restaurateurs' perceptions of wine supplier attributes

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]On: 11 November 2014, At: 12:43Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of FoodserviceBusiness ResearchPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfbr20

Restaurateurs' Perceptions ofWine Supplier AttributesTim H. Dodd PhD a , Mark M. Gultek PhD b &Raymond M. Guydosh PhD ba Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute ,Texas Tech University , Box 41162, Lubbock, TX,79409-1164, USAb Plattsburgh State University of New York,Department of Hotel, Restaurant and TourismManagement , Sibley Hall 403, 101 Broad Street,Plattsburgh, NY, 12901, USAPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Tim H. Dodd PhD , Mark M. Gultek PhD & Raymond M. GuydoshPhD (2004) Restaurateurs' Perceptions of Wine Supplier Attributes, Journal ofFoodservice Business Research, 7:3, 73-92, DOI: 10.1300/J369v07n03_06

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J369v07n03_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfbr20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1300/J369v07n03_06

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J369v07n03_06

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Restaurateurs’ Perceptionsof Wine Supplier Attributes

Tim H. DoddMark M. Gultek

Raymond M. Guydosh

ABSTRACT. Wine is an important profit center for many restaurantsand the relationship with a wine supplier can be crucial. Restaurant man-agers need a good wine supplier to make sure their wine is delivered ingood condition and that a good relationship is established. The purposeof this study is to examine the attributes considered most important intheir attitudes towards their suppliers. A study of 152 licensed restau-rants in Texas found that restaurant managers consider the reliability ofthe supplier, the knowledge they possess, and the possibility of dis-counts to be the most important attributes. The research can help suppli-ers such as distributors and wineries focus on the special needs ofrestaurants. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Deliv-ery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. Allrights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Wine, restaurants, distributors, suppliers, attitudes

Tim H. Dodd, PhD, is Director, Texas Wine Marketing Research Institute, TexasTech University, Box 41162, Lubbock, TX 79409-1164.

Mark M. Gultek, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Plattsburgh State University of NewYork, Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, Sibley Hall 403, 101Broad Street, Plattsburgh, NY 12901.

Raymond M. Guydosh, PhD, is Associate Professor, Plattsburgh State University ofNew York, Department of Hotel, Restaurant and Tourism Management, Sibley Hall403, 101 Broad Street, Plattsburgh, NY 12901.

Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 7(3) 2004Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JFBR

© 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J369v07n03_06 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

INTRODUCTION

Restaurants rely on an efficient supply of various goods and servicesin order to function profitably. These goods and services come from nu-merous suppliers who are integral to the success of their establishment.Suppliers differ significantly with respect to the products they provide,their size, and the types of services that they have. However, they are allgenerally interested in developing a long-term relationship (Mawsonand Fearne, 1997).

In recent years, researchers have given greater attention to the rela-tionship between retailers and wholesalers (Burkink, 2002). Studies ad-dressing this relationship have been undertaken in several industriesincluding hotels (Telfer and Wall, 2000) and in restaurants (Brownelland Reynolds, 2002).

The development of a good relationship between the supplier and therestaurant manager is likely to be important to the success of both busi-nesses. Efforts to develop a strategy to deal with this relationship can en-sure they move away from a simple transactional marketing relationshipinto one that can potentially have longer term benefits (Coviello andBrodie, 1998). Relationship marketing and the development of customerloyalty has become a cornerstone for service related businesses (Love-lock and Wirtz, 2004). However, a clear knowledge of what each partywants and the choice of the correct partner is needed to make sure that thisrelationship has the best chance of success (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996).

The relationship that is established between the supplier and the res-taurant manager and the people that provide the food, beverage, andother items necessary for the efficient running of the business can meansuccess or failure for both businesses. A good relationship between res-taurateurs and their suppliers is important for a variety of reasons. Sup-pliers rely on the relationship to ensure that they are selected over avariety of competitors, and restaurant managers want to ensure they re-ceive the necessary products in a timely and cost effective manner. Ifthe relationship between a restaurant and food, beverage, or other sup-pliers is not effective, both businesses potentially suffer.

The wine industry in particular relies heavily on a strong relationshipwith restaurant buyers (Lockshin and McDougall, 1998). There is enor-mous sales potential for wine companies to develop the restaurant mar-ket and the two industries can increase their respective sales by helpingeach other. Wine, beer, and spirit providers regularly visit restaurants,partly because of the constant introduction of new products and man-agement turnover. However, these suppliers need to understand the

74 JOURNAL OF FOODSERVICE BUSINESS RESEARCH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

needs and preferences of restaurateurs and understand how to assurethat these are met in order to establish and maintain strong relationships.

Wine suppliers can play an important role in serving the needs of res-taurants in a variety of ways. For instance, they may help promote wine,train employees, provide serving and pricing suggestions, or assesswhich wines would go best with the restaurant’s food. Although therehave been numerous studies related to business alliances and relationships(Dev and Klein, 1993; Lambert, Adams, and Emmelhainz, 1997; Shaniand Chalasani, 1992), no published research has been conducted that hasasked restaurateurs about which attributes of wine suppliers they believeare most important. Nor has the relationship between wine supplier andrestaurant buyer been investigated fully enough to understand the variousattributes associated with perceptions of quality wine supplier service.The purpose of this study is to examine the attributes that influence res-taurateurs’ attitudes toward wine suppliers.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Buyer/Seller Relationship

Many firms have recently changed their approach to purchasing as ameans to lower costs and improve quality and productivity (Griffin,1990). Rather than developing antagonistic attitudes between the buyerand seller, the trend seems to be moving toward more cooperative andlong term-oriented relations (Kotler, Bowen, and Makens, 2003). Therelationship between two businesses no longer needs to be consideredas adversarial.

Salkin (1991) stated that food service suppliers and restaurant man-agers must work together in order to reduce product costs. The authoralso suggested that attacking supplier’s profit margins is not the way tolower costs in restaurants. In fact, price was fifth on the list of prioritiesfor supplier selection following reliability, rapport, working together,and sharing information. Reliability-delivering the right product on theright day at the right time-was the primary concern for restaurants.

Larson (1994) investigated the link between buyer-supplier co-oper-ation and product quality and total cost based on the responses frommore than five hundred purchasing professionals. The results of thestudy linked buyer-supplier cooperation to higher product quality andlower total costs. Because purchasing and logistics are functions of

Refereed 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

interorganizational impact, they must take a leadership role in develop-ing higher levels of buyer-supplier co-operation (Larson, 1994).

The new relationship between buyer and supplier has been labeled apartnership by some researchers. To create successful partnerships be-tween buyers and suppliers, long-term relations have to be established.Strauss (1999) noted that developing strong personal relationships basedon trust and full disclosure are the keys to successful long-term partner-ships.

Dronkers (1995) emphasized how restaurants and their suppliers shouldseek partnerships to increase their sales. He suggested that to develop atrue partnership between buyer and supplier, both should be open andhonest about their needs. Problems arise when both parties may havebeen unspecific about their particular needs. As a result, neither side un-derstands what the other wants, and the relationship breaks down.

Kotschevar and Donnelly (1999) discussed the importance of devel-oping the purchase specifications in a foodservice operation. The au-thors suggested that before a purchase can be made, a buyer must beable to specify to the supplier exactly what is wanted, and there are threekinds of specifications: internal, purchase, and general specifications.

Internal specifications are used only within an operation and are de-rived from menu offerings. These specifications give employees all theinformation needed to indicate what is required to provide a satisfactoryproduct. Purchase specifications are derived from internal product speci-fications but differ in that they list factors needed in a product so supplierscan quote on the right product to be delivered. General specifications de-fine business conditions that are required for the overall purchasing activ-ity, such as delivery times and frequency, delivery conditions and paymentarrangements. Therefore, developing purchase specifications is a signifi-cant step in creating effective communication between a buyer and sup-plier.

Campbell (1997) noted that understanding each side’s perspective isimportant in the buyer-supplier relationship because when firms under-stand and appreciate each other’s viewpoints, they are able to arrive at aworking consensus and manage their partnership model more effectively.In this context, it is useful for managers to understand the attitudes andexpectations buyers and suppliers bring to their “partnerships.” Clearly,effective communication is one of the important variables in a buyer-seller relationship.

A true partnership, however, may not always be possible to achieve.In this case, a buyer must make a decision to choose between using a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

single supplier with possible partnership opportunities and using a largearray of suppliers with fewer opportunities for partnerships.

Quayle (1995) discussed the positive and negative factors involvingthis decision. The likely benefits of using a single supplier are reducingadministrative complexity due to the repetitive nature of ordering fromthe same supplier, obtaining more access to supplier’s market informa-tion, making prompt deliveries, and assuring quality control. The disad-vantage of using a single supplier is the possibility of increasing thebuyer’s reliance on specific suppliers.

On the other hand, using a large array of suppliers increases the chancesfor obtaining lower prices, more variety, and better service. The disadvan-tages of using a large array of suppliers included increased bookkeepingcosts, less chances for prompt deliveries, and higher chances for inconsis-tent product quality.

In order to avoid either of the two extremes of purchasing from a singlesupplier or purchasing from a large array of suppliers, Quayle (1995) sug-gested the strategy of splitting purchases between two suppliers; one be-ing the major supplier and the other being the secondary with merely anominal order quantity. This way a buyer can reduce dependence on ei-ther source by having orders balanced between suppliers and still beingable to negotiate better prices and service.

Zaccarelli and Hayes (1994) indicated that the more suppliers a buyeruses, the more time is spent coordinating purchases. Ordering, receiving,paying, and evaluating take up time that could be more effectively used inother ways. Clearly, whatever strategy is used, both approaches have theiradvantages and disadvantages, and neither is necessarily better than theother. Therefore, there is not a single suitable strategy for every restaurantwhen choosing a supplier. Each restaurant develops its own approach de-pending on the type of operation and the market in which it operates.

The criteria that restaurants should consider when selecting a supplierare also critical. Corell (1992) suggested buyers should rank characteris-tics based on quality, service and price when evaluating suppliers. Coltman(1990) suggested that a supplier must be selected using several criteria.The buyer should consider the supplier’s overall reputation, reliability,quality consistency, and delivery consistency.

Important Attributes

The selection of a supplier is an elaborate and a critical decision forthe successful functioning of a food service operation, and good coordi-nation and cooperation between buyer and supplier are essential. Reid

Refereed 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and Riegel (1989) examined the purchasing practices of large foods-ervice organizations. The authors concluded that the most important at-tributes when selecting a supplier were accurate and timely delivery,consistent quality at reasonable prices, and supplier willingness to worktogether with the buyer. Other attributes that respondents considered tobe important were bulk discounts, frequency of delivery, and knowl-edge of sales staff. Strauss (1999) indicated that trust, education, famil-iarity between the buyer and supplier, and speed were critical in thedevelopment of long-term relationships.

Another area that should be explored when considering attributeshaving an impact on supplier selection is how purchasing is handled byrestaurant chains. Some chains make all purchasing decisions at themain headquarters (Mawson and Fearne, 1997). In other words, indi-vidual units do not always have a say in what items or brands are pur-chased. This may have a major impact on wine sales in certain areaswhere a local product is popular with customers, but is not on the menu.For example, a restaurant’s menu may only include European wines,whereas some of the customers of that region may prefer certain re-gional wines. This may create a problem in terms of supplier selection.

An additional topic that should be examined when it comes to inves-tigating the buyer-supplier relationship is to what extent suppliers’ salesrepresentatives are helping restaurant operators become more knowl-edgeable about wine sales. Many restaurants send their food and bever-age employees to training seminars to enhance their knowledge onwine. Perhaps restaurants can keep the cost of sending their employeesto such events at a modest level if they partner with suppliers, who notonly can invest in such efforts but also can host seminars themselves.An educated purveyor who is passionate about the wines in his/her port-folio would acknowledge the fact that he/she would have a betterchance of placing those wines if the buyer is also educated about wineand appreciates good quality wine.

Wine suppliers, in addition to helping restaurateurs become moreknowledgeable, need to educate themselves about wine. An importantattribute when it comes to selecting a wine supplier may be the degree towhich a wine supplier is knowledgeable about wine. It is only naturalthat a restaurateur may demand to interact with a sales person who trulyknows about wine. This means that suppliers need to be educated ex-perts on the wines they sell. The decision to include wine on the menumay be significantly related to wine sales and therefore, the decisionabout the types of wines to order may be critical (Dodd, 1997).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The wine buyer, however, may find it more helpful to receive perti-nent facts about the wine itself, such as the winemaker’s philosophy, thevineyard conditions, and the nature of the vintage. In this way, educa-tion between purveyors and buyers might become a two-way street inwhich they learn from one another.

Many suppliers take an active role in designing restaurants’ winelists. Smith and Owens (1995) noted that suppliers might be able to dif-ferentiate themselves by identifying the buyers’ specific needs and fo-cusing on those needs through their salespeople. When a restaurateurdevelops a wine list, he/she puts the reputation of the restaurant at stake.Therefore, wine suppliers or purveyors trying to place their wines onrestaurant wine lists need to acknowledge the importance of this processand work with restaurateurs.

A wine list, regardless of its size or scope, must reflect the specificcuisine that is being offered along with the clientele that frequent therestaurant. Restaurateurs who are well informed about wine use the res-taurant’s cuisine as their starting point when it comes to purchasingwine. Thus, it follows that purveyors who wish to be represented on aspecific restaurant’s wine list should also have an understanding of therestaurant’s cuisine.

The ordering procedure for wines also seems to be an important issueto examine. Not every restaurant has the same purchasing needs. For ex-ample, the wine needs of a steak house might be different from a sea-food restaurant because of the difference in menu themes. Therefore,the suppliers need be sensitive to this diversity and help restaurants de-velop their own, customized wine-ordering list. This will help ensurethe consistency of timely and accurate delivery.

METHODOLOGY

Selection of Attributes

The attributes that were investigated in this study were derived fromtwo major sources. The first source was a series of interviews that wereconducted with restaurateurs in Texas. The researcher asked 15 restau-rant owners and managers about the purchasing function in their busi-ness. Several questions were discussed that related to the aspects theyconsidered to be important when choosing a supplier. The in-depth in-terviews occurred in two different cities, Houston and Dallas. The menutypes of the restaurants for the interviews were also kept broad. They

Refereed 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

consisted of independent restaurants as well as franchise restaurants,and the scale ranged from casual dining to up-scale. This was done in anattempt to make sure there was a broad coverage of restaurant types forthe study.

Through these interviews, the most relevant attributes to be includedin the study were determined. The second major source was an in-depthliterature review focused on studies conducted in this area along withcurrent wine magazines and industry reports. A number of research arti-cles and industry publications that discussed issues related to attributeswanted by suppliers were examined (e.g., Eames and Norkus, 1988;Mawson and Fearne, 1996; Salkin, 1991; Strauss, 1999).

The attributes that were directly related to the buyer/supplier relation-ship were investigated. Based on the interviews and literature, the mostimportant attributes chosen to be included in the questionnaire were: sup-plier staff knowledge, reliability of service, discounted prices, productavailability, the reputation of the supplier, and supplier friendliness.

Sample Selection

The selection of the sample for this study was a random samplingfrom the complete restaurant population with alcoholic beverage li-censes in Texas. The list of the restaurants was obtained from the website of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Although this website contained the names and addresses of all establishments that had analcoholic beverage license, only restaurants were chosen from the list.

Because of the possibility of a relatively low response rate due to thenature of the sample, a total of more than 1800 restaurants were con-tacted for the study. This represented approximately 50% of the total li-censed restaurants operating in the state. The estimated response rate tothe mail-out was approximately 10 percent as similar studies of profes-sionals tend to be relatively low (Green, Tull, and Albaum, 1990). Afterthe respondents had been identified, questionnaires were mailed to therandom sample of restaurant managers.

Questionnaire

Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) multi-attribute model was used to helpdesign the questionnaire. This model is especially suitable for measur-ing attitudes toward a product, service, or specific concepts. Accordingto this model, the consumer’s attitude toward a product, service, or spe-cific concept is the evaluation of certain product or service specific be-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

liefs and/or attributes. Therefore, the questionnaire for this study wasdesigned to indicate how the model could be used to measure and calcu-late restaurateurs’ attitudes with respect to wine suppliers. Although theattributes in the questionnaire were decided after a series of interviewswith the restaurateurs and an in-depth literature review, the final deter-mination of the attributes included in the questionnaire was made after apilot study.

Pilot Study

The purpose of the pilot study was to determine if all relevant attrib-utes were included and reliability and validity were established. Deter-mining the most relevant attributes to include in a questionnaire iscritical. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) pointed out the importance of deter-mining the most relevant attributes to ensure the reliability of measuringattitudes.

A first concern was the questionnaire’s face validity, how the instrumentappeared and whether it seemed a reasonable way to gain the information.The pilot study consisted of contacting 20 restaurants and delivering thequestionnaires to them. Managers or owners were asked to complete thequestionnaire as best they could. The questionnaire was subsequently col-lected by the researcher and any additional comments by the respondentswere noted. The respondents indicated that the overall design and instruc-tions of the survey were easy to understand and follow. The average timeneeded to complete the questionnaire did not exceed ten minutes.

A second concern was the content validity of the survey instrument.Content validity was established by developing multiple items (attrib-utes) that represented the attitude toward wine suppliers. Third, reliabil-ity coefficients for attitudes toward wine-suppliers were estimated fromthe pilot study. The reliability coefficient score for attitude towardwine-suppliers is .73. In the actual study, the coefficient was consider-ably higher with a reliability coefficient at .84. No changes were madeto the research instrument after the pilot study. The difference in reli-ability coefficients between the pilot and the actual study was likely dueto the smaller sample size of the pilot study.

Data Collection

The data were collected in the form of a mail survey. Respondents ofthe study, the restaurateurs, received the questionnaire in the mail andwere asked to reply. A cover page was attached to the questionnaire in-

Refereed 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

dicating the purpose of the study, the supporting institution, and thecontact information. In addition to the cover page, a prepaid envelopewith the return address was included. Six weeks after the mailing date, asecond questionnaire with a reminder note was sent to those who hadnot responded.

Three weeks after the second reminder, the remaining non-respon-dents were telephoned in an effort to collect additional responses.Through these telephone interviews, 56 additional responses were ob-tained. These, added to the 96 mail survey responses and increased thetotal number of responses to 152 of the 1800 questionnaires sent out (an8.5% response rate).

A low response rate was anticipated as a limitation for this study.Similar studies that had restaurateurs as respondents also have receivedrelatively low response rates. It is not uncommon for marketing surveysthat are directed toward business professionals with busy schedules tohave a low response rate. Green, Tull, and Albaum (1990) suggest that a10 to 15 percent response rate is modal for marketing mail surveys thatare directed toward business professionals.

The type of subject under investigation in this study should be noted. Al-though the survey is answered by individual restaurateurs, the questionsmay be interpreted as related to characteristics of the organization. Surveysconcerning organizations typically receive substantially lower return ratesthan surveys of individuals. Since organizational surveys are usually deliv-ered to workplaces, factors such as preoccupation with work, confidential-ity of information, or workplace rules and policies cause organizations toreturn surveys at low rates (Greer, Chuchinprakarn, and Seshadri, 2000).Kennedy and Vargus (2001) noted that although mail surveys were the sin-gle most popular form of self-administered survey, low return rates and theconsequent threat of nonresponse bias were among the greatest challengesto the success of mail surveys. Therefore, the issue of exerting additionalefforts to achieve improved return rates is paramount.

RESULTS

Restaurant size (Table 1) was broken down into three categories:seating capacity up to 70 (small), between 70 and 140 (medium), and140 and above (large). The large restaurants constituted the majority ofthe sample with 47%. This was followed by medium and small restau-rants with 33.5% and 19.5% respectively.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Restaurant type by service type revealed casual restaurants in the ma-jority with 61.8%, followed by fine dining and quick service restaurantswith 32.2% and 5.9% respectively. Independent restaurants were themajority type of restaurant based on type of ownership with 75%, fol-lowed by chain (15.8%) and franchise restaurants (9.2%).

Refereed 83

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics for Restaurant Types by Capacity, Service Own-ership and Menu Type

Restaurant type by seatingcapacity Frequency Percent

Small 29 19.5

Medium 50 33.5

Large 70 47.0

Total 149 149.0

Restaurant type by serviceFrequency Percent

Quick 9 5.9

Casual 94 61.8

Fine Dining 49 32.2

Total 152 100.0

Restaurant type by type ofownership Frequency Percent

Chain 24 15.8

Franchise 14 9.2

Independent 114 75.0

Total 152 100.0

Restaurant type by mainmenu concept Frequency Percent

American 41 27.2

Chinese 5 3.3

Italian 21 13.9

Mexican 13 8.6

Steakhouse 13 8.6

Seafood 21 13.9

Other 37 24.5

Total 151 100.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Among the 7 categories of the restaurant types by main menu concept(Table 2), American was the majority with 27.2%. The second major cat-egory was the “other” category with 24.5%, followed by Italian, 13.9%,Seafood, 13.9%, Steakhouse, 8.6%, Mexican, 8.6%, and Chinese, 3.3%.

Table 2 indicates the wine purchase percentages. Of all the respon-dents, 52% said less than 25% of their alcohol sales were from wine saleswhile 27.7% sold above 50% and 19.7% sold between 25% and 50%.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize the characteristics of wine supplier re-lated questions. Of the major suppliers of wines to restaurants, 79.1%used wholesalers as the primary supplier of wine while 12.8% used li-quor stores, 6.8% wineries, and .7% grocery stores.

While some restaurants use several supply companies, half used onlyone supplier to purchase wine. A total of 29% of the restaurants usedtwo different suppliers and 20.7% more than two suppliers. Fifty-twopercent reported that they were satisfied with the service of their currentwine supplier while 32.9% were very satisfied and 13.8% not satisfied.

Table 6 contains a summary of the mean importance scores for theservice variables. All scores were positive on the �3 to +3 importancerange with reliability, knowledge, and discounts offered being the most


TABLE 2. Percentage of Wine Sales to Total Alcohol Sales for Restaurants

Percentage of wine sales intotal alcohol sales

Frequency Percent

0-25 percent 77 52.0

25-50 percent 30 20.3

Above 50 percent 41 27.7

Total 148 100.0

TABLE 3. Types of Wine Suppliers

Major suppliers of wine Frequency Percent

Grocery store 1 .7

Liquor store 19 12.8

Wholesaler 117 79.1

Winery 10 6.8

Other suppliers 1 .7

Total 148 100.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

important. The reputation of the supplier was considered the least im-portant of all the six attributes.

Data analysis included factor analysis, with varimax rotation that wasused to examine the strength of the relationship between attributes andattitudes of restaurateurs towards wine suppliers. With respect to the at-tributes, the Scree test and the Guttman-Kaiser criterion indicated that

Refereed 85

TABLE 4. Number of Wine Suppliers

Number of suppliers used topurchase wine

Frequency Percent

1.00 75 50.0

2.00 44 29.3

3.00 15 10.0

4.00 7 4.7

5.00 and above 9 6.0

Total 150 100.0

TABLE 5. Satisfaction with Supplier Service

Satisfaction with the currentsupplier's service

Frequency Percent

Not satisfied 21 14.0

Satisfied 79 52.7

Very satisfied 50 33.3

Total 150 100.0

TABLE 6. Descriptive Statistics for Attribute Importance

Attributes Mean*

Reliability 2.75

Knowledge 2.69

Discounts 2.43

Friendliness 2.23

Product availability 2.20

Reputation 1.31

*Ranges were from –3 to +3, with –3 being very unimportant and +3 very important.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

there was one eigenvalue greater than one. This suggests that all six se-lected attributes were measuring one factor, which was attitude towardwine suppliers. This confirmed the appropriateness of the selected sixattributes in measuring attitude toward wine suppliers. These six attrib-utes could also be used as an indication of the construct validity of thesurvey instrument in terms of measuring the intended objective. Table 7summarizes the factor loading scores indicating the correlations be-tween six attributes and attitude toward wine-suppliers.

Although all six attributes measured were substantially related to theattitude toward wine-suppliers (since all of them were above 60%),friendliness, product availability and reliability were most closely relatedto the attitude toward wine-suppliers with factor scores .819, .768, and.737 respectively.

Table 8 contains a table of communalities which summarizes the squaredscores of the factor scores. The results indicate the amount of variance ex-plained by each attribute in relation to attitude toward wine-suppliers. For


TABLE 7. Factor Loadings Matrix for Attributes

Dimension Factor 1

Friendliness .819

Product availability .768

Reliability .737

Reputation .704

Knowledge .677

Discounts .671

Note: Maximum Likelihood Extraction Method. One factor extracted. Four iterations required.

TABLE 8. Communalities for Supplier Attributes

Attribute Factor 1

Friendliness .670

Product availability .591

Reliability .544

Reputation .496

Knowledge .459

Discounts .450

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

example, 67% of variance in attitude toward wine suppliers was explainedby friendliness, which was followed by 59.1% for product availability and54.4% reliability.

Finally, it was noted that attitude toward wine-suppliers explained53.5% of the total variance in the data.

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Although the relationship between wine distributors and restaurantsis important for both of these groups, and for related wineries, there hasbeen little research investigating the attributes that impact this relation-ship. This study was an initial attempt to learn more about the needs ofrestaurateurs and the issues that are important to them in the winepurchasing process.

The first part of the study identified some characteristics of the res-taurants and the nature of their relationship with suppliers. The study in-dicated that restaurants obtain most of their wine through wholesalers.In this study, 79 percent used a wholesaler as the main supplier. Thismay be because of the degree of reliability and the wide range of prod-ucts and discounts offered by a wholesaler. Liquor stores are the secondlargest supplier and they may be chosen because restaurants may preferdealing with a smaller business that provides more personal service. Insome cases, wholesalers do not offer service directly to restaurantswhere it is not close to a major distribution center. Half of the restau-rants have just one supplier and hence, this relationship is a very impor-tant one to the restaurant and reliability will be very important becauseof this dependence. In the other cases, restaurant managers seem to betaking note of the advice by Quayle (1995) and reducing their depend-ence by using more than one supplier.

Some dissatisfaction clearly exists with how restaurants perceivedtheir supplier. This may be related to the lack of alternatives available tomany Texas restaurants. Considerable consolidation has occurred in thewholesale distribution sector in Texas and now there are just two state-wide distribution companies operating within the state.

The second part of the study identified several attributes that seem tobe important in this relationship: a knowledgeable staff, prompt and ac-curate service (reliability), discounts and promotions, product availabil-ity, friendly service, and the supplier’s reputation. Providing training,helping with wine lists, and developing partnerships were also sug-

Refereed 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

gested as needs during initial study interviews but not frequently.Therefore, they were not included in the final questionnaire.

Reliability was rated as the most important attribute by respondents.This reflects the interest of managers in having their supplier take careof them without their having to worry about this part of the business.Restaurant managers do not want to need to tell customers that a wine isnot available. With wines listed on the menu and a desire to hold only alimited inventory by most restaurants, this reliable service becomes ofcrucial concern.

Knowledgeable staff seems a critical area of concern for restaura-teurs interested in purchasing wine. In many cases restaurateurs mayhave excellent food knowledge and their passion for food may be thereason for their involvement in the business. However, they may haveless knowledge or interest in wine. Since operating a restaurant takescountless hours, it is likely that a manager would not have time to learnabout new wines or trends in consumption. He or she may want goodrecommendations from suppliers who can essentially take this part ofthe business off their hands. In several previous studies, product knowl-edge through the ability to create effective store layouts, explain markettrends, and technological advances has been noted as important (Burkink,2002). In other wine related studies, the knowledge of the server orwaitstaff has been found to be extremely important (Dodd and Gustafson,1997; Dodd, Pinkleton, and Gustafson, 1996). With wine, which hasmore complexities in terms of number of varieties and brands available,restaurateurs may be more likely to select a supplier who can help himor her understand the various wines to choose.

Providing discounts is also an important attribute. If restaurateurs canreceive discounts they may choose to either pass this along to consum-ers through promotions or lower pricing to increase customer satisfac-tion. Alternatively, they can decide to simply increase their profitmargin. Thus, a regular supply of discounted wines can help substan-tially in making a competitive and profitable business.

Friendliness of supplier staff was found to be most influenced in theoverall attitude towards suppliers. This is not surprising as managerswould be interested in developing and maintaining a friendly relation-ship and would enjoy working with people where this relationship ex-ists. However, although it influenced attitude substantially, it was stillnot considered to be the most important attribute overall when choosinga wine supplier. Thus, a manager may choose another supplier who isless friendly if they offer a more reliable and knowledgeable service.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Product availability and the reputation of the winery were the finaltwo attributes included in the study. Having the right wines available iscertainly important for some restaurants that rely on particular wines asa significant consumer draw. In addition, the reputation of the winerycan provide a manager with the confidence to work with the supplier ona regular basis.

Many of these attributes also relate to trust, which has been found tobe an important component of the buyer/seller relationship (Doney andCannon, 1997). For instance, friendliness, product availability, reputa-tion and reliability are all considered to be antecedents of trust (Schurrand Ozanne, 1985).

FUTURE RESEARCH

One of the most significant limitations for this study was the low re-sponse rate. Part of this is due to the nature of sending questionnaires tobusinesses where there is no name of an individual that it is going to.This problem is likely to be an issue with any additional research in thisarea that uses mail questionnaires. Future studies could perhaps usephone or personal interviews to increase the response rate and makesure the correct people in the restaurant respond to the questionnaire.

Additional research concerning supplier relationships with restau-rants will help both of these kinds of businesses better understand howthey can meet each others needs. By meeting these needs, it will ensurean effective and efficient supply of wine and other products that areused by restaurants to benefit these organizations as well as the finalconsumers.

There are several possible directions that the research could take. Forinstance, further development of this questionnaire through additionalin-depth interviews and focus groups may highlight other attributes thatcould be included in the study. The inclusion of other attributes such astrust and loyalty may improve the overall relationship to attitude.

An additional area of research may be to examine differences be-tween groups based on the type of restaurant. For this study, the num-bers of restaurants in some of the categories were too small to developmeaningful groupings, but if a large enough sample was examined, itwould be helpful to know differences in the importance of attributes.For instance, are price discounts more important for casual dining thanfor upscale dining? Which types of restaurants focus more on brand rep-utation compared to wanting unique wines?

Refereed 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

A better developed theoretical model that could be examined throughstructural equation modeling would also be a significant contribution tobetter understanding the connections between the various attributes andhow they influence supplier attitude. However, a larger number of re-spondents would be needed to improve the ability to assess differencesbetween various groups. This research could potentially be completedby conducting a nationwide survey that may also reveal differences inthe way restaurants from various regions view their suppliers and the at-tributes that are important to them.

The relatively high percentage of restaurant managers who havesome level of dissatisfaction with their suppliers seems to be an interest-ing area for additional research. Although the measurement of satisfac-tion in this study was relatively simple, an additional examination ofthis construct and the sources of these problems would be helpful in un-derstanding where suppliers need to improve their operation.

Additional dependent variables related to behavior and not attitudecould also be examined. These might include the number of years therestaurant used the supplier, the amount of wine the restaurant pur-chased, and the total wine sales for the restaurant.

REFERENCES

Brownell, J., and Reynolds, D. (2002). Strengthening the F&B purchaser-supplier part-nership: Actions that make a difference. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administra-tion Quarterly, 43(8), 49-61.

Burkink, T. (2002). Independent grocery retailers and their primary wholesalers: Sur-vey and implications. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 8(2), 3-17.

Campbell, A. (1997). Buyer-supplier relationships: Flip sides of the same coin? Jour-nal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 12, 417-434.

Coltman, M. M. (1990). Hospitality industry purchasing. New York: Van NostrandReinhold.

Corell, J. (1992, November). Evaluating distributors and brands. Pizza Today, 10, 18.Coviello, N., and Brodie, R. (1998). From transaction to relationship marketing: An in-

vestigation of managerial perceptions and practices. Journal of Strategic Market-ing, 6, 171-186.

Dev, C., and Klein, S. (1993). Strategic alliances in the hotel industry. The Cornell Ho-tel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 42-45.

Dodd, T. H. (1997). Techniques to increase impulse wine purchases in a restaurant set-ting. Journal of Restaurant & Foodservice Marketing, 2(1), 63–73.

Dodd, T. H., and Gustafson, A. W. (1997). Product, environmental, and service attrib-utes that influence consumer attitudes and purchases at wineries. Journal of FoodsProducts Marketing, 4(3), 41-59.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Dodd, T. H., Pinkleton, B. E., and Gustafson, A. W. (1996). External informationsources of product enthusiasts: Differences between variety seekers, variety neu-trals, and variety avoiders. Psychology and Marketing, 13, 291-304.

Doney, P. M., and Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust inbuyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35-52.

Dronkers, D. J. (1995). Dialogue builds profitable partnerships. World’s Eye View onHospitality Trends, 9, 16-17.

Eames, D., and Norkus, G. X. (1988). Developing your procurement strategy. CornellHotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 29(1), 30-33.

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an intro-duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Green, P. E., Tull, D. S., and Albaum, G. (1990). Research for marketing decisions (5thedition). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Greer, T. V., Chuchinprakarn, R., and Seshadri, S. (2000). Likelihood of participatingin mail survey research: Business respondents’ perspectives. Industrial MarketingManagement, 29, 97-109.

Griffin, R. W. (1990). Management. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Kennedy, J. M., and Vargus, B. (2001). Challenges in survey research and their impli-

cations for philanthropic studies research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-terly, 30, 483-494.

Kotler, P., Bowen, J., and Makens, J. (2003). Marketing for hospitality and tourism(3rd edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kotschevar, L.H., and Donelly, R. (1999). Quantity food purchasing. New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Lambert, D. M., Adams, R. J., and Emmelhainz, M. A. (1997). Supplier selection crite-ria in the healthcare industry: A comparison of importance and performance. Inter-national Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 33, 16-22.

Larson, P. D. (1994). Buyer supplier cooperation, product quality and total cost. Inter-national Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 24(6), 4-10.

Lockshin, L., and McDougall, G. (1998). Service problems and recovery strategies: Anexamination of the critical incident technique in business-to-business market. Inter-national Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 26, 429-438.

Lovelock, C., and Wirtz, J. (2004). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy(5th edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Mawson, E., and Fearne, A. (1996). Purchasing strategies and decision-making pro-cesses in the food service industry: A case study of UK restaurant chains. SupplyChain Management, 1(3), 34-41.

Mawson, E., and Fearne, A. (1997). Organizational buyer behaviour: A study of UKrestaurant chains. British Food Journal, 99, 239-243.

Quayle, M. (1995, January). Changing a supplier: How they do that? Purchasing andSupply Management, 26-30.

Reid, R. D., and Riegel, C. R. (1989). Supplier relations and selection in the foods-ervice industry. Hospitality Education and Research Journal, 13, 51-62.

Salkin, S. (1991, July 20). The operator/distributor relationship: Friends or foes? Res-taurant Business, 90(11), 106-113.

Refereed 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Schurr, P. H., and Ozanne, J. L. (1985). Influences on exchange processes: Buyers’preconceptions of a seller’s trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. Journal ofConsumer Research, 11, 939-953.

Shani, D., and Chalasani, S. (1992). Exploiting niches using relationship marketing.Journal of Service Marketing, 6(4), 43-52.

Smith, D. C., and Owens, J. P. (1995). Knowledge of customers’ customers as a basisfor sales force differentiation. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,15(3), 15-21.

Strauss, K. (1999, June 14). Panelists agree: Trust is the key to buyer-supplier relation-ships. Nation’s Restaurant News, 33(24), 94-116.

Telfer, D. J., and Wall, G. (2000). Strengthening backward economic linkages: Localfood purchasing by three Indonesian hotels. Tourism Geographies, 2, 421-447.

Zaccarelli, H. E., and Hayes, D. (1994, September/October). The bottom line: Increaseprofits by making your supplier your partner. Cooking for Profit, 468, 17.

Zeithaml, V. A., and Bitner, M. J. (1996). Services marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

RECEIVED: August 2004REVISED: December 2004

ACCEPTED: March 2005


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

este

rn O

ntar

io]

at 1

2:43

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

restaurateurs' perceptions of wine supplier attributes

Documents