10 651% 3% 14% 34% 48% 4.27 .08 1163% 5% 13% 78% 4.63 .11 60

12% 12% 35% 41% 4.06 .25 17 13% 31% 56% 4.44 .18 16

3% 4% 15% 28% 50% 4.18 .11 961% 4% 6% 40% 50% 4.33 .08 1218% 7% 20% 25% 40% 3.81 .14 851% 1% 14% 20% 63% 4.43 .10 792% 4% 7% 34% 53% 4.32 .08 1213% 4% 9% 26% 58% 4.32 .08 140

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Helpfulness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 129: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 42aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

0% 2% 7% 30% 61% 4.50 .03 4351% 3% 12% 33% 52% 4.33 .00 43,989

2% 10% 30% 58% 4.44 .05 2200% 1% 4% 30% 64% 4.56 .05 215

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 6% 25% 68% 4.59 .02 1,4191% 2% 8% 28% 61% 4.47 .00 56,660

2% 8% 31% 59% 4.46 .06 1341% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.56 .03 6281% 1% 3% 28% 68% 4.62 .03 381

1% 2% 21% 76% 4.72 .04 195 2% 25% 73% 4.70 .06 81

1% 2% 10% 29% 59% 4.42 .01 17,9381% 3% 10% 33% 54% 4.37 .01 7,1211% 1% 8% 26% 64% 4.52 .01 14,4110% 2% 7% 27% 64% 4.53 .01 7,7130% 1% 6% 27% 65% 4.55 .01 3,5241% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.47 .01 5,8401% 1% 4% 21% 73% 4.64 .07 113

2% 2% 18% 79% 4.74 .05 1291% 1% 8% 20% 71% 4.60 .04 392

2% 8% 31% 59% 4.46 .06 1342% 4% 26% 69% 4.56 .11 541% 1% 12% 31% 55% 4.38 .08 102

18% 82% 4.82 .05 50 7% 40% 53% 4.47 .17 15 6% 31% 63% 4.56 .16 16 9% 25% 66% 4.58 .07 80 1% 7% 27% 66% 4.57 .06 105 3% 27% 70% 4.67 .07 66

2% 2% 30% 67% 4.61 .09 611% 3% 36% 60% 4.55 .06 106

1% 2% 20% 77% 4.73 .05 109 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 130: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 42bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)SERVICE: Friendliness of staff

5% 6% 14% 23% 52% 4.12 .05 5483% 5% 13% 29% 50% 4.19 .00 52,9507% 10% 18% 22% 43% 3.86 .08 2763% 3% 8% 24% 61% 4.38 .06 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 3% 10% 26% 59% 4.34 .02 1,7643% 4% 11% 27% 55% 4.28 .00 68,5241% 2% 22% 37% 39% 4.09 .07 1612% 3% 6% 25% 64% 4.47 .03 7892% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.47 .04 456

10% 5% 19% 26% 40% 3.80 .08 2643% 1% 4% 17% 74% 4.59 .09 944% 5% 13% 28% 50% 4.17 .01 21,3843% 4% 12% 30% 51% 4.23 .01 8,5453% 3% 10% 25% 59% 4.35 .01 17,4862% 3% 10% 25% 60% 4.37 .01 9,4262% 3% 10% 25% 60% 4.36 .01 4,3552% 3% 10% 26% 58% 4.35 .01 7,1904% 7% 9% 22% 58% 4.23 .09 138

11% 4% 22% 24% 39% 3.77 .10 1793% 2% 5% 23% 68% 4.53 .04 5121% 2% 22% 37% 39% 4.09 .07 161

6% 8% 22% 65% 4.45 .11 652% 3% 8% 32% 55% 4.35 .08 1153% 3% 10% 83% 4.70 .11 606% 6% 6% 29% 53% 4.18 .29 17

6% 29% 65% 4.59 .15 171% 4% 12% 29% 54% 4.30 .09 97

1% 8% 33% 58% 4.49 .06 1208% 7% 14% 29% 41% 3.88 .14 851% 3% 7% 17% 72% 4.57 .10 763% 2% 7% 26% 60% 4.38 .09 1211% 4% 9% 19% 67% 4.47 .08 139

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Friendliness of staff

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 131: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 43aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

1% 3% 22% 74% 4.69 .03 4350% 1% 7% 26% 66% 4.56 .00 44,2300% 5% 24% 71% 4.65 .04 2151% 2% 20% 77% 4.73 .04 220

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.66 .02 1,4210% 1% 6% 23% 70% 4.60 .00 56,508

1% 7% 21% 71% 4.63 .06 1350% 1% 4% 22% 73% 4.65 .03 622

1% 4% 22% 73% 4.66 .03 386 1% 5% 21% 74% 4.68 .04 198 1% 23% 76% 4.75 .05 80

1% 1% 7% 22% 69% 4.59 .01 17,9800% 1% 6% 26% 66% 4.56 .01 7,1111% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 14,3370% 1% 6% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 7,6610% 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.68 .01 3,5351% 1% 6% 24% 68% 4.57 .01 5,7822% 1% 4% 13% 80% 4.69 .08 102

5% 18% 77% 4.73 .05 1321% 1% 5% 21% 73% 4.65 .03 391

1% 7% 21% 71% 4.63 .06 135 2% 4% 17% 78% 4.70 .09 54

1% 2% 1% 28% 68% 4.60 .07 102 14% 86% 4.86 .05 50 7% 33% 60% 4.53 .17 15 40% 60% 4.60 .13 15 1% 3% 20% 76% 4.71 .07 75 1% 6% 22% 72% 4.64 .06 106 2% 5% 27% 67% 4.59 .08 66 3% 2% 22% 73% 4.66 .08 64 1% 4% 27% 68% 4.62 .06 106 1% 4% 17% 78% 4.73 .05 110 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 132: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 43bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Overall

3% 7% 14% 39% 37% 4.00 .04 5432% 5% 14% 39% 39% 4.09 .00 53,3174% 11% 16% 38% 30% 3.79 .07 2702% 2% 12% 40% 43% 4.21 .05 273

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 4% 10% 31% 53% 4.27 .02 1,7672% 3% 10% 33% 51% 4.29 .00 68,5846% 9% 22% 32% 31% 3.75 .09 1622% 3% 8% 29% 58% 4.37 .03 7901% 2% 7% 33% 57% 4.42 .04 4605% 6% 17% 33% 39% 3.95 .07 2631% 1% 4% 29% 64% 4.54 .08 923% 5% 13% 35% 45% 4.15 .01 21,4622% 4% 12% 37% 46% 4.21 .01 8,5742% 3% 9% 31% 55% 4.35 .01 17,4781% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.42 .01 9,4181% 2% 9% 30% 58% 4.40 .01 4,3671% 2% 9% 33% 55% 4.37 .01 7,1543% 1% 7% 27% 62% 4.44 .08 1315% 5% 18% 34% 38% 3.95 .08 1793% 4% 8% 27% 58% 4.34 .04 5176% 9% 22% 32% 31% 3.75 .09 162

3% 35% 62% 4.58 .07 651% 3% 7% 34% 55% 4.40 .08 1142% 2% 24% 73% 4.66 .09 59

6% 6% 41% 47% 4.29 .21 17 13% 38% 50% 4.38 .18 16

3% 3% 11% 23% 60% 4.33 .10 94 2% 5% 33% 61% 4.53 .06 120

5% 7% 15% 32% 40% 3.96 .12 841% 1% 3% 33% 62% 4.53 .08 792% 7% 36% 55% 4.44 .07 1192% 5% 10% 31% 52% 4.26 .08 142

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Cleanliness: Overall

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 133: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 44aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

1% 0% 6% 22% 71% 4.63 .03 4360% 1% 8% 27% 63% 4.52 .00 44,1660% 0% 6% 23% 70% 4.61 .05 2171% 5% 21% 73% 4.65 .04 219

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.59 .02 1,4091% 2% 7% 25% 65% 4.53 .00 55,8441% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.53 .07 1350% 1% 7% 22% 69% 4.58 .03 619

2% 6% 26% 66% 4.57 .03 382 1% 6% 23% 71% 4.64 .04 195 3% 23% 74% 4.72 .06 78

1% 2% 8% 24% 66% 4.54 .01 17,9200% 2% 8% 28% 63% 4.50 .01 7,0871% 1% 7% 25% 66% 4.54 .01 14,1871% 2% 7% 25% 66% 4.54 .01 7,6210% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 3,4911% 2% 8% 27% 63% 4.49 .01 5,4382% 6% 18% 74% 4.62 .08 100

1% 5% 20% 74% 4.67 .05 1301% 2% 7% 22% 69% 4.57 .04 3881% 1% 8% 23% 67% 4.53 .07 135

2% 9% 17% 72% 4.59 .10 541% 1% 7% 25% 67% 4.55 .07 102

2% 14% 84% 4.82 .06 51 7% 36% 57% 4.50 .17 14 46% 54% 4.54 .14 13 5% 25% 69% 4.64 .07 75 3% 8% 30% 60% 4.47 .07 105 6% 29% 65% 4.58 .08 65 5% 2% 22% 71% 4.60 .09 63 6% 31% 64% 4.58 .06 107 8% 20% 72% 4.64 .06 107 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 134: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 44bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Serving areas

2% 4% 12% 39% 43% 4.16 .04 5442% 4% 12% 38% 44% 4.19 .00 53,2523% 6% 15% 40% 36% 4.00 .06 2731% 2% 9% 38% 50% 4.33 .05 271

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 4% 11% 33% 50% 4.25 .02 1,7442% 4% 11% 33% 51% 4.27 .00 67,6342% 7% 25% 35% 29% 3.81 .08 1612% 4% 8% 30% 56% 4.34 .03 7852% 3% 10% 34% 51% 4.31 .04 4543% 5% 14% 39% 38% 4.04 .06 2571% 1% 5% 34% 59% 4.48 .08 873% 5% 12% 35% 46% 4.16 .01 21,4082% 4% 11% 37% 47% 4.24 .01 8,5402% 3% 10% 31% 54% 4.32 .01 17,2402% 3% 9% 30% 56% 4.36 .01 9,3321% 3% 8% 32% 56% 4.40 .01 4,3221% 3% 10% 34% 52% 4.32 .01 6,6652% 2% 7% 28% 61% 4.43 .08 1273% 6% 14% 41% 36% 4.01 .08 1743% 4% 9% 27% 58% 4.35 .04 5122% 7% 25% 35% 29% 3.81 .08 1612% 2% 6% 29% 62% 4.48 .10 661% 4% 6% 43% 45% 4.28 .08 1152% 5% 29% 64% 4.53 .10 58

7% 47% 47% 4.33 .21 15 7% 43% 50% 4.43 .17 14

3% 7% 7% 29% 54% 4.25 .11 921% 3% 8% 41% 47% 4.31 .08 1182% 5% 16% 35% 42% 4.10 .11 83

3% 5% 35% 57% 4.47 .08 772% 2% 11% 35% 51% 4.32 .08 1213% 3% 14% 28% 51% 4.22 .08 138

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Serving areas

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 135: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 45aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

1% 1% 6% 22% 70% 4.60 .03 4320% 1% 7% 28% 63% 4.52 .00 43,9891% 1% 7% 23% 68% 4.56 .05 2161% 0% 5% 21% 73% 4.64 .05 216

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 8% 24% 65% 4.52 .02 1,3951% 2% 8% 26% 63% 4.48 .00 54,397

2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .06 1330% 1% 10% 21% 66% 4.52 .03 6191% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.46 .04 375

1% 5% 19% 75% 4.69 .04 1963% 6% 3% 29% 60% 4.38 .12 721% 2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .01 17,6531% 2% 8% 30% 59% 4.45 .01 6,9981% 2% 8% 25% 63% 4.46 .01 13,7181% 2% 8% 26% 62% 4.46 .01 7,3321% 1% 5% 22% 71% 4.62 .01 3,4692% 2% 9% 26% 61% 4.42 .01 5,1282% 1% 5% 18% 74% 4.61 .08 99

5% 17% 78% 4.73 .05 1311% 2% 10% 20% 68% 4.53 .04 389

2% 8% 26% 64% 4.51 .06 133 4% 21% 17% 58% 4.30 .13 53

1% 1% 9% 28% 61% 4.48 .08 1014% 7% 2% 20% 67% 4.38 .17 45

8% 8% 46% 38% 4.15 .25 13 43% 57% 4.57 .14 14 5% 25% 70% 4.64 .07 76 2% 11% 30% 57% 4.43 .08 103 2% 5% 25% 69% 4.62 .08 65 3% 3% 31% 63% 4.53 .09 62

1% 7% 38% 55% 4.45 .07 1041% 2% 10% 24% 63% 4.46 .08 106

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 136: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 45bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)CLEANLINESS: Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

3% 8% 15% 37% 36% 3.94 .05 5433% 8% 18% 37% 34% 3.90 .00 53,1425% 10% 17% 34% 34% 3.81 .07 2711% 7% 13% 40% 39% 4.08 .06 272

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4% 7% 15% 32% 43% 4.03 .03 1,7333% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.05 .00 65,5068% 13% 25% 30% 23% 3.47 .10 1613% 7% 14% 31% 46% 4.09 .04 7823% 5% 14% 35% 44% 4.12 .05 4465% 8% 15% 32% 40% 3.95 .07 2622% 2% 10% 29% 56% 4.34 .10 824% 8% 18% 34% 37% 3.93 .01 21,0423% 8% 16% 36% 37% 3.98 .01 8,3692% 6% 15% 32% 45% 4.11 .01 16,5472% 5% 14% 30% 48% 4.16 .01 8,9052% 5% 11% 32% 50% 4.24 .01 4,3043% 5% 15% 34% 44% 4.12 .01 6,2162% 5% 9% 27% 57% 4.31 .09 1234% 6% 13% 36% 41% 4.04 .08 1784% 7% 14% 29% 46% 4.07 .05 5128% 13% 25% 30% 23% 3.47 .10 1613% 8% 11% 38% 41% 4.05 .13 641% 4% 10% 36% 50% 4.30 .08 1134% 11% 25% 60% 4.38 .13 53

14% 7% 36% 43% 4.07 .29 14 7% 40% 53% 4.47 .17 15

5% 5% 19% 28% 42% 3.96 .12 933% 6% 17% 38% 37% 4.00 .09 1157% 12% 18% 25% 38% 3.75 .14 84

4% 12% 33% 51% 4.32 .10 763% 3% 9% 38% 47% 4.23 .09 1185% 5% 16% 30% 44% 4.02 .10 137

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 137: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 46aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

0% 4% 10% 36% 50% 4.32 .04 4411% 4% 13% 34% 47% 4.22 .00 44,3341% 6% 13% 36% 44% 4.17 .06 222

2% 6% 35% 57% 4.47 .05 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 9% 31% 57% 4.42 .02 1,4321% 3% 11% 33% 52% 4.30 .00 56,3041% 1% 7% 34% 56% 4.43 .07 1371% 3% 11% 30% 55% 4.36 .03 6330% 2% 8% 28% 62% 4.49 .04 3851% 3% 7% 36% 54% 4.40 .06 198

4% 32% 65% 4.61 .06 791% 4% 13% 33% 49% 4.24 .01 17,9701% 4% 12% 37% 47% 4.23 .01 7,1381% 3% 11% 31% 54% 4.34 .01 14,2621% 3% 9% 30% 57% 4.41 .01 7,6711% 3% 9% 34% 52% 4.33 .01 3,5361% 3% 11% 32% 54% 4.35 .01 5,6442% 5% 8% 35% 49% 4.24 .11 83

3% 6% 38% 53% 4.41 .06 1321% 3% 12% 28% 56% 4.35 .04 4001% 1% 7% 34% 56% 4.43 .07 137

4% 6% 44% 46% 4.33 .10 541% 2% 8% 35% 54% 4.39 .08 102

6% 24% 70% 4.64 .08 50 53% 47% 4.47 .13 15 36% 64% 4.64 .13 14

1% 16% 26% 57% 4.38 .10 77 3% 12% 28% 58% 4.40 .08 109

2% 3% 8% 32% 56% 4.38 .11 662% 7% 36% 56% 4.44 .10 61

4% 8% 33% 56% 4.41 .08 106 1% 5% 19% 75% 4.69 .06 109 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 138: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 46bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Location

2% 4% 8% 28% 58% 4.37 .04 5531% 2% 9% 29% 58% 4.41 .00 53,3971% 3% 9% 26% 61% 4.43 .05 2773% 5% 7% 30% 56% 4.31 .06 276

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 2% 7% 29% 61% 4.46 .02 1,7752% 3% 9% 29% 57% 4.38 .00 68,273

2% 9% 32% 56% 4.42 .06 1612% 3% 8% 28% 59% 4.41 .03 7981% 1% 5% 26% 67% 4.58 .03 4602% 2% 7% 33% 57% 4.42 .05 2652% 1% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .09 912% 3% 11% 32% 52% 4.30 .01 21,4161% 2% 9% 31% 56% 4.38 .01 8,5852% 2% 9% 28% 59% 4.40 .01 17,3751% 2% 8% 25% 64% 4.48 .01 9,4161% 2% 8% 29% 60% 4.44 .01 4,3881% 2% 8% 29% 59% 4.42 .01 6,9913% 1% 10% 27% 59% 4.38 .09 1022% 2% 8% 32% 57% 4.41 .06 1802% 3% 8% 26% 61% 4.42 .04 520

2% 9% 32% 56% 4.42 .06 161 3% 5% 41% 52% 4.41 .09 66

1% 3% 5% 33% 57% 4.43 .08 1173% 2% 3% 24% 67% 4.50 .12 58

6% 47% 47% 4.41 .15 17 25% 25% 50% 4.25 .21 16

2% 3% 12% 25% 58% 4.34 .10 951% 1% 8% 30% 60% 4.48 .07 1211% 2% 5% 35% 56% 4.44 .09 85

5% 28% 67% 4.61 .07 751% 4% 33% 62% 4.56 .06 1221% 1% 4% 17% 77% 4.68 .06 142

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Location

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 139: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 47aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

1% 10% 18% 38% 33% 3.92 .05 4402% 8% 18% 38% 34% 3.93 .00 44,2331% 11% 22% 36% 30% 3.82 .07 2210% 9% 15% 40% 36% 4.02 .06 219

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 8% 14% 37% 39% 4.03 .03 1,4192% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.02 .00 55,8861% 6% 12% 46% 35% 4.07 .08 1363% 8% 16% 35% 38% 3.97 .04 6242% 8% 12% 37% 42% 4.09 .05 3832% 9% 15% 35% 39% 4.00 .07 197

3% 13% 42% 43% 4.25 .09 792% 7% 18% 37% 37% 4.00 .01 17,8802% 8% 18% 40% 31% 3.91 .01 7,0872% 7% 16% 36% 40% 4.05 .01 14,0922% 6% 15% 37% 40% 4.07 .01 7,5982% 7% 16% 38% 38% 4.04 .02 3,5202% 7% 17% 37% 38% 4.02 .01 5,6246% 4% 18% 29% 44% 4.01 .12 853% 9% 16% 32% 40% 3.96 .10 1312% 9% 16% 34% 38% 3.97 .05 3961% 6% 12% 46% 35% 4.07 .08 1364% 2% 19% 35% 40% 4.06 .14 523% 11% 10% 38% 38% 3.97 .11 100

2% 16% 40% 42% 4.22 .11 50 13% 53% 33% 4.20 .17 15 7% 36% 57% 4.43 .23 14

4% 4% 22% 36% 34% 3.92 .12 763% 9% 18% 34% 36% 3.92 .10 108

9% 12% 41% 38% 4.08 .11 662% 8% 11% 40% 39% 4.06 .13 622% 5% 11% 41% 41% 4.14 .09 1051% 9% 6% 34% 49% 4.21 .09 108

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 140: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 47bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Layout of facility

1% 2% 7% 34% 56% 4.41 .03 5532% 3% 11% 35% 48% 4.26 .00 53,3401% 1% 9% 35% 54% 4.38 .05 2771% 2% 5% 34% 57% 4.44 .05 276

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 3% 11% 34% 50% 4.27 .02 1,7692% 4% 12% 34% 47% 4.22 .00 67,8871% 7% 12% 36% 44% 4.16 .07 1612% 3% 10% 32% 52% 4.28 .03 7931% 3% 13% 33% 50% 4.29 .04 4602% 2% 11% 36% 49% 4.29 .05 2641% 4% 10% 37% 47% 4.25 .09 912% 4% 13% 35% 44% 4.15 .01 21,3772% 3% 13% 37% 46% 4.23 .01 8,5422% 4% 12% 33% 49% 4.24 .01 17,1852% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.23 .01 9,3312% 3% 11% 34% 51% 4.28 .01 4,3712% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.27 .01 6,9822% 2% 11% 28% 57% 4.35 .09 992% 2% 11% 36% 49% 4.28 .07 1802% 4% 9% 29% 56% 4.32 .04 5171% 7% 12% 36% 44% 4.16 .07 1615% 2% 18% 32% 44% 4.09 .13 663% 2% 10% 36% 48% 4.24 .09 1162% 3% 12% 34% 48% 4.24 .12 58

6% 53% 41% 4.35 .15 17 13% 6% 31% 50% 4.19 .26 16

2% 1% 11% 46% 40% 4.21 .09 942% 3% 22% 34% 39% 4.08 .09 1191% 2% 11% 37% 49% 4.30 .09 84

6% 9% 31% 53% 4.31 .10 77 1% 13% 35% 51% 4.36 .07 121

1% 3% 7% 33% 56% 4.39 .07 143 . . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Layout of facility

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 141: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 48aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

1% 6% 16% 38% 38% 4.06 .05 4402% 8% 20% 37% 33% 3.91 .00 44,0961% 6% 20% 35% 36% 3.99 .07 2201% 6% 12% 40% 40% 4.14 .06 220

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 6% 15% 36% 42% 4.11 .03 1,4182% 6% 17% 36% 39% 4.04 .00 55,852

7% 13% 41% 39% 4.12 .08 1352% 6% 17% 35% 40% 4.06 .04 6261% 7% 13% 38% 41% 4.11 .05 3831% 5% 14% 36% 44% 4.17 .07 1961% 6% 10% 27% 55% 4.28 .11 782% 6% 18% 36% 39% 4.04 .01 17,7912% 8% 19% 39% 32% 3.91 .01 7,0652% 6% 16% 35% 41% 4.08 .01 14,1432% 6% 15% 36% 41% 4.09 .01 7,6211% 5% 14% 38% 41% 4.12 .02 3,5102% 7% 17% 36% 38% 4.02 .01 5,6303% 5% 15% 30% 46% 4.10 .11 921% 6% 13% 35% 45% 4.18 .08 1302% 6% 15% 35% 42% 4.08 .05 394

7% 13% 41% 39% 4.12 .08 1352% 6% 17% 37% 39% 4.06 .13 541% 6% 16% 42% 36% 4.05 .09 101

4% 15% 23% 58% 4.35 .13 48 7% 7% 47% 40% 4.20 .22 15

7% 13% 20% 60% 4.13 .35 153% 4% 26% 29% 39% 3.97 .12 772% 9% 13% 40% 36% 3.99 .10 1082% 3% 15% 39% 41% 4.15 .11 662% 2% 16% 41% 39% 4.15 .11 61

5% 15% 41% 40% 4.15 .08 1061% 8% 10% 33% 47% 4.18 .09 108

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 142: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 48bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Appearance

1% 2% 9% 32% 55% 4.38 .04 5491% 3% 11% 36% 49% 4.28 .00 53,1332% 2% 8% 32% 56% 4.37 .05 2751% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.39 .05 274

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 3% 9% 34% 53% 4.34 .02 1,7612% 3% 12% 35% 49% 4.27 .00 67,9252% 10% 25% 33% 30% 3.77 .08 1622% 2% 8% 31% 58% 4.42 .03 7881% 1% 7% 36% 56% 4.45 .03 4582% 5% 9% 37% 48% 4.26 .06 2631% 2% 3% 42% 51% 4.40 .08 902% 4% 14% 35% 45% 4.16 .01 21,3341% 3% 12% 38% 46% 4.24 .01 8,5371% 2% 11% 34% 52% 4.32 .01 17,2711% 2% 10% 32% 55% 4.37 .01 9,3321% 3% 9% 33% 54% 4.36 .01 4,3571% 2% 12% 36% 49% 4.29 .01 6,9833% 2% 13% 25% 58% 4.33 .09 1112% 6% 9% 37% 47% 4.22 .07 1782% 2% 8% 29% 59% 4.42 .04 5162% 10% 25% 33% 30% 3.77 .08 1622% 2% 5% 37% 56% 4.43 .10 63

1% 7% 37% 55% 4.47 .06 1162% 2% 5% 40% 51% 4.37 .11 57

53% 47% 4.47 .12 17 6% 38% 56% 4.44 .20 16

2% 1% 9% 31% 57% 4.40 .09 93 2% 9% 42% 47% 4.35 .07 118

1% 2% 8% 38% 51% 4.34 .09 85 4% 37% 59% 4.55 .07 76

1% 2% 6% 35% 57% 4.45 .07 1221% 7% 32% 60% 4.49 .06 142

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Appearance

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 143: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 49aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

1% 3% 8% 34% 54% 4.38 .04 4401% 2% 11% 33% 53% 4.36 .00 44,0420% 4% 11% 36% 49% 4.29 .06 2191% 2% 5% 33% 59% 4.47 .05 221

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2% 4% 10% 33% 51% 4.27 .03 1,3912% 4% 12% 32% 50% 4.24 .00 54,061

1% 8% 33% 57% 4.46 .06 1352% 4% 12% 33% 50% 4.25 .04 6223% 7% 9% 32% 49% 4.18 .05 373

2% 7% 32% 59% 4.49 .05 1979% 6% 13% 36% 36% 3.83 .16 641% 4% 11% 31% 53% 4.30 .01 17,5431% 4% 12% 37% 45% 4.21 .01 6,9802% 5% 12% 31% 50% 4.22 .01 13,6302% 5% 12% 32% 49% 4.20 .01 7,3201% 3% 9% 33% 55% 4.38 .01 3,4843% 5% 14% 33% 45% 4.13 .01 5,0194% 1% 11% 33% 52% 4.28 .10 85

2% 8% 30% 61% 4.50 .06 1312% 3% 10% 33% 52% 4.31 .05 395

1% 8% 33% 57% 4.46 .06 135 7% 19% 37% 37% 4.04 .13 54

3% 5% 8% 38% 46% 4.19 .10 10012% 7% 17% 29% 34% 3.66 .21 41

8% 8% 69% 15% 3.92 .21 1310% 20% 70% 4.40 .40 103% 3% 22% 23% 49% 4.14 .12 733% 9% 13% 35% 41% 4.03 .11 104

3% 5% 36% 56% 4.45 .09 662% 5% 7% 36% 51% 4.29 .12 593% 6% 10% 30% 52% 4.22 .10 1043% 7% 8% 30% 53% 4.24 .10 106

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 144: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 49bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Availability of seating

2% 2% 8% 36% 53% 4.36 .04 5513% 7% 16% 32% 41% 4.00 .00 53,2512% 3% 8% 37% 51% 4.32 .05 2752% 1% 8% 34% 55% 4.40 .05 276

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5% 11% 16% 28% 40% 3.89 .03 1,7224% 9% 17% 30% 40% 3.93 .00 65,2223% 9% 14% 33% 40% 3.98 .09 1624% 11% 17% 26% 42% 3.91 .04 7827% 15% 19% 25% 34% 3.63 .06 4483% 6% 10% 32% 49% 4.16 .07 2614% 3% 16% 48% 29% 3.94 .12 695% 10% 18% 30% 37% 3.84 .01 21,0284% 7% 15% 33% 42% 4.01 .01 8,3964% 8% 17% 29% 41% 3.95 .01 16,4765% 9% 17% 29% 39% 3.88 .01 8,8753% 8% 14% 29% 45% 4.05 .02 4,3363% 6% 16% 32% 43% 4.05 .01 6,0083% 6% 12% 23% 56% 4.24 .10 1034% 6% 10% 33% 47% 4.13 .08 1785% 11% 17% 25% 43% 3.91 .05 5123% 9% 14% 33% 40% 3.98 .09 162

11% 20% 23% 19% 27% 3.30 .17 64 3% 8% 37% 52% 4.37 .07 115

4% 16% 51% 29% 4.00 .14 457% 21% 43% 29% 3.86 .29 14

20% 10% 40% 30% 3.80 .36 102% 13% 24% 25% 35% 3.78 .12 91

10% 22% 23% 24% 21% 3.23 .12 1152% 6% 11% 29% 52% 4.22 .11 838% 9% 19% 22% 42% 3.80 .15 743% 11% 17% 29% 39% 3.91 .10 1197% 15% 19% 24% 35% 3.64 .11 140

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Availability of seating

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 145: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 50aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

0% 3% 12% 38% 47% 4.29 .04 4391% 4% 14% 38% 43% 4.19 .00 43,7940% 3% 14% 40% 43% 4.22 .06 2200% 2% 10% 37% 51% 4.36 .05 219

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1% 4% 13% 36% 44% 4.18 .02 1,3862% 4% 13% 35% 45% 4.18 .00 53,959

4% 12% 42% 42% 4.21 .07 1341% 4% 15% 37% 43% 4.18 .04 6162% 6% 13% 35% 44% 4.14 .05 371

3% 9% 32% 56% 4.42 .05 1957% 7% 17% 39% 30% 3.77 .14 701% 4% 14% 35% 46% 4.21 .01 17,4191% 5% 14% 39% 41% 4.14 .01 6,9372% 4% 14% 34% 46% 4.16 .01 13,5952% 5% 12% 34% 47% 4.19 .01 7,2801% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.30 .01 3,4522% 5% 16% 34% 42% 4.08 .01 5,1915% 2% 9% 31% 53% 4.25 .11 85

2% 11% 30% 57% 4.41 .07 1292% 3% 14% 37% 45% 4.20 .05 390

4% 12% 42% 42% 4.21 .07 134 6% 24% 33% 37% 4.02 .13 54

1% 4% 11% 40% 43% 4.21 .09 979% 9% 16% 34% 32% 3.70 .19 44

7% 21% 50% 21% 3.86 .23 148% 17% 42% 33% 3.92 .34 12

5% 16% 39% 40% 4.13 .10 753% 8% 16% 39% 34% 3.93 .10 104

3% 6% 36% 55% 4.42 .09 662% 3% 14% 41% 40% 4.14 .12 582% 5% 14% 29% 50% 4.21 .10 1031% 6% 10% 32% 51% 4.26 .09 106

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 146: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 50bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)DINING ENVIRONMENT: Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

2% 5% 11% 34% 48% 4.23 .04 5492% 5% 14% 36% 44% 4.14 .00 53,1691% 4% 11% 34% 49% 4.24 .06 2742% 5% 11% 34% 48% 4.22 .06 275

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 6% 15% 34% 42% 4.06 .02 1,7243% 6% 16% 34% 42% 4.05 .00 65,5383% 10% 22% 37% 28% 3.75 .08 1633% 6% 14% 33% 45% 4.12 .04 7812% 6% 16% 35% 40% 4.05 .05 4442% 6% 11% 35% 45% 4.14 .06 2613% 5% 16% 39% 37% 4.03 .12 754% 7% 18% 34% 38% 3.95 .01 20,9952% 5% 15% 36% 42% 4.11 .01 8,4003% 6% 16% 33% 43% 4.08 .01 16,4933% 6% 15% 32% 44% 4.09 .01 8,9122% 5% 14% 33% 46% 4.15 .02 4,3202% 5% 15% 34% 44% 4.12 .01 6,3203% 4% 13% 28% 52% 4.21 .10 983% 6% 11% 37% 43% 4.11 .08 1783% 5% 12% 32% 48% 4.18 .04 5143% 10% 22% 37% 28% 3.75 .08 1636% 16% 22% 27% 29% 3.56 .16 631% 3% 11% 35% 50% 4.31 .08 1144% 4% 19% 40% 33% 3.94 .15 48

7% 14% 43% 36% 4.07 .25 14 8% 8% 31% 54% 4.31 .26 13

3% 6% 19% 39% 33% 3.93 .11 903% 11% 23% 34% 28% 3.72 .10 1161% 6% 12% 33% 48% 4.20 .11 831% 7% 14% 35% 43% 4.11 .12 721% 3% 13% 41% 43% 4.23 .08 1184% 4% 14% 30% 47% 4.13 .09 138

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Comfort (seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 147: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 51aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

5% 5% 21% 28% 42% 3.98 .06 3955% 6% 18% 29% 41% 3.96 .01 40,3016% 4% 22% 27% 41% 3.93 .08 1983% 6% 19% 29% 43% 4.04 .08 197

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5% 6% 13% 28% 47% 4.05 .03 1,2694% 5% 16% 28% 46% 4.06 .00 50,7196% 5% 18% 35% 37% 3.92 .10 1235% 7% 13% 25% 51% 4.10 .05 5765% 4% 14% 28% 49% 4.09 .06 3347% 9% 12% 28% 44% 3.95 .10 1679% 6% 12% 32% 42% 3.93 .15 694% 5% 16% 28% 47% 4.08 .01 16,2325% 7% 17% 31% 40% 3.94 .01 6,3865% 5% 15% 27% 48% 4.08 .01 12,8764% 4% 15% 28% 49% 4.14 .01 6,8286% 6% 14% 28% 46% 4.03 .02 3,1395% 6% 16% 27% 46% 4.06 .02 5,1554% 9% 17% 16% 54% 4.08 .12 1036% 9% 12% 29% 44% 3.96 .11 1135% 7% 14% 25% 49% 4.07 .06 3686% 5% 18% 35% 37% 3.92 .10 1236% 4% 8% 20% 61% 4.27 .17 496% 8% 7% 28% 52% 4.13 .12 90

10% 10% 31% 50% 4.12 .19 427% 13% 7% 47% 27% 3.73 .32 158% 17% 25% 17% 33% 3.50 .40 121% 7% 16% 28% 48% 4.13 .12 695% 10% 14% 27% 45% 3.96 .12 947% 9% 13% 26% 44% 3.91 .17 545% 9% 34% 52% 4.27 .14 565% 3% 17% 30% 43% 4.03 .12 925% 3% 14% 22% 55% 4.18 .12 92

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 148: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 51bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Environmentally friendly practices related to food

2% 6% 28% 30% 34% 3.88 .05 4713% 5% 21% 37% 35% 3.96 .00 47,9613% 8% 35% 27% 27% 3.67 .07 2372% 3% 20% 33% 41% 4.09 .06 234

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 4% 19% 32% 43% 4.08 .03 1,5223% 5% 20% 33% 39% 3.99 .00 60,5783% 9% 26% 36% 26% 3.72 .09 1403% 3% 16% 29% 49% 4.16 .04 7062% 3% 17% 36% 43% 4.15 .05 3904% 5% 26% 32% 33% 3.85 .07 2131% 5% 12% 37% 44% 4.16 .11 734% 6% 21% 33% 35% 3.89 .01 19,2573% 5% 22% 36% 34% 3.93 .01 7,5403% 4% 19% 31% 43% 4.07 .01 15,3943% 4% 19% 33% 42% 4.07 .01 8,2022% 4% 19% 32% 43% 4.08 .02 3,7473% 4% 18% 34% 40% 4.06 .01 6,3144% 3% 22% 25% 46% 4.06 .10 1244% 5% 25% 33% 32% 3.84 .09 1474% 3% 15% 27% 52% 4.20 .05 4743% 9% 26% 36% 26% 3.72 .09 140

4% 16% 30% 51% 4.28 .11 572% 3% 16% 38% 41% 4.12 .10 932% 7% 9% 33% 49% 4.20 .15 45

6% 12% 47% 35% 4.12 .21 17 27% 36% 36% 4.09 .25 11

5% 5% 22% 30% 38% 3.91 .12 82 1% 24% 33% 42% 4.17 .08 102

5% 3% 27% 30% 35% 3.88 .13 662% 5% 12% 38% 44% 4.18 .11 662% 2% 16% 47% 34% 4.08 .09 1012% 3% 17% 28% 50% 4.19 .09 121

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Environmentally friendly practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 149: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 52aBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Importance of Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

6% 6% 21% 25% 42% 3.91 .06 3776% 7% 19% 28% 40% 3.89 .01 39,4636% 6% 23% 25% 40% 3.86 .09 1875% 6% 20% 24% 44% 3.96 .09 190

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6% 7% 14% 27% 46% 4.01 .03 1,2485% 6% 17% 27% 45% 4.01 .01 49,5537% 5% 18% 34% 36% 3.86 .11 1155% 7% 15% 24% 49% 4.05 .05 5675% 6% 14% 28% 47% 4.05 .06 3338% 7% 11% 31% 43% 3.93 .10 164

10% 7% 9% 30% 43% 3.90 .16 695% 6% 17% 26% 46% 4.03 .01 15,8596% 7% 19% 29% 39% 3.87 .01 6,1935% 6% 16% 26% 47% 4.04 .01 12,6195% 5% 16% 26% 48% 4.07 .01 6,6777% 6% 15% 28% 45% 3.97 .02 3,0575% 6% 17% 26% 46% 4.02 .02 5,0535% 8% 19% 18% 49% 3.98 .13 957% 7% 12% 30% 44% 3.95 .12 1105% 7% 15% 23% 49% 4.05 .06 3647% 5% 18% 34% 36% 3.86 .11 1156% 4% 12% 20% 57% 4.18 .17 498% 6% 13% 27% 46% 3.96 .14 85

10% 5% 7% 29% 50% 4.05 .20 4213% 7% 7% 47% 27% 3.67 .35 158% 17% 17% 17% 42% 3.67 .41 121% 10% 16% 25% 48% 4.07 .13 695% 10% 16% 28% 41% 3.90 .12 949% 7% 9% 33% 41% 3.89 .17 545% 4% 9% 34% 48% 4.16 .15 565% 7% 12% 32% 44% 4.02 .12 915% 3% 16% 22% 53% 4.14 .12 92

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) Not atAll

Important

(2) NotVery

Important (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatImportant

(5) VeryImportant

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Importance**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 150: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

TABLE 52bBY RESIDENTIAL DINING HALL AND TYPE OF RETAIL UNITS

Satisfaction with Various Items as They Apply to the Surveyed Facility in General (without regard to any specific meal)ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP/SUSTAINABILITY: Social/ethical practices related to food

2% 6% 27% 32% 33% 3.87 .05 4463% 4% 21% 36% 36% 3.97 .00 46,8423% 8% 32% 31% 26% 3.71 .07 2241% 5% 22% 32% 40% 4.04 .06 222

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3% 3% 18% 31% 46% 4.14 .03 1,4793% 4% 20% 33% 40% 4.03 .00 58,8345% 4% 28% 32% 30% 3.78 .09 1353% 2% 15% 28% 53% 4.25 .04 6871% 2% 17% 34% 44% 4.18 .05 3804% 4% 24% 32% 35% 3.89 .07 2081% 3% 14% 38% 43% 4.19 .11 694% 6% 21% 33% 37% 3.92 .01 18,7753% 5% 22% 35% 36% 3.97 .01 7,2583% 4% 18% 31% 44% 4.10 .01 15,0002% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.10 .01 7,9332% 3% 19% 32% 43% 4.11 .02 3,6122% 4% 19% 34% 41% 4.08 .01 6,1403% 3% 23% 22% 47% 4.07 .10 1166% 5% 25% 31% 33% 3.81 .09 1433% 2% 13% 26% 56% 4.29 .05 4635% 4% 28% 32% 30% 3.78 .09 135

2% 14% 32% 52% 4.34 .11 561% 4% 14% 33% 48% 4.24 .10 852% 2% 14% 36% 45% 4.19 .15 42

6% 13% 44% 38% 4.13 .22 16 18% 36% 45% 4.27 .24 11

4% 4% 25% 28% 40% 3.96 .12 83 1% 20% 38% 42% 4.20 .08 101

2% 3% 22% 34% 40% 4.08 .12 65 5% 14% 34% 47% 4.23 .11 64

3% 1% 17% 42% 36% 4.08 .09 992% 3% 17% 25% 53% 4.23 .09 116

. . . . . . . . . . . .

YOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Dining HallsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Dining Halls# 1Dining Hall# 2Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining Hall.Dining HallYOUR INSTITUTIONAggregated Retail UnitsENTIRE SAMPLEAggregated Retail UnitsFood CourtExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience Store

Type of Retail Unit - YOURINSTITUTION

Food CourtMarketplaceExpress UnitSpecialty Coffee Shop/ Juice BarSit-down RestaurantConvenience StoreNo type given

Type of Retail Unit - ENTIRE SAMPLE

# 1Retail Unit# 2Retail Unit# 3Retail Unit# 4Retail Unit# 5Retail Unit# 6Retail Unit# 7Retail Unit# 8Retail Unit# 9Retail Unit# 10Retail Unit# 11Retail Unit# 12Retail Unit# 13Retail Unit# 14Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit.Retail Unit

(1) VeryDis-

satisfied

(2)Somewhat

Dis-satisfied (3) Mixed

(4)SomewhatSatisfied

(5) VerySatisfied

Social/ ethical practices related to food

Mean*Sampling

Error** Resp

*1 to 5 Scale, Where Higher Mean = Higher Satisfaction**Sampling Error is a measure of how much the value of the mean might vary on the 5 point scale from sample to sample taken from the same population.A smaller Sampling Error means the data is a better predictor of the overall population.

2015 NACUFS Customer Satisfaction Benchmarking SurveyDetailed Survey Results

Copyright © 2016 The National Association of College and University Food Services. All rights reserved.

Page 151: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

Appendix

Page 152: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,
Page 153: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

The National Association of College & University Food ServicesCUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

Please take a few moments to share your opinions about the food service at this campus facility. Your thoughtful and candidresponses will help us serve you better. Please return your completed questionnaire to one of the survey administrators on site, or dropit in the nearby "return box." To preserve confidentiality, your name is not requested. Thank you for your participation.

Demographics (For data classification purposes)

You may use pen or pencil. Please fill in the marks like this: Not like this:

1. Which of the following best describes you? (Mark only one)Student Faculty Administration/Staff Other

First year2. If you are a student, what is your class status? (Mark only one)

Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Other

MaleFemale

On campus (university-owned housing) Off campus

3. Gender Identity . . .

4. Do you live . . .Your Thoughts . . .

Very Dissatisfied1. In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the dining services provided by your college/university?

Somewhat Dissatisfied Mixed Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied

Food:Overall Taste Eye appeal Freshness Nutritional content Value

Menu:Availability of posted menu items Variety of menu choices Variety of healthy menu choices Variety of vegetarian menu choices

Service:Overall Speed of service Hours of operation Helpfulness of staff Friendliness of staff

Cleanliness:Overall Serving areas Eating areas (tables, chairs, etc.)

Dining Environment:Location Layout of facility Appearance Availability of seating Comfort

Environmentally-friendly practicesrelated to food Social/ethical practices related to food

(seats, temperature, lighting, sound level, etc.)

We welcome your comments on the back of this page.

Environmental Stewardship/Sustainability:

Copyright © 2015. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All Rights Reserved. CP35-0152 (C1.F3)

NotApplicable

VeryDissatisfied

1

SomewhatDissatisfied

2Mixed

3

SomewhatSatisfied

4

VerySatisfied

5

VeryImportant

5

SomewhatImportant

4Mixed

3

Not VeryImportant

2

Not at AllImportant

1

Other IdentityTransgender

IMPORTANCE(Select one rating per line)

SATISFACTION(Select one rating per line)

2. Please rate your satisfaction with the following items and their importance to you. (Rate the items as they apply to this facility in general,without regard to any specific meal.)

SAMPLE

Page 154: NACUFS CS 2015 Report - Boilerplate Part 1obs.fsu.edu/sites/default/files/media/NACUFS_2015_FSU_Report.pdf2 Fresh Food Company 2 Chick Fil A 3 3 Union Food Court (Pollo Tropical, Freshens,

Thank you for your valuable input.Copyright © 2015. The National Association of College & University Food Services. All Rights Reserved.

Is there anything else concerning campus dining that you wish to share?

If you could make one change to any aspect of the dining services at this college/university, what would it be?

SAMPLE