2012-rauf & butt

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

1/31

40 Int. J. Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2012

Copyright 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Consumer perceptions of foreign fast foodrestaurants in an emerging market

Ateeq Abdul Rauf*

School of Business and Economics,

University of Management and Technology,

Lahore, Pakistan

Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

Irfan ButtCollege of Commerce and Economics,

Sultan Qaboos University,

Muscat, Oman

Email: [email protected]

Abstract:This study empirically examines Pakistani consumer perceptions offoreign fast food restaurants. The objective of this study was to understandmultinational restaurant consumer behaviour in Pakistan and draw managerialimplications for international fast food marketers and operators of Pakistanirestaurants. The findings were based on a sample of 410 respondents. Theattributes of a fast food restaurant, identified through factor analysis, comprisedquality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation and

healthiness, location and price, staff service and staff outlook. Multivariateanalysis of variance was performed to understand consumer perceptions bydemographics and other variables. Analysis revealed that age, gender, maritalstatus, education, household size, income and occupation and price influencethe ratings of attributes for restaurant selection. Results showed size ofhousehold, age and occupation were also factors in determining frequency ofpatronage. The findings were compared with earlier studies conducted in theUSA, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and India.

Keywords: consumer perceptions; consumer behaviour; foreign; MANOVA;fast food; restaurants; Pakistan; emerging market; multinational; factoranalysis; demographics.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Rauf, A.A. and Butt, I.(2012), Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants in an emerging

market,Int. J. Leisure and Tourism Marketing, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.4070.

Biographical notes: Ateeq Abdul Rauf is a Lecturer at University ofManagement and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan. He has previously worked asResearch Fellow at Lahore University of Management Sciences, where heconducted research and taught undergraduate courses in management. He hasedited the appendices of the 13th edition of Principles of Marketing: A SouthAsian Perspective by Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong, Prafulla Agnihotri andEhsan ul Haque. He is a graduate of Northwestern Universitys Master of

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

2/31

Consumer perceptions of foreign fast food restaurants 41

Science programme in Integrated Marketing Communications. His research

interests are in the area of consumption and anti-consumption, sociologicaleffects of marketing and media economics.

Irfan Butt is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at College of Commerce andEconomics, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman. Prior to joining SultanQaboos, he was a faculty member at Lahore University of ManagementSciences, Lahore, Pakistan. He received his PhD from Carleton University,Ottawa, Canada, where he also worked as a visiting faculty. He received hisMBA from Thunderbird School of Global Management, Arizona, USA, andBA from College of Wooster, Ohio, USA. His research interests are in theareas of export marketing, market positioning strategy, product-country imageand content analysis.

1 Study objectives

In recent years, the fast food industry has expanded tremendously around the world.The global fast food market was valued at $154.7 billion in 2008 is forecasted to increase

by 29.3% to $200 billion in 2013 (Researchandmarkets.com, 2010). Thus, managersof major international fast food players ought to consider consumer expectations and

behaviour in local markets since such perceptions are susceptible to culturaldifferences (Lee and Ulgado, 1997, p.39). Particelli (1990) mentions that success in aninternational scale will always require local adaptation. This is specifically the case for

product categories associated with cultural and ethnic identification such as food (Reillyand Wallendorf, 1987). Keillor and Fields (1996) note that consumption habits arerelated to the cultural and ethnic environment of the consumers. Anderson and He (1999)contend because it functions in a cultural and demographic environment, the marketingmix (for fast food) may need changes from region to region to be appropriate for thetarget market (p.83). In this regard, researchers have examined various countries likeIndia, South Korea, China, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. One study notes that consumer

perceptions on fast food may even differ across countries as similar as the USA andCanada (Kara et al., 1995).

Previous studies have established that demographics can affect consumers patronageof fast food restaurants and that frequency of visits to such establishments is related togender, age and various household characteristics (Grazin and Olsen, 1997). Akbay et al.(2007) concluded that demographic variables such as age and income as well as otherconsumer perceptions of attributes such as price and healthiness influence patronage offast food restaurants. Oyewole (2007) concluded that gender, age, marital status and

income affect the frequency of visits made by consumers to fast food outlets. Hence,marketing managers of fast food restaurants need to give due importance todemographics when designing marketing strategies.

This paper intends to enhance existing literature on the subject of foreign fast foodconsumption by examining an emerging market, i.e. Pakistan. First, we discuss factorsaffecting consumer perceptions and their choice of multinational fast food chains. Wethen highlighted differences in consumer perception patterns within sub-groups of thesame demographic (e.g. age) using Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), atechnique hardly used in such studies before. Keeping the above in view, the followingobjectives were set out for the study:

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

3/31

42 A.A. Rauf and I. Butt

1 To examine the relationship between frequency of visits to fast food restaurants and

consumer demographics.

2 To explore attributes considered important for patronising foreign fast foodrestaurants.

3 To investigate how consumer preferences differ by family size, income, age, gender,occupation and marital status.

2 The fast food industry

Researchers have conceptualised fast food in different ways. Keillor and Fields (1996)define it as a franchised restaurant chain offering both dining and take out facilitieswith no table service (e.g. McDonalds, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken)

(p.84). Bender and Bender (1995), on the other hand, confine fast food to food items thathave a limited menu and are prepared under certain production line techniques. However,for this paper we considered fast food as the sale of food and drinks for immediateconsumption either on the premises or in designated eating areas shared with otherfoodservice operators, or for consumption elsewhere (Researchandmarkets.com, 2010).

Many common household names in fast food like McDonalds and Kentucky FriedChicken (KFC) have their origins in the USA. However, the expansion of many suchfranchises in recent years has occurred considerably outside their home country. Inemerging markets, global brands such as McDonalds (with 65% of sales overseas) andYum! Brands (with 50% of sales overseas) have been leading fast food growth byfranchising (Wikinvest, 2009).

In China the fast food industry is growing by leaps and bounds. Compounded annualgrowth rate was expected at around 25% from 2008 to 2011 (Report Buyer, 2008).

Reasons for this include a busier way of life in urban China leading to an increasingdemand for quick meals. According to Getchee Solutions (2009), Burger King plans toopen up to 300 outlets in China in the five years from 2009 to 2014 and KFC worked onopening at least 300 stores in 2009.

The Indian fast food market is burgeoning, too. India is among the top ten markets forfast food consumption in the Asia-Pacific region (Goyal and Singh, 2007). According tothe Worldwatch Institute, Indias fast food industry was growing by 40% a year in 2005(Tiwari and Verma, 2008).

Analysts have spotted similar growth in other countries as well. In Turkey, Yum,McDonalds and Burger King (BKC) have all expanded to the country of 73 million(MSN.com, 2010). Not satisfied by expansion rates in South Korea, McDonalds aimedto invest $15 million in the country in 2010 and $30 million in 2011 (MSN.com, 2010).Fast-foodrestaurantshavepenetratedeverymarketinCEE[CentralandEasternEurope].

Brazil is a battleground for fast food in Latin America (PricewaterhousecoopersSouthAfrica, 2010).Another emerging market is Pakistan, a South Asian country of roughly 180 million

people. In Pakistan, international fast food chains have increased their presence in recentyears in urban locations all over the country. One report states:

Eating out is becoming more common with people trying continental andChinese as well as fast foods. People take more time to go out, enjoy deliciousfood, and hang out at coffeehouses, ice cream parlours, parks and so on. Thishas also raised demand for restaurants, coffeehouses, fast food outlets, dessertparlours, parks, bowling alleys and other recreational facilities across urbancentres. (Euromonitor International, 2008, pp.37, 7374)

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

4/31


Horeca(Hotel/Restaurant/Caf)foodsalesareincreasedmorethan86%fromapproximately

PKR 224 million in 2004 to approximately PKR 417.4 million in 2008 (Planet Retail,2009a, 2009b). Planet Retail (2009a, 2009b) data shows that 1.9% of all retail sales in

Pakistan are from HoReCa.

Major fast food players in Pakistan include the multinational chains McDonalds,

KFC, Pizza Hut, Subway, Hardees, Nandos and Dominos Pizza. There are no local fast

food players with an expansive reach in the country.

3 Literature on fast food research

Credible research literature on the Pakistani fast food industry is virtually non-existent.

As a result, research conducted in other countries provided leads for this study. Kara

et al. (1995) looked at differences between US and Canadian cities, Lee and Ulgado(1997) explored perceptual differences of consumers in South Korea and the USA; and

Oyewole (2007) studied African-American consumers. Bhuians (2000) article discussed

consumer perceptions in Saudi Arabia. Papers presented by Chavadi and Kokatnur

(2008), Goyal and Singh (2007) and Tiwari and Verma (2008) surveyed cities in India.

All these studies provided useful insight as to how research should be carried out in an

emerging market like Pakistan.

Kara et al. (1995) discussed how perceptions of fast food consumers differ across

Canada and the USA. The aim of the study was to establish whether consumers on either

side of the border perceived outlets of the same franchise similarly or not. A survey

questionnaire was distributed to 200 households. The analysis of survey results revealed

a significant difference between US and Canadian consumers based on the type of fast

food they consumed, the place where they consumed the food and the price they were

willing to pay. The researchers also used correspondence analysis to evaluate fast foodperceptions in the two countries. Frequent US fast food consumers deem variety of food,

speed of service and friendly staff to be the most important criteria in selection. Less

frequent US customers feel price and promotion are the most essential factors. Frequent

consumers in Canada opined that restaurant seating capacity and food nutritional value

were important determinants of their choice, while less frequent consumers valued price,

novel menu items and location of restaurants.

Kivela (1997) carried out a study on a random sample of 120 households in

Hong Kong to determine how customers select restaurants and to assess whether

variables affecting the selection differed by occasion, age and income. In addition, the

study attempted to find out whether the selection of restaurants is influenced by lower

priority variables once consumers have decided on occasion and segment. The results

showed that most customers think food type and food quality are the most importantvariables. The occasion for dining out appears to be the key factor of the selection set.

Age and income are identified as important determinants. The author also concluded that

the overall package of a restaurant to a particular demographic is a key influencer in

selection or rejection of that restaurant.

Lee and Ulgado (1997) used SERVQUAL to analyse the gap between service

expectation and perception. They ran a survey on US and South Korean customers and

collected 193 questionnaires. The study chosen franchise brand was McDonalds. Lee

and Ulgado used t-test to determine the difference between the two countries consumers.

They found Korean customers have significantly higher expectations. Koreans also rate

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

5/31


dimensions of service value lower than their US counterparts. Results, attained with

stepwise regression, indicated that Korean consumers judge reliability and price as themost significant variables for service value as opposed to price and assurance for US

consumers.

Bhuian(2000)empiricallyinvestigatedthefactorsthataffectSaudiArabianconsumer

preferences for fast food restaurants. The hypotheses for this study posed that nutrition,

price, taste, speed, seating space, delivery service, variety, location, friendliness and

cleanliness were important in determining restaurant choice (H1) and their importance did

not vary across demographically different groups (H2). Bhuian randomly intercepted and

surveyed 250 respondents for this study. He used t-test for studying H1and Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) for studying H2. Research found all factors apart from delivery of

service in H1to be significant in determining restaurant selection. The study also showed

that, for H2, the influence of taste does not differ across age groups. In addition, all

attributes affecting the selection of fast food outlets equally influence both genders.Moreover, the effect of only nutrition and taste is different across income groups.

Oyewole (2007) researched the factors that influence frequency of visits to fast food

restaurants by African-American consumers. The study used a convenience sample of

400 African-American respondents and tested hypotheses regarding frequency of

patronage using percentage distribution and Chi-square methods. He also examined

hypotheses related to criteria of quality evaluation using ANOVA. The results indicated

that the most important considerations in determining service quality were hygiene,

reliability, expeditiousness, availability and courtesy. The paper also reported that

gender, age, income and marital status influence frequency of visits to fast food

restaurants. Young, single, adult males in lower income groups are frequent patrons of

fast food outlets. Busy consumers in this sub-culture group are also frequent visitors to

fast food outlets. Moreover, these short-of-time consumers are considered not to be brand

loyal.Chavadi and Kokatnur (2008) set out to understand the factors influencing the

selection of fast food restaurants in Davangere, India. SERVQUAL was used to identify

service gaps from 140 respondents. The researchers used factor analysis to reduce the 19

variables to four factors. Results showed that physical evidence, value pricing, high-

quality service and good quality food are important to Indian customers. In addition, the

authors noted that there is a large gap between expectation and perception of two

variables: assurance and empathy. The investigators also studied the association of age

and income with fast food preference using Chi-square tests. Both youth and high income

groups are said to be positively associated with inclination towards fast food.

Goyal and Singh (2007) conducted a study in New Delhi to identify variables

important in fast food restaurant selection by young consumers. Other objectives of this

research included examining consumption patterns of fast food and learning the impactof hygiene and nutritional value of fast foods on consumer decisions. The study used

factor analysis to derive three dimensions: service and delivery, quality and product. The

results indicated that young Indians visit fast food outlets for fun and change, but these

consumers still prefer home-cooked meals. The study also revealed that consumers prefer

more information related to cleanliness and nutrition.In a study carried out in Dehradun, India, Tiwari and Verma (2008) also assessed

Indian consumer perception about fast food. The study objectives included identifyingfactors influencing consumer preference for fast food and studying consumption patternsof fast food. A convenience sample of 150 customers aged between 15 and 35 years was

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

6/31


surveyed. Using simple frequency distribution, the researchers concluded that snack

breaks and dinner are the most preferred times for consuming fast food. In addition,customers visit fast food outlets for fun and believe that friends are heavy influencers inthe selection of a restaurant. Food quality and service are the top listed factors that affectselection of fast food outlets.

4 Hypotheses

Our study aimed to confirm whether the relationships and results found in the literature

hold true for the Pakistani fast food market. To answer this question and meet the

objectives of this study, we developed the following hypotheses:

H1: The frequency of visits to fast food restaurants is affected by (a) age, (b) education,

(c) gender, (d) size of household, (e) income, (f) occupation, (g) marital status and(h) price expectation.

H2: The importance consumers attach to attributes of service quality in choosing a

fast food restaurant is affected by (a) age, (b) education, (c) gender, (d) size of

household, (e) income, (f) occupation, (g) marital status and (h) price expectation.

For H2our research also analysed differences by demographics, something that had not

been explored in previous studies.

5 Study methodology

The data for this study were collected from customers eating at specific restaurant outletsin Lahore, the second largest city in Pakistan. The researchers selected multiple outletsfrom each of six major international fast food chains operating in Pakistan: McDonalds,Hardees, KFC, Pizza Hut, Subway and Nandos. Pakistani restaurants that serve acombination of fast food and traditional Pakistani food were also randomly selected to

broaden the range of respondents. The six Pakistani restaurants were Bar BQ Tonight,Bundu Khan, Cock & Bull, Gourmet Grill, Karachi Bar BQ and KuKus Caf. MBAstudents from a local university judgementally selected the respondents. The intervieweesanswered the questions either inside or outside of each outlet, depending upon permissiongiven by the restaurant management to conduct the surveys. A total of 410 usablequestionnaires were obtained.

6 Measures

Based on extensive literature review (Kara et al., 1995; Kivela, 1997; Bhuian, 2000;Oweyole, 2007; Chavadi and Kakatnur, 2008; Tiwari and Verma, 2008), we selected 34attributes of fast food restaurants for this research (see Appendix A). The adaptedmeasures fell in the nine categories used by Oweyole (2007): Hygiene and reliability,expeditiousness, availability, courtesy, communication, health-consciousness, comfort,ease of complaint and love of children. A 5-point scale measured each attribute fromleast important (1) to most important (5). The interviewers asked demographic questionsabout gender, age, income, marital status, size of household, occupation and education

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

7/31


from each respondent. In addition, the interviewers also asked questions to determine the

frequency of visit, reasons for visit, people accompanied on each visit and peopleinfluencing the choice of a restaurant.

7 Distribution of respondents

The demographic profiles for the studied sample are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Characteristics of the data set

Demographics Frequency Percent Demographics Frequency Percent

Type ofrestaurant visited

Household Size

Pakistani foodrestaurant 212 51.71% 2 or less persons 37 9.02%

Fast food outlet 198 48.29% 35 persons 251 61.22%

68 persons 105 25.61%

More than 8 12 2.93%

Gender Frequency PercentIncome

(Pak Rs. Per month)Frequency Percent

Male 270 65.85% Less than 25,000 45 10.98%

Female 133 32.44% 25,00049,999 59 14.39%

50,00074,999 78 19.02%

Marital Status Frequency Percent 75,00099,999 53 12.93%

Single 236 57.56% 100,000 and over 155 37.80%

Married 167 40.73%

Age Frequency Percent Education Frequency Percent

1825 years 174 42.44% Home schooling 2 0.49%

2634 years 158 38.54% Matric/O-Level1 14 3.41%

3544 years 42 10.24% Intermediate/A-Levels2

62 15.12%

4554 years 23 5.61% Graduate/B.A 173 42.20%

55 or more 11 2.68% Postgraduate 141 34.39%

Notes: Missing values were omitted from the analysis. 1 10 years of schooling; 212 years of schooling.

8 Analysis

8.1 Demographics and frequency of visit

In order to test H1, we performed a Chi-square analysis between the demographic

variables and frequency of visit to fast food outlets. The hypothesis was supported in the

cases of age, size of household and occupation. The significant results are shown in

Table 2.

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

8/31


Table 2 Significant results of Chi-square analysis between demographics and frequency

of visit

Chi-Square Tests

Frequency of Visit * Age Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-square 33.32208 20 0.031093

N of Valid Cases 408

Frequency of Visit * Size of household

Pearson Chi-Square 31.26894 15 0.008085


Frequency of Visit * Occupation

Pearson Chi-square 40.00241 25 0.029148


The results shown in Table 2 indicated that there was a relationship between three

demographic variables (age, number of people in the household and occupation) and

frequency of visits.

8.2 Factor analysis

For the purpose of testing H2, we conducted a factor analysis on the list of 34 attributes inthe questionnaire. We intended to determine what factors affect consumer choice offoreign fast food outlets in Pakistan. Applying Varimax rotation, we retained only factorswith eigenvalues above 1 in the analysis. Eight components explaining more than 57%variance were extracted. Table 3 shows that the following factors were derived based onfactor loadings: quality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation,

healthiness, location, price, staff service, open late, quantity of food and staff outlook.Cronbach alphas were obtained to test reliability of the factors (in Table 3). The alpha

values for cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, healthiness were all above theinternational standard of 0.7. Additionally, values of quality, staff service and staffoutlook were close enough to 0.7 to be studied. However, open late and quantity of foodhad low values and were removed from analysis. Presentation and healthiness whencombined brought the alpha values for these factors closer to the desired figure to beincluded in the study. Similarly, location and price when combined brought the alphavalues for these factors to an adequate level to be studied.

Hence, the factors important to Pakistani consumers while selecting a fast food brandwere assessed to be as follows: quality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare,

presentation and healthiness, location and price, staff service and staff outlook.

8.3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)

In order to examine H2, we performed MANOVA using the factors obtained (in thefactor analysis) as dependent variables. The independent variables constituted of thedemographic variables and price preference variable.

Results showed that all demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, education,household size, income and occupation) and price expectation variables influenced theratings of the factors under consideration. We considered measurements useful if thedifference between any two groups of a categorical variable was highly significantlydifferent (p< 0.05) from each other.

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

9/31


Table 3 Extracted factors and their Cronbach alphas

ComponentLoadings

CronbachAlphas

F

actors

Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Qualityoffood

0.611822

Freshnessoffood

0.564687

0.674

Q

uality

TasteofFood

0.584094

Comfortableseating

0.55222

Clea

nliness&

Cleanwashrooms

0.703521

0.779

C

omfort

Overallveryclean

0.773883

Lotsofspaceinside

0.503714

BrightLights

0.523099

Decorationsonthewall

0.729655

BackgroundMusic

0.734073

0.753

Ambience

Moderninteriordesign

0.764471

Childrenmenuavailable

0.681578

Toyswithchildrenmeal

0.859381

0.847

Childcare

Childrenplayarea

0.884008

Varietyofdishesinthemenu*

0.524325

0.517

Presentation

Presentationoffood*

0.584976

Nutritionvalueoffood*

0.689202

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

10/31


Table 3 Extracted factors and their Cronbach alphas (continued)

Component

Loadings

CronbachAlphas

Factors

Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.713

Healthiness

Lowcalorie(low-fat)food*

0.705104

Convenient,easilyaccessible

location**

0.592786

0.548

Loc

ation

Locatedclosetothehouse**

0.656567

Lowprices**

0.710954

0.571

Price

Pricescomparabletosimilar

restaurants**

0.730548

Politeandcourteousservers

(waiters)

0.532855

Quickhandlingofcomplaints

0.69464

0.692

StaffService

Clearcommunicationwhile

takingorders

0.519035

Friendlinessofstaff

0.65591

0.684

StaffOutlook

Neatandcleanlookingstaff

0.881274

Notes:

*ifallfouritemsofPr

esentationandHealthinessarecombined,thenC

ronbachalphais0.713;**ifallfouritemsofLo

cationandPricearecombined,then

Cronbachalphais0.64

4.

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

11/31


In summary, results showed education, income and price expectation influenced all

eight attributes: quality, cleanliness and comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation andhealthiness, location and price, staff outlook and staff service. Data also revealed that

gender affected cleanliness and comfort and staff outlook. Age impacted attributes of

quality, ambience, childcare, location and price, staff outlook and staff service.

Household size acted as an influencer on cleanliness and comfort, location and price,

staff service and staff outlook. Marital status affected ambience, childcare, presentation

and healthiness, staff service and staff outlook. Occupation influenced ambience,

childcare, presentation and healthiness, location and price, staff service and staff outlook.

8.3.1 Quality

The 3544 years old age group was most particular when it came to quality of food.

Compared to other age groups, this group gave significantly more importance to food

quality in restaurant selection. In contrast, younger audiences did not seem to view

quality as an important selection attribute. The results showed food freshness was least

important to the least educated class in society. Those who had passed intermediate/A-

levels (grade 12) were also not highly interested in freshness. However, degree holders of

matric/O-level (grade 10) seemed to have a higher importance for freshness than home-

school goers and intermediate/A-level degree holders. The highest income group valued

quality of food as a significantly less important consideration in selection of a restaurant

than the group with incomes between PKR 50,000 and 74,999.

8.3.2 Cleanliness and comfort

Graduates seemed to be significantly less sensitive to comfort in restaurants than

matriculates. Graduates were also less sensitive than intermediates/A-level graduatesregarding cleanliness of restaurants. Females, as compared to males, tended to consider

cleanlinesssignificantlymoreimportant.Unlikesmallerfamilies,peoplewithahousehold

size of more than eight persons believed comfortable seating to be a significantly more

important factor in restaurant selection. Results also indicated that comfortable seating

was a more important consideration for income group PKR 50,00074,999 than it was

for people in the lowest income group.

8.3.3 Ambience

Results showed that 1825 years old gave less importance to bright lights and seating

space than 3544 years old. When compared to their younger counterparts, older groups

seemed to have a stronger preference for seating capacity. People studying at home gave

significantly more importance to space in restaurants than was given by students enrolledin higher education. Postgraduates attached higher importance to space than graduates.

Bright lights and music were more strongly preferred by people earning less than

PKR 50,000 than they were by people earning more than PKR 100,000. Space,

decorations and interior design seemed to be greater influence in fast food restaurant

selection for people with income less than PKR 25,000 than for people earning PKR

100,000 and above. Results also showed that housewives had stronger preference for

bright lights in fast food outlet selection relative to students. In addition, self-employed

people deemed background music to be a significantly more important criterion in

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

12/31


restaurant selection than did business owners, students and housewives. Also self-

employed people, when compared to salaried employees and students, consideredmodern interior design to be a significantly more important criterion in selection.

8.3.4 Childcare

When compared to other age brackets, age group 3544 years followed by age group4554 years seemed to have a significantly higher preference for childcare facilities, toygifts (complementing children meals) and children play areas. The results also suggestedthat people educated at home gave higher importance to childcare than more educated

people. Postgraduates, when compared to graduates, had a significantly higher inclinationfor children play areas. People earning more than PKR 100,000 seemed to besignificantly less influenced by childcare than people earning less than PKR 25,000. Incomparison to other groups, government service officials deemed childcare items to be a

significantly more important decision factor in restaurant selection. Students and businessowners, however, appeared to be relatively indifferent in this aspect.

8.3.5 Presentation and healthiness

The age group of 3544 years considered nutrition and low-fat food as a more importantselection attribute than younger age groups. In addition, nutrition was a more importantfactor for 3544 years old than it was for 4555 years old. Variety of dishes seemed to bea more important selection criterion for 3544 years old than it was for 2534 years old.Presentation of food was believed to be significantly less important for 1825 years oldthan it was for almost all other age groups. In comparison to intermediates and graduates,matriculates/O-level degree holders considered nutrition to be a significantly moreimportant criterion in restaurant selection. Earners of less than PKR 50,000 thought low

calories and nutrition were a more influential selection attribute than people earning overPKR 100,000. In comparison to other occupation groups, students found presentation andhealthiness to be less significant considerations in restaurant choice.

8.3.6 Location and price

In comparison to 1825 years old, 4554 years old considered location convenience to besignificantly more important in restaurant selection. Price was also a more influentialconsideration for 4554 years old when compared to 1834 years old. People living inhouseholds of more than eight persons gave higher preference to location than peopleliving in households of sixeight persons.

When compared to people earning between PKR 25,000 and 49,999, employeesearning over PKR 100,000 considered location to be significantly less important.

Customers earning more than PKR 100,000 also thought price was less influential thandid people earning less than PKR 25,000. When compared to other occupation streams,government officials gave higher preference to fast food restaurants closer to home.Housewives, when compared to other occupation groups, seemed to be relativelyindifferent to where the restaurant is located when deciding on a fast food outlet.

8.3.7 Staff service

As compared to other age brackets, age group 1825 years believed courtesy andpoliteness from restaurant staff to be a significantly less important factor in restaurant

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

13/31


selection. Relative to males, females tended to consider cleanliness and friendliness of

staff significantly more important. Home-educated people considered communicationclarity significantly less important than higher educated people. Consumers from ahousehold of more than eight persons valued politeness and courtesy of waiterssignificantly more important when selecting a restaurant than people from otherhousehold strengths. People with income less than PKR 25,000 considered restaurantstaffs quick complaint handling more influential in their decision of selection than otherincome groups. When compared to other occupation groups, students believed staffservice to be significantly less important.

8.3.8 Staff outlook

Neatness of staff was a significantly less notable consideration for 1834 years old whencompared to 3544 years old. Postgraduates seemed to be influenced more significantly

by staff outlook than are people educated at home. Earners of the lowest income bracketconsidered friendliness of staff to be a significantly more important factor in fast foodrestaurant selection than almost all other income groups. When compared to otherhousehold strengths, consumers from a household size of more than eight persons

believed friendliness of staff to be significantly more important. Students gave lessimportance to staff outlook than other occupation groups.

When compared to single adults, people who were married considered space, moderninteriors, childcare, presentation of food, food calories, nutrition, politeness of staff andfriendliness of staff to be significantly more important factors in evaluating fast foodrestaurants.

Tables 411 illustrate the MANOVA findings detailed in the paragraphs above. Onlydata with highly significantly differences (p< 0.05) between groups have been presented.

Table 4 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with age as an independent variable

Age

Dependent Variable(I) Household

Income(J) Household

IncomeMean Difference

(IJ)Std. Error Sig.

Quality

Quality of food 1825 years 3544 years .2146* 0.09783 0.029

2534 years 3544 years .2380* 0.09911 0.017

3544 years 4554 years .3807* 0.14672 0.01

Ambience

Bright Lights 1825 years 3544 years .4205* 0.18983 0.027

Lots of space inside 1825 years 2534 years .2573* 0.1064 0.016

3544 years .4795* 0.16626 0.004

4554 years .8129* 0.22108 0

2534 years 4554 years .5556* 0.2225 0.013

Childcare

Children menu available 1825 years 3544 years 1.7735* 0.27458 0

4554 years 1.0544* 0.31973 0.001

2534 years 3544 years 1.5222* 0.27664 0

4554 years .8032* 0.3215 0.013

3544 years 55 or more 1.4030* 0.4831 0.004

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

14/31


Table 4 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with age as an independent variable

(continued)

Age


Income(J) Household


(IJ)Std. Error Sig.

Childcare

Toys with children meal 1825 years 2534 years .4531* 0.16304 0.006

3544 years 1.1197* 0.27401 0

4554 years .9388* 0.31907 0.003

2534 years 3544 years .6667* 0.27607 0.016

Children play area 1825 years 2534 years .4963* 0.16382 0.003

3544 years 1.2333* 0.27532 0

4554 years 1.1429* 0.32059 0

2534 years 3544 years .7370* 0.27739 0.008

4554 years .6466* 0.32237 0.046

Presentation and Healthiness

Low calorie (low-fat)food

1825 years 3544 years .8731* 0.22819 0

2534 years 3544 years .6244* 0.23067 0.007

3544 years 55 or more 1.0326* 0.43901 0.019

Nutrition value of food 1825 years 3544 years .7854* 0.23094 0.001

2534 years 3544 years .5787* 0.23345 0.014

Variety of dishes in the

menu

2534 years 3544 years .4007* 0.18716 0.033

Presentation of food 1825 years 2534 years .2298* 0.11237 0.042

3544 years .7135* 0.17918 0

55 or more .6528* 0.31409 0.038

2534 years 3544 years .4837* 0.18113 0.008

Location & price

Convenient, easilyaccessible location

1825 years 4554 years .4722* 0.19839 0.018

Prices comparable tosimilar restaurants

1825 years 4554 years .5647* 0.21556 0.009

2534 years 4554 years .5351* 0.2172 0.014

Staff ServicePolite and courteousservers (waiters)

1825 years 2534 years .2471* 0.10109 0.015

3544 years .5001* 0.15821 0.002

4554 years .4577* 0.20216 0.024

Staff Outlook

Neat and clean lookingstaff

1825 years 3544 years .4205* 0.15249 0.006

2534 years 3544 years .3198* 0.1539 0.038

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

15/31


Table 5 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with education as an independent variable

Education

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Quality

Freshnessoffood

HomeSchooling

Matric/O-Level

1.7857*

0.52793

0.001

Intermediate/A-Levels

1.2419*

0.50173

0.014

Graduate/B.A

1.6471*

0.49673

0.001

Postgraduate

1.5942*

0.49739

0.001

Matric/O-Level


.5438*

0.20665

0.009


Graduate/B.A

.405

1*

0.10361

0

Postgraduate

.352

3*

0.10678

0.001

CleanlinessandComfort

Comfortableseatin

g

Matric/O-Level

Graduate/B.A

.516

6*

0.23202

0.027

Overallveryclean


Graduate/B.A

.281

5*

0.10651

0.009

Postgraduate

.267

1*

0.10965

0.015

Ambience

Lotsofspaceinsid

e

HomeSchooling

Matric/O-Level

1.500

0*

0.73192

0.041


1.383

3*

0.69597

0.048

Graduate/B.A

1.420

1*

0.68869

0.04

Graduate/B.A

Postgraduate

.313

0*

0.11065

0.005

Childcare

Toyswithchildren

meal

HomeSchooling

Matric/O-Level

2.200

0*

1.06642

0.04


2.725

5*

0.99241

0.006

Graduate/B.A

2.878

4*

0.98006

0.004

Postgraduate

2.512

4*

0.98151

0.011

Graduate/B.A

Postgraduate

.366

0*

0.16873

0.031

Childrenplayarea

HomeSchooling


2.402

0*

0.99016

0.016

Graduate/B.A

2.432

4*

0.97784

0.013


Postgraduate

.645

8*

0.22933

0.005

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

16/31


Table 5 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with education as an independent variable

(continued)

Education

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Presentation&Healthiness

Nutritionvalueoffoo

d

Matric/O-Level


1.0576*

0.38548

0.006

Graduate/B.A

.7669*

0.36247

0.035

Location&Price

Pricescomparableto

similar

restaurants

Matric/O-Level

Graduate/B.A

.5418*

0.26692

0.043

Staffservice

Politeandcourteousservers

(waiters)


Postgraduate

.3233*

0.14108

0.022

Clearcommunication

while

takingorders

HomeSchooling

Matric/O-Level

1.3571*

0.68652

0.049


1.5806*

0.65246

0.016

Graduate/B.A

1.5706*

0.64595

0.015

Postgraduate

1.8381*

0.64679

0.005


HomeSchooling

1.5806*

0.65246

0.016

Graduate/B.A

HomeSchooling

1.5706*

0.64595

0.015

Postgraduate

.2675*

0.10385

0.01

StaffOutlook

Neatandcleanlookingstaff

HomeSchooling

Postgraduate

1.2695*

0.63684

0.047

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

17/31


Table 6 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with gender as an independent

variable

Gender

Dependent Variable Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Cleanliness and Comfort

Clean washrooms 2.960264224 1 2.960264224 4.150687 0.042

Overall very clean 2.156476809 1 2.156476809 4.214667 0.041

Staff outlook

Friendliness of staff 3.13611082 1 3.13611082 3.86903 0.05

Table 7 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with household size as an independent

variable

Household Size


Income(J) Household


(IJ)Std. Error Sig.

Cleanliness and Comfort

Comfortableseating

2 or less persons More than 8 .7101* 0.28617 0.014

35 persons More than 8 .6134* 0.25674 0.017


Location & Price

Convenient, easilyaccessible location 68 persons More than 8 .5686* 0.27687 0.041

Staff Service

Quick handlingof complaints

35 persons 68 persons .5103* 0.25611 0.047

Polite andcourteousservers (waiters)




Clearcommunication

while taking orders


Staff outlook

Friendlinessof staff




8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

18/31


Table 8 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with income as an independent variable

Income

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Quality

Freshnessoffood

50,00074,999

100,000andover

0.217019822

0.102406

0.035

CleanlinessandComfort

Comfortableseating

Lessthan25,000

50,00074,999

.3521*

0.15678

0.025

Ambience

BrightLights

Lessthan25,000

100,000andover

.4216*

0.19243

0.029

25,00049,999

100,000andover

.4494*

0.16873

0.008

BackgroundMusic

Lessthan25,000

100,000andover

.5409*

0.20238

0.008

25,00049,999

100,000andover

.3824*

0.17745

0.032

Lotsofspaceinside

Lessthan25,000

25,00049,999

.4941*

0.19376

0.011

100,000andover

.4701*

0.167

0.005

25,00049,999

Lessthan25,000

.4941*

0.19376

0.011

Moderninteriordes

ign

Lessthan25,000

100,000andover

.4620*

0.20241

0.023

75,00099,999

100,000andover

.4659*

0.18749

0.013


Lessthan25,000

100,000andover

.5288*

0.1993

0.008

Childcare


Lessthan25,000

25,00049,999

.7945*

0.33506

0.018

100,000andover

.7921*

0.28549

0.006

25,00049,999

100,000andover

.5043*

0.21546

0.02


Lessthan25,000

100,000andover

.6790*

0.27694

0.015

Childrenplayarea

Lessthan25,000

100,000andover

.5614*

0.28217

0.047

50,00074,999

100,000andover

.4810*

0.21295

0.025

Presentation

Lowcalorie(low-fat)food

Lessthan25,000

100,000andover

.6553*

0.2271

0.004

25,00049,999

100,000andover

.4850*

0.19987

0.016

Nutritionvalueoffo

od

25,00049,999

100,000andover

.4664*

0.20144

0.021

50,00074,999

100,000andover

.5083*

0.18295

0.006

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

19/31


Table 9 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with marital status as an independent

variable

MaritalStatus

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(I

J)

Std.Error

Sig.

DependentVariable

TypeIIISumofSquares

df

MeanSquare

F

Sig.

Ambience

Lotsofspaceinside

20.53264827

1

20.53264827

23.06768

2E-06


5.965867957

1

5.965867957

4.44134

0.036

Childcare


83.25241487

1

83.25241487

43.99635

1E-10


73.25635913

1

73.25635913

40.82763

5E-10

Childrenplayarea

114.9831162

1

114.9831162

66.56238

7E-15

PresentationandHealth

Presentationoffood

10.56176528

1

10.56176528

10.17182

0.002


15.8334747

1

15.8334747

9.543034

0.002

Nutritionvalueoffood

10.06792516

1

10.06792516

5.857223

0.016

Staffservice

Politeandcourteousservers(waiters)

14.72580506

1

14.72580506

17.83605

3E-05

StaffOutlook

Friendlinessofstaff

4.053627201

1

4.053627201

5.066268

0.025

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

20/31


Table 10 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with occupation as an independent

variable

Occupation

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Ambience

BrightLights

Student

Housewife

.4941*

0.22725

0.03

BackgroundMusic

Self-employed

Businessowner

.842

4*

0.32843

0.011

Student

.630

8*

0.2985

0.035

Housewife

.771

2*

0.36219

0.034


Salariedemployee

Self-employed

.6188*

0.29884

0.039

Self-employed

Student

.681

5*

0.29499

0.021


Government

Student

.665

7*

0.32754

0.043

Childcare


Salariedemployee

Government

1.67

56*

0.4147

0

Student

.636

3*

0.17649

0

Self-employed

Government

1.0208

0.51919

0.05

Student

1.2911*

0.35879

0

Businessowner

Government

1.21

97*

0.44277

0.006

Student

1.0922*

0.23497

0

Government

Student

2.3119*

0.40894

0

Housewife

1.3141*

0.47447

0.006

Student

Housewife

.9978*

0.29034

0.001


Salariedemployee

Government

1.02

83*

0.4179

0.014

Student

.395

5*

0.17785

0.027

Housewife

.6117*

0.30069

0.043

Self-employed

Student

1.0071*

0.36156

0.006

Businessowner

Student

.620

8*

0.23679

0.009

Government

Student

1.4238*

0.4121

0.001

Student

Housewife

1.00

71*

0.29258

0.001

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

21/31



variable (continued)

Occupation

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Childcare

Childrenplayarea

Salariedemployee

Self-employed

.8883*

0.35761

0.013

Government

1.38

83*

0.40594

0.001

Student

.761

7*

0.17276

0

Self-employed

Businessowner

1.0000*

0.38852

0.01

Student

1.6500*

0.3512

0

Businessowner

Government

1.50

00*

0.43341

0.001

Student

.650

0*

0.23001

0.005

Government

Student

2.1500*

0.4003

0

Housewife

1.0000*

0.46445

0.032

Student

Housewife

1.15

00*

0.2842

0

PresentationandHealth

Varietyofdishesinthe

menu

Salariedemployee

Student

0.243

0.12398

0.051

Housewife

.4433*

0.21609

0.041

Self-employed

Student

.509

6*

0.24996

0.042

Businessowner

Housewife

0.4796

0.24411

0.05

Government

Student

.691

8*

0.29711

0.02

Student

Housewife

.6863*

0.21099

0.001

Presentationoffood

Salariedemployee

Businessowner

0.3275

0.1696

0.054

Student

.395

6*

0.12051

0.001

Businessowner

Student

.723

2*

0.16342

0

Government

Student

.862

9*

0.28879

0.003

Student

Housewife

.5140*

0.20509

0.013

Lowcalorie(low-fat)fo

od

Salariedemployee

Student

.621

0*

0.15401

0

Businessowner

Student

.607

8*

0.20885

0.004

Government

Student

.854

3*

0.36908

0.021

Student

Housewife

0.4752

0.2621

0.071


Salariedemployee

Student

.467

1*

0.15645

0.003

Businessowner

Student

.515

5*

0.21215

0.016

Government

Student

1.0100*

0.37492

0.007

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

22/31




Occupation

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Location&Price

Convenient,easilyaccessiblelocation

Salariedemployee

Housewife

.3891*

0.19255

0.044

Self-employed

Businessowner

.4909*

0.24889

0.049

Student

0.3933

0.2234

0.079

Housewife

.7256*

0.27373

0.008

Government

Housewife

0.4905

0.29467

0.097

Student

Housewife

0.3323

0.18857

0.079

Locatedclosetotheho

use

Salariedemployee

Government

0.616

0.33122

0.064

Businessowner

Government

0.6

776

0.35768

0.059

Government

Student

0.6199

0.32723

0.059

Housewife

0.7286

0.38785

0.061

Staffservice

Politeandcourteousservers(waiters)

Salariedemployee

Student

.4047*

0.10757

0

Self-employed

Student

0.3957

0.21811

0.07

Businessowner

Student

.4652*

0.14551

0.002

Government

Student

.6227*

0.23571

0.009

Student

Housewife

.48

15*

0.18697

0.01

Clearcommunicationw

hiletakingorders

Salariedemployee

Student

.2657*

0.10892

0.015

Staffoutlook

Friendlinessofstaff

Salariedemployee

Student

.2548*

0.10825

0.019

Businessowner

Student

.3141*

0.14484

0.031

Neatandcleanlooking

staff

Salariedemployee

Businessowner

0.2

392

0.14483

0.099

Student

.2676*

0.10463

0.011

Businessowner

Student

.5068*

0.13999

0

Government

Student

.4876*

0.23006

0.035

Student

Housewife

0.3

447

0.17971

0.056

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

23/31


Table 11 Results of multivariate analysis of variance with price expectation as an independent

variable

Pricefo

rafastfoodmealshouldbe

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncom

e

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDiffer

ence(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Quality

Freshnessoffood

Lessthan200

500599

.34

55*

0.17026

0.043

Cleanlinessandcomfort

Comfortableseating

Lessthan200

600andabove

1.23

08*

0.59969

0.041

200299

600andabove

1.18

24*

0.59414

0.047

300399

600andabove

1.29

03*

0.59699

0.031

500599

600andabove

1.40

00*

0.61951

0.024

Ambience

Backgroundmusic

Lessthan200

600andabove

2.39

39*

0.83335

0.004

200299

600andabove

2.26

19*

0.82587

0.006

300399

600andabove

2.38

71*

0.82978

0.004

400499

600andabove

2.27

50*

0.84128

0.007

500599

600andabove

2.00

00*

0.86795

0.022

Lotsofspaceinside

Lessthan200

400499

.38

86*

0.19368

0.045


Lessthan200

500599

.64

80*

0.31212

0.039

200299

500599

.77

84*

0.29207

0.008


Lessthan200

600andabove

1.63

64*

0.81092

0.044

300399

600andabove

1.66

13*

0.80745

0.04

500599

600andabove

1.97

06*

0.84459

0.02

Childcare

Childrenmenuavailab

le

200299

600andabove

2.3562*

1.02561

0.022

300399

600andabove

2.0625*

1.03163

0.046

400499

600andabove

2.4677*

1.05133

0.02

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

24/31




Pricefora

fastfoodmealshouldbe

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifferen

ce(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Presentationandhealth

Varietyofdishesintheme

nu

Lessthan200

300399

.3385*

0.16907

0.046

400499

.4462*

0.20922

0.034

600andabove

1.646

2*

0.74741

0.028

200299

600andabove

1.4529

0.74049

0.05


Lessthan200

200299

.4534

*

0.1876

0.016

200299

500599

.7098*

0.31885

0.027

600andabove

1.876

5*

0.91495

0.041


200299

500599

.8209*

0.32383

0.012

300399

500599

.8455*

0.33702

0.013

400499

500599

.7694*

0.37081

0.039

Locationandprice

Convenient,easilyaccessiblelocation

300399

600andabove

1.1429

0.63874

0.074

500599

600andabove

1.1

0.66267

0.098

Locatedclosetothehouse

Lessthan200

300399

0.371

4

0.19445

0.057

Pricescomparabletosimilarrestaurants

Lessthan200

300399

.3736

*

0.1555

0.017

400499

.3846

*

0.19395

0.048

500599

.5038

*

0.24485

0.04

600andabove

1.153

8

0.68742

0.094

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

25/31




Priceforafastfoodmealshouldbe

DependentVariable

(I)HouseholdIncome

(J)HouseholdIncome

MeanDifference(IJ)

Std.Error

Sig.

Locationandprice

Lowprices

Lessthan200

200299

.4038*

0.14742

0.006

300399

.6396*

0.1643

0

400499

.6615*

0.20492

0.001

500599

1.273

1*

0.2587

0

600andabove

1.623

1*

0.72632

0.026

200299

300399

0.2358

0.13128

0.073

500599

.8693*

0.23909

0

600andabove

1.2193

0.71957

0.091

300399

500599

.6335*

0.24985

0.012

400499

500599

.6115*

0.27825

0.029

Staffservice

Clearcommunicationwhi

letakingorders

Lessthan200

600andabove

1.2687

0.65986

0.055

200299

600andabove

1.1471

0.65404

0.08

300399

600andabove

1.1087

0.65726

0.092

400499

600andabove

1.3

0.66628

0.052

500599

600andabove

1.25

0.68196

0.068

Staffoutlook

Friendlinessofstaff

200299

300399

0.22

15

0.11651

0.058

Neatandcleanlookingsta

ff

200299

500599

.444

7*

0.20974

0.035

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

26/31


9 Discussion and implications

Today consumers have many choices while selecting fast food restaurants. Thus, to

achieve sustainable competitive advantage, companies need to recognise and understand

the varying needs and wants of fast food consumers (Bhuian, 2000). Fast food restaurant

attributes have particular usefulness for marketers in the food retail industry. By

discerning which attributes matter most to consumers, marketers can create campaigns

that position their brands effectively using those attributes. This knowledge can help

those foreign or local fast food franchises that are already established in Pakistan as well

as those companies that are looking to set up a new in the country. In addition, consumer

preference data can also be useful to those gourmet or casual local dining brands like

Ziafat or Mirchi that may wish to expand into fast food operations. Current fast food

chains can also use preference information to keep check of in-house operations and

implement sterner controls on those attributes that influence consumer choice ofpreference. As Pakistan is a rapidly developing country, these consumer insights could

provide significant leverage to capture market share in a booming industry.

Oyewoles (2007) result that frequency of visits to fast food restaurants is affected by

age is in line with our findings from the Chi-square analysis. In addition, our research

confirmed Oyewoles finding that young adults tend to be more frequent samplers of fast

food than older people. This study also showed that household size and occupation were

important factors in determining frequency of patronage. However unlike Oyewoles

study, our analysis could not support that gender, income and marital status also

influence frequency of patronage to fast food outlets in Pakistan. Moreover, similar to

their Indian counterparts, we saw that younger Pakistani people tended to be more

frequent visitors to fast food restaurants. Moreover, households with threefive people,

students and salaried employees all appeared to frequent fast food outlets more than other

demographic groups. Similarly the older generation (age 35 and above), people who are

self-employed, government servants and housewives were less inclined to go to fast food

restaurants. Also people living alone, couples and people living in a group of more than

eight were less frequent visitors to fast food outlets. Managers who wish to target heavy

indulgers of fast food would find these conclusions valuable.

In the independent samples t-test analysis, respondents who were at a fast food

restaurant rated fast food outlets higher on ambience, childcare, nutrition, health care and

presentation than those who were at a traditional restaurant. This important finding shows

that these attributes of preference may determine why people end up visiting a fast food

outlet when deciding to choose between two restaurant types.

The results of the factor analysis showed key attributes for Pakistani consumers when

making a selection decision about a fast food outlet. These were quality, cleanliness and

comfort, ambience, childcare, presentation and healthiness, location and price, staffservice and staff outlook. These results match Kivelas (1997) observation that showed

food quality is among the most often mentioned variables for dining out occasions for

Hong Kong consumers. Our findings also corroborate Lee and Ulgados (1997) results

that indicated Korean consumers consider reliability and lower prices as the most

significant variables for service. Our results are also in line with those of Bhuians (2000)

study. Results show that both Pakistani and Saudi consumers feel the attributes of

nutrition, price, taste, speed, variety and location friendliness are significant in

determining their choice of fast food restaurant. We also observe similarities in Pakistani

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

27/31


preferences with those of Indian consumers as reported by Chavadi and Kokatnur (2008)

and Goyal and Singh (2007). Both Pakistani and Indian consumers are affected byphysical evidence, value pricing, high-quality service and good quality food.

The MANOVA results revealed that age, gender, marital status, education, household

size, income and occupation and price expectation influenced the ratings of all attribute

variables for selection of a fast food restaurant. Findings from Bhuian (2000) and

Oyewole (2007) concur with our MANOVA conclusions.

In the MANOVA tests, our analysis revealed that some groups found certain

attributes more important than other groups. Managerial implications for these are

obvious, yet vital. While positioning their brands, marketing think-tanks would want to

present certain attributes more vividly in their promotion schemes depending on who

they are targeting. For instance if a certain brand is targeted to women, it could

differentiate itself on cleanliness and friendliness of staff. In the same vein, we noticed

that students, when compared to other occupation groups, seemed to be least botheredabout staff outlook and staff service. Hence, marketers may ignore this aspect in

promotional messages if students are meant to be the primary targets.

10 Limitations and future research avenues

Since the fast food market in Pakistan is still small (yet rapidly expanding), it is not

embedded in the countrys culture. Lee and Ulgados (1997) research showed that the

more fast food restaurants become a part of culture, the more the promotional emphasis

shifts from brand experience to the price and consistency of quality. This shift can

become the subject of future research.

The study was conducted in the city of Lahore, which may or may not be

representative of Pakistani fast food preference in general. Future studies can aim toexplore preferences in Karachi and the twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. These

cities, along with Lahore, comprise Pakistans major urban centres.

Follow-up research may also embark on another angle of the fast food industry in

emerging markets, i.e. the influence of national identity and patriotism on the perception

of fast food restaurants. Feelings of anti-Americanism in Pakistan have been reported

frequently in the past. Further studies may intend to see whether this translates into

refraining from purchase of US products and services.

To increase generalisability, samples in subsequent studies should include those

interviewed during lunchtime or afternoon. Investigators may also wish to interview

respondents in different seasons like winter and summer.

Further research could also look at prioritising attributes that affect consumer choice

of restaurant. Additional areas of interest may include expenditure patterns, types of fastfood preferred and types of meals preferred.

Subsequent studies could also explore how various fast food brands differ on various

attributes of consumer perception of and brand loyalty.

Researchers may also conduct an in-depth study on a particular attribute like location.

This would see how far consumers are willing to go to dine at a particular fast food place

and what characteristics, e.g. income, may be important factors in influencing such

preferences.

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

28/31


We used a judgemental sample for this research. Further studies could use random

samples. Future surveys could also be conducted in Urdu, the national language ofPakistan, instead of English. In addition, subsequent studies could also survey

perceptions both before and after a meal is consumed. Moreover, further research could

look at how perceptions vary when a survey is carried out on-premises than when it is

conducted off-premises.

An additional investigation could explore with whom and when customers make the

decision to visit a particular restaurant.

Follow-up studies may also compare other types of restaurants (traditional, Chinese,

etc.) with foreign fast food brands. Another avenue for research could explore how

Pakistani consumers perceive offerings like McDonalds Chicken McArabia and Pizza

Huts Chicken Tikka pizza that are customised to local taste buds.

Finally an additional cross-national study could see how Pakistani perceptions differ

from those of consumers in another developing or developed country.

References

Akbay, C., Tiryaki, G.Y. and Gul. A. (2007) Consumer characteristics influencing fast foodconsumption in Turkey,Food Control, Vol. 18, pp.904913.

Anderson, P.M. and He, H. (1999) Culture and the fast food marketing mix in the PeoplesRepublic of China and the USA: implications for research and marketing, Journal ofInternational Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.7795.

Bender, A.E. and Bender, D.A. (1995) A Dictionary of Food and Nutrition, 2nd ed., OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Bhuian, S.N. (2000) Saudi consumer preference of fast food outlets: the influence of restaurantattributes,Journal of Food Products Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.3952.

Chavadi, C.A. and Kokatnur, S.S. (2008) Consumer expectation and perception of fast foodoutlets: an empirical study in Davangere, The Icfai University Journal of Services Marketing,Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.621.

Euromonitor International (2008) Consumer LifestylePakistan. Available online at:http://www.marketresearch.com/ (accessed on 8 September 2009).

Getchee Solutions (2009) GetcheeEmerging Market News: News and Tips for Expansion inChina, India, and Southeast Asia. Available online at: http://blog.getchee.com/ (accessed11 May 2010).

Goyal, A. and Singh, N.P. (2007) Consumer perception about fast food in India: an exploratorystudy,British Food Journal, Vol. 109, pp.182195.

Grazin, C.L. and Olsen, J.E. (1997) Market segmentation for fast-food restaurants in an era ofhealth consciousness, Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 2,pp.120.

Kara, A., Kaynak, E. and Kucukemiroglu, O. (1995) Marketing strategies for fast-food restaurants:a customer view, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 7,No. 4, pp.1622.

Keillor, B.D. and Fields, D.M. (1996) Perceptions of a foreign service offering in an overseasmarket: the case of fast food in Hong Kong, Journal of International Consumer Marketing,Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.83104.

Kivela, J.J. (1997) Restaurant marketing: selection and segmentation in Hong Kong,International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.116123.

Lee, M. and Ulgado, F.M. (1997) Consumer evaluations of fast-food services: a cross nationalcomparison, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.3952.

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

29/31


MSN.com (2010) MSN Money. Available online at: http://www.msn.com/ (accessed on

30 April 2010).Oyewole, P. (2007) Fast food marketing and the African American consumers: the impact of

socio-economic and demographic characteristics, Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.75108.

Particelli, M.C. (1990) A global arena,Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.4352.

Planet Retail Ltd. (2009a) Company profile: Carrefour in Pakistan. Available online at:http://www.planetretail.net/ (accessed on 12 November 2009).

Planet Retail Ltd. (2009b) Grocery Retailing in Pakistan. Available online at:http://www.planetretail.net/ (accessed on 12 November 2009).

PricewaterhousecoopersSouth Africa (2010) Asia Represents The Best Growth Prospects forRetailers and Consumer-Products Companies. Available online at: http://www.pwc.com/za/(accessed on 11 May 2010).

Reilly, M.D. and Wallendorf, M. (1987, September) A comparison of group differences in food

consumption using household refuse, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 2,pp.289293.

Report Buyer (2008) Report: China Fast Food Analysis (Rcs00496). Available online at:http://www.reportbuyer.com/ (accessed on 11 May 2010).

ResearchandMarkets.com (2010) Fast Food: Global industry guideMarket research reportsResearch and markets. Available online at: http://www.researchandmarkets.com/ (accessedon 11 May 2010).

Tiwari, P. and Verma, H. (2008) Consumer perception about fast food in India: an empirical studyof Dehradun City, The Icfai University Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 4,pp.8091.

Wikinvest (2009) Industry: Fast food restaurants (QSR). Available online at: http://www.wikinvest.com/ (accessed on 11 May 2010).

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

30/31


Appendix A: Attributes selected for study

Attribute

Category

Chavadiand

Kakatnur(2008)

Tiw

ariand

Verm

a(2008)

Oweyole(2007)

Bhuian(2000)

Karaetal.(1995)

Kivela(1997)

Total

Cleanliness(Hygiene)

Environment

x

x

x

x

x

x

6

Varietyoffood/menu

Food

x

x

x

x

x

5

Price

Price

x

x

x

x

x

5

Servicespeed

Service

x

x

x

x

4

Tasteoffood

Food

x

x

x

x

4

Location

Convenience

x

x

x

3

Friendlinessofpersonnel

Service

x

x

x

3

Ambience

Environment

x

x

x

3

Qualityoffood

Food

x

x

x

3

Parkingspace/facility

Convenience

x

x

2

Deliveryservice

Delivery

x

x

2

Seatingcapacity/facilities

Environment

x

x

2

Comforts

Other

x

x

2

Billing

Billing

x

1

Creditcards

Billing

x

1

Serviceestablishment

BrandName

x

1

Prestige

BrandName

x

1

Loveofchildren

Children

x

1

Noveltiesforchildren

Children

x

1

Easeofcomplaint

Service

x

1

Nearness

Convenience

x

1

Homedelivery

Delivery

x

1

8/13/2019 2012-Rauf & Butt

31/31


Appendix A: Attributes selected for study (continued)

Attribute

Category

Chavadiand

Kakatnur(2008)

Tiw

ariand

Verm

a(2008)

Oweyole(2007)

Bhuian(2000)

Karaetal.(1995)

Kivela(1997)

Total

Communication

Service

x

1

Courtesy

Service

x

1

Employeebehaviour

Service

x

1

Expeditiousness

Service

x

1

Promptservice

Service

x

1

Seatingarrangement

Environment

x

1

Novelties

Food

x

1

Nutrition

Food

x

1

Caloriecontent

Food

x

1

Health-consciousness

Food

x

1

Businesshours

Hours

x

1

Earlyopening

Hours

x

1

Availability

Other

x

1

Coupons

Other

x

1

Orderliness

Other

x

1

Packaging

Other

x

1

Reliability

Other

x

1

Takingorderoverphone

Other

x

1

Convenience

Other

x

1

Newexperience

Other

x

1

Competentwaiting

Service

x

1

Prompthandlingof

complaint(s)

Service

x

1

2012-rauf & butt

Documents