Factors affecting customer satisfaction in fast food sector


Masterarbeit, 2013
97 Seiten

Gratis online lesen

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement

Dedication

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Abstract

Chapter 1 Introduction
- Scope
- Research Objective

Chapter 2 Literature Review
- History
- The Genesis of Fast Food Culture
- Progression of Fast Food Industry
- Client Satisfaction
- Price
- Hygienic Food:
· Importance of Hygiene in Life
· Hygiene is a Way of Protection from Illnesses
- Restaurant Ambience
- Consumer Care
- Make the Customer Feel Welcome
- Show Them You Care
- Listen Carefully
- Understand Your Customer’s Needs and Meet Them
- Deal with Complaints
- Communication:
- Respond to Clients as Soon as Possible
- Keep Clients Updated
- Open Communication Channels
- Stay in Contact
- Health Concerns
- Client Loyalty
- Service Quality
- Creating and maintaining service quality
- Measuring Service Quality
- Quality of Food
- Perception of Quality
- Preference of Customer
- Promotion

Chapter 3 Research Methodology:
- Type of research
- Population
- Sample size
- Instrument for data collection
- Data Analysis
- Sampling Technique
- Statistical Techniques
- Elements’ Selection

Chapter 4 Results Analysis & Discussion
- Descriptive Analysis
- Inferential Analysis

Chapter 5 Findings, Conclusion & Recommendation
- Findings
- Research Implications
- Research Limitations
- Conclusion
- Recommendations
- Suggestions for future Analysis

Bibliography

ANNEXURE

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

FACTORS AFFECTING CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN FAST FOOD SECTOR

Researcher: Abdullah

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

O ALLAH! Let not our hearts deviate from the truth after You have guided us and bestowed upon us, mercy from Your grace, verily You are the Giver of bounties without measure. Up and above everything, all gratitude to ALMIGHTY ALLAH, the Compassionate and the Merciful, Who enabled us to elucidate a drop from the existing ocean of knowledge. Countless salutation be upon the HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH), the beacon of knowledge, who has guided his “Ummah” to seek knowledge from cradle to grave.

It is quite delectable and to become to avail of this most propitious opportunity to articulate with utmost gratification, my profound and intense sense of indebtedness to my ever affectionate supervisor, Mr. Zahid Abbas Shah. His proficient counseling, valuable suggestions, boundless forbearance, indefatigable help with anything, anywhere, anytime, consummate advice and thought-provoking instructions in piloting this research venture and to reach its present effective culmination. Special thanks for him would always be due.

I do not have words at command in acknowledging that all credit goes to my affectionate Parents, my brother and sisters for their amicable attitude and love, immense orison, mellifluous affections, inspiration, well-wishing and keen interest which hearten me to achieve success in every sphere of life. Their prayers are the roots of my success.

Friends are the comrades of the battle, the battle to generate knowledge, sift myths and facts and to remove ambiguity. They co-shared my struggle and my work. I express my appreciative feelings for all my friends for their excellent encouragement. I think they deserve to be saluted.

Dedication

To my parents and a wonderful friend whose grins and snicker changed the way I look at life. I adore you today, tomorrow, and forever.

LIST OF TABLES

DESCRIPTION OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1: correlation between service quality and customer loyalty

Table 2: correlation between hygienic food and customer loyalty

Table 3: correlation between communication and customer loyalty

Table 4: correlation between health concerns and customer loyalty

Table 5: correlation between price and customer loyalty

Table 6: correlation between food quality and customer loyalty

Table 7: correlation between promotion and customer loyalty

Table 8: ANOVA Analysis All 8 factors have an unequal importance for customers

Table 9: Means of importance of customer loyalty between customers of different age groups

Table 10: Means of importance of food quality between customers of different age groups

Table 11: Means of importance of service quality between customers of different age groups

Table 12: Means of importance of Price between customers of different age groups

Table 13: Means of importance of Hygienic food between customers of different age groups

Table 14: Means of importance of Promotion between customers of different age groups

Table 15: Means of importance of communication between customers of different age groups

Table 16: Means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of different age groups

Table 17: Means of importance of Customer Loyalty between customers of occupation groups

Table 18: Means of importance of food quality between customers of occupation groups

Table 19: Means of importance of service quality between customers of occupation groups

Table 20: Means of importance of price between customers of occupation groups

Table 21: Means of importance of hygienic food between customers of occupation groups

Table 22: Means of importance of promotion between customers of occupation groups

Table 23: Means of importance of communication between customers of occupation groups

Table 24: Means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of occupation groups

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: All 8 factors have an unequal importance in the eyes of the customers

Figure 2: Graphical representation of gender

Figure 3: Graphical representation of age

Figure 4: Graphical representation of occupation

Figure 5: Graphical representation of Gender * which fast food restaurants go mostly?

Figure 6: Graphical representation of Age * which fast food restaurants go mostly?

Figure 7: Graphical representation of Occupation * which fast food restaurants go mostly?

Figure 8: All 8 factors have unequal importance for customers

Figure 9: The means of importance of customer loyalty between customers of different age groups.

Figure 10: The means of importance of food quality between customers of different age groups

Figure 11: The means of importance of service quality between customers of different age groups

Figure 12: The means of importance of Price between customers of different age groups

Figure 13: The means of importance of Hygienic food between customers of different age groups

Figure 14: The means of importance of Promotion between customers of different age groups

Figure 15: The means of importance of communication between customers of different age groups

Figure 16: The means of importance of Health Concerns between clients of different age groups

Figure 17: The means of importance of Customer Loyalty between customers of occupation groups

Figure 18: The means of importance of food quality between customers of occupation groups

Figure 19: The means of importance of service quality between customers of occupation groups

Figure 20: The means of importance of price between customers of occupation groups

Figure 21: The means of importance of hygienic food between customers of occupation groups

Figure 22: The means of importance of promotion between customers of occupation groups

Figure 23: The means of importance of communication between customers of occupation groups

Figure 24: The means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of occupation groups

Abstract

Prior research has shown that customer satisfaction is the most important means for fast food restaurant. The main objectives of the study were to enhance the fast food service quality impact on overall customer satisfaction, to study purchaser behavior towards fast food places, to identify various key factors used by clients in the selection of fast food restaurants; and to analyze the particular differences/similarities in critical factors deemed by consumers for the selection of fast food restaurants. Our objective should be to look into the particular crucial elements that really help to determine the expectations which buyers have regarding the fast food market and his or her perceptions of good quality through experience. The organizations under study were Pizza Hut, Hardees, KFC, McDonald’s and Subway located in Lahore, Pakistan.

An extensive review of the literature was carried out by reviewing research studies, books, site pages and journals etc. On the basis of that literature review and its inferences, a questionnaire was developed which was needed for this quantitative type of research. The data was collected from the customer of these restaurants. A sample of 407 customers was selected randomly. Data was compiled and statistically analyzed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel. On the basis of their responses correlation test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied through IBM SPSS. Results of each question were thoroughly analyzed and discussed by the researcher. Graphical representation of all the data has been shown. Conclusions of the study include the strengths of the organization as well as a few deficiencies in performance. Recommendations have been made for fast food restaurants to overcome those deficiencies for enhancing performance through statistical techniques.

INTRODUCTION

Since the commencement of human history, meals have assembled individuals in terms in which no other pursuits have been able to accomplish. Regardless, whether it was the particular early agora or even today’s modern-day grocery store or even restaurant, the market of food has constantly enjoyed some sort of core purpose in the existence of humans, towns, vicinities, communication and tradition as well (DeJesus and Tian, 2004). Fast food can be meals that are prepared and served swiftly in outlets which are commonly referred to as fast-food outlets. It is an industry that generates billions of dollars which is constantly flourishing rapidly world over. Numerous fast-food restaurants have become franchises to which standardized foodstuff are usually transported through core location to help maintain the same quality standard.

Some trace the modern history of fast food in America to July 7, 1912, with the opening of a fast food restaurant called the Automat in New York. The Automat was a cafeteria with its prepared foods behind small glass windows and coin-operated slots. Joseph Horn and Frank Hardart had already opened the first Horn & Hardart Automat in Philadelphia in 1902, but their “Automat” at Broadway and 13th Street, in New York City, created a sensation. Numerous Automat restaurants were built around the country to deal with the demand. Automats remained extremely popular throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The company also popularized the notion of “take-out” food, with their slogan “Less work for Mother”.

Some historians and secondary school textbooks concur that A&W, which opened in 1919 and began franchising in 1921, was the first fast food restaurant (E. Tavares). Thus, the American company White Castle is generally credited with opening the second fast-food outlet in Wichita, Kansas in 1921, selling hamburgers for five cents apiece from its inception and spawning numerous competitors and emulators. What is certain, however, is that White Castle made the first significant effort to standardize the food production in, look of, and operation of fast-food hamburger restaurants. William Ingram's and Walter Anderson's White Castle System created the first fast food supply chain to provide meat, buns, paper goods, and other supplies to their restaurants, pioneered the concept of the multistate hamburger restaurant chain, standardized the look and construction of the restaurants themselves, and even developed a construction division that manufactured and built the chain's prefabricated restaurant buildings. The McDonalds' Speedy Service System and, much later, Ray Kroc's McDonald's outlets and Hamburger University all built on principles, systems and practices that White Castle had already established between 1923 and 1932.

While fast food restaurants usually have a seating area in which customers can eat the food on the premises, orders are designed to be taken away, and traditional table service is rare. Orders are generally taken and paid for at a wide counter, with the customer waiting by the counter for a tray or container for their food. A "drive-through" service can allow customers to order and pick up food from their cars.Nearly from its inception, fast food has been designed to be eaten "on the go" and often does not require traditional cutlery and is eaten as a finger food.

The fast-food market has also become popular in Pakistan over the last couple of decades. After the arrival of multinational fast food chains like McDonalds, KFC, Hardees, Pizza Hut, Fat Burger, Subway and many others; people have adopted them as part of their culture and hence these chains have intelligently altered their variety to suit and cater local needs. There are several causes behind the success of the fast food industry. You can get ready made meals at an affordable price. Moreover, away from home or in a hurry, the quench for hunger can be satisfied without much hustle. Brands like McDonald's rapidly accumulated progression for hygiene, rapid response and a child-friendly environment where people traveling could grab a simple supper, or even look for a break from the regimen of home cooking.

These food places have rapidly gotten to be the eatery “everyone can concur on”, along with several features meant to entice the youth. A large number of buyers notice multinational food dining places because they have become a symbol of wealth, progress and well-ordered freedom of the West. As a result of which they have turned out to be trendy points of interest in a lot of cities all-around Pakistan, specifically amid youthful individuals with a lot more assorted tastes.

The objective of this particular research is to analyze how the buyer’s view shall be affected by factors of customer loyalty towards fast food restaurants. Additionally, they can distinguish which elements may impact purchaser loyalty the most and hence can determine what innovations are required to add value to their businesses. This specific investigation was executed to uncover the particular elements regarding customer satisfaction. Obtaining a grand level of consumer satisfaction with the potential purchaser continues to be essential to boost competitiveness of fast food restaurants. For this, it is very important to fully comprehend the purpose and role of the numerous key elements that can in all probability impact satisfaction and loyalty. This specific research especially investigates the particular components, namely Food Quality, Service, Price, Hygiene, Promotion, Customer Care, Communication and Health related issues.

Almost all the aforementioned factors simultaneously affect the performance of a fast food outlet. Therefore, it can be concluded that the foremost concern of these restaurants is to make the quality of work and services better in addition to improving overall organizational performance to accomplish customer satisfaction. Under this directive, it's obvious that the customer satisfaction has a critical role in the accomplishment of this industry. The above circumstances supports the objective of this particular scientific study that is to review the particular expectations which buyers have regarding the fast food market in addition to his or her perceptions of good quality through experience. Additionally, this particular research seeks to uncover the particular major relationships in between customer satisfaction and food quality, Service Quality, Selling Price, Promotions, Communication, Customer support and health concerns towards desired fast food places.

The fast food sector still relies on tactics to drive traffic that justaren’t relevant to millennial andyounger consumers (their most important target). There’s a huge need to do things innew ways.Take social couponing. It can be a great way toengage younger adult consumers - to gaininterest, showrelevance, build loyalty and spark word of mouth. This segmentloves exclusivityand being in on a secret, so building ‘coolcachet’ factor, whether through social couponing orothermeans, is going to grab attention. And once they’re in the door,owned media assets are agreat platform for storytelling andshowing how your brand is different. Innovation drives this category. Launching new products and offers is crucial to growth. Consumers are really interested in food these days, and that’sa great opportunity for fast food restaurants to expandand leverage theirpartnerships with suppliers. That includes partners with an‘ethical food’ethos.

There’s a bigadjustment for global brands that pride themselves on absoluteconsistency. Consistency of quality is great; food safetyscandals mean consumers put a premium on trustedand well-known brands. But consistency shouldn’t mean aninability to see your brand through consumers’ eyes. Brands looking for growthshould work to create brand experiences whereconsumerscan interact and give feedback. That can help brands seethemselves throughconsumers’ eyes.

Customer care may be the individual’s conception from the overall performance from the goods and services in terms of their expectations. The art in addition to scientific disciplines of customer satisfaction entails strategically emphasizing and reinforcing on creating gratifying experiences. The purpose of all advertising endeavors should be to improve customer satisfaction (Rust et. al, 2004). Consumer fulfillment is significant towards the marketing experts simply because it is a basis of revenue in addition to client loyalty. Satisfaction is also vital to the individual customer as it reflects a positive outcome from the fulfillment of unmet needs. Consumer satisfaction is a fundamental element of post-purchase approach and product selection.

Scope:

My personal research was revolved around the accomplishment of customer satisfaction in fast food market, and to achieve that, a detailed analysis of the experiences of consumers in this very sector was necessary. Limitation of this research is that the respondents of this particular study have been selected only from the city of Lahore and cross cultural comparison was not performed as it might yield different results. Secondly, the data collected was from 407 customers. The third constraint was that the data under observation was accumulated from five giants of this industry namely Pizza Hut, Hardees, KFC, McDonalds and Subway. Hence, the outcomes may not be generalized to a wider population. These would be considered by some as a limitation.

Research Objectives:

Our objective should be to look into the particular crucial elements that really help to determine the expectations which buyers have regarding the fast food market and his or her perceptions of good quality through experience. Following objectives are to be achieved from this very research.

- To study purchaser behavior towards fast food places;
- To pinpoint different crucial elements that a purchaser uses in the opting of quick service restaurants; and
- To investigate precise relationship in vital components reckoned by buyers for the choice of fast food restaurants.

LITERATURE REVIEW

History:

The philosophy of readymade food available to be purchased is linked with urban growth. Ancient Roman communities had road stands that sold bread and wine. The noodle shop is a symbol of eastern cities. Flatbread and falafel are today pervasive in the Middle East. Prevalent Indian quick nourishment plates incorporate vada pao, pani-puri and dahi vada. In the French-talking countries of West Africa, roadside stands inside and surrounding the bigger urban communities press on to offer as they have done for eras; a variety of prepared to-consume, chargrilled meat sticks known generally as brochettes.

The Genesis of Fast Food Culture:

The idea of quick nourishment came up in the 1920s. The 1950s initially saw their fast expansion.A few elements that helped this booming development in 50's were:

1) America's love for vehicles.
2) The development of a major new interstate framework.
3) The expansion of sub-urban groups.
4) The small growth before World War II.

Fast food chains at first pandered to vehicles holders in suburbia.

Progression of Fast Food Industry:

Specialists and industry professionals ordinarily consider that the restaurant business is made up of two general classifications, full service restaurants and quick food or rapid service restaurants (Mueller & Kleiner, 2004). Around full administration restaurants' are to be discovered fine dining and buffet restaurants, (Agnelo & Vladmir, 2007); under the rapid service classification fall all who offer food to clients for utilization on or off the premises, these incorporate individual and chain restaurants that serve different varieties of food, for instance, sandwich shops, pizza places, chicken barbecues, burger joints, fish sticks, and potato fries and so on. (Ditmer, 2002).

Informal eating restaurants have frequently been classified with either full administration restaurants or speedy administration restaurants and sometimes on their own. For quite a while, quick sustenance industry has been connected with franchising, (Lashley & Morrison, 2004; Sen 1998). The fast food notion, with basic menus, fast item fulfilling and service times, fits institutionalization of items and administration conveyance frameworks which are not difficult to establish (Lashley & Morrison, 2000).

The food giants like Fat Burger, Pizza Hut, Hardees, Subway and so on have advanced, developed and internationalized their operations through franchising (Quinn et al, 2002). Acheson & Wicking (1992) watch that the biggest fast food organizations are included with franchising.

The quick sustenance idea appears to lure franchisees as contrasted with making free rapid food outlets in view of its affiliation with high suitability of the business and the positive money stream that comes speedier from establishments than for autonomous organizations (Mendelsohn, 2004). This appears to help the survival rates and to quicken productivity, because of their business sector distinguishment and the disposal of unnecessary initial investment (Mendelsohn, 2004).

However even with this impression of moderately simple victory, the updating desires of the clients appear to have moved the ideal model from institutionalization to customization as mixture turns into a pattern (Taylor & Lyon 1995). This may help what clients think about to be a triumph or a washout in a quick sustenance establishment outlet. The speedy administration restaurant industry was outlined around the thought of giving quick and accommodation feasting encounters at a moderately minimal price.

The snappy administration restaurant industry has had the ability to benefit from this problem by offering school students a speedy, simple and modest answer for their wholesome needs. To expand or uphold school learner piece of the pie, purchasers should get their money worth in these snappy administration restaurants. Accordingly, it bodes well that brisk administration restaurants may need to verify what school learners search for in their speedy administration restaurant experience.

For a successful business, client contentment is a must (Mccoll-Kennedy and Schneider, 2000). A bigger gain on investment is directly proportional to happy customers (Yeung et al., 2002). Companies providing better service are found to be market leaders regarding deals and enduring client devotion and maintenance (Eklo Fan Wëstlund, 2002). As a result of this, organizations contending in comparable business sector specialties are urged to survey the nature of the administrations they furnish with a specific end goal to lure and hold their clients. A few studies have demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between traits of client inclination and business execution (Soriano ,2002), (Verma, 1999). (Marshall et al,1999) depict execution estimation as "the development of indicators and the collection of data to describe, report on and analyze performance". Business execution could be arranged into budgetary and non-monetary pointers.

Monetary execution measures the effects of a company's strategies and operations in financial terms, for example quantifiable profit, return on possessions, worth included, productivity, sales and income. (Zeithaml,2000) gives a top notch review of examination discoveries on the relationship between client fulfillment and organizational execution. Exceedingly fulfilled clients will come back to purchase the item and service which will in the long run expand the fiscal execution of the organization. Moreover, (Wiele et al.,2002) agreed there is a critical association between recognized client fulfillment and sales volume and the edge for administration quality and the in general quality recognition.

The clear need for satisfying clients is to expand the overall industry, and to secure repeat and referral business, all which accelerate profitability. (Oliver,1997) characterized loyalty as a profoundly expected responsibility to remember repeat buys of a favored product or service consistently in future, regardless of situational impact and marketing strategies. Whereas (Kendric,1998) proposed a meaning of loyalty which incorporates the variables of procurement recurrence and sum used for every request or visit. (Bowen and Chen, 2001) in their investigation of the relationship between client loyalty and client satisfaction showed that there is a positive connection between loyal consumers and productivity.

Client Satisfaction:

For any fast food outlet, client faith on the restaurant and his retention are the most vital components. Creating gratifying and pleasing experiences for customers symbolizes client satisfaction. Strengthening the customer satisfaction factor eventually increases your selling process and thus big profits. Researches have over the years concluded that as much as five times money is required to attract new buyers as compared to holding an old client. The affiliation between the client and the company is extremely critical.

Satisfaction can be characterized as a characteristics or qualities that can full the either a need or want of a shopper in more preferred way over contenders. Despite the fact that this satisfaction is clarified by distinctive scientists in diverse ways. Provided that an organization furnishes a product consistent with the prerequisites of their shoppers it will lead the fulfillment of those customers. The higher or lower fulfillment of a customer will depend on the quality that is offered by an organization (Gerpott, Rams & Schindler,2001).

Rust and Zahorik (1993) talk over in their study that client satisfaction has positive relationship with loyalty. Auh and Johnson (2005) talk over in their study that there are solid relations between contentment and loyalty. Bodet (2008) portray that association exist between client fulfillment and customer loyalty. Shankar, Smith and Rangaswamy (2003) additionally inspect that there is sure relationship between satisfaction and loyalty. As Kim, Jeong, Park, Park, Kim, and Kim (2007) expressed that client satisfaction lead client loyalty. Vesel and Zabkar (2009) depict in their study that client satisfaction is an imperative marker for the client faithfulness. Consuming fast food has turned into a latest fashion around upper social order, adolescents and youth; and have likewise expanded.

In this manner consuming at quick nourishment restaurants not just offers shoppers to fulfill their yearning, require for comfort, delight, diversion, time saving, social communication and the temperament change (Park 2004), additionally purchasers experience energy, joy and a feeling of particular well-being (Park 2004). Hence it could be presumed that quick nourishment restaurants ought to be brisk administration supplier with instant sustenance things. For this reason, these outlets are otherwise known as Quick Service Restaurants (QSR’s) or Food Away From Home (FAFH) (Ullah and Islam2010).

As per Shahzad and Faryal (2012) a large portion of the organizations just accentuate on their advancement as well as the mark qualities which can impact client faithfulness. Cost and product quality turns into the foremost components in client loyalty in brand attributes. Consumer loyalty advances on the foundation of value for money and quality as these are the primary considers for recognizing an item for buy over and over. Shahzad and Faryal (2012) Brand image is the imperative variable which help for an organization regarding brand value and it additionally plays indispensable part in construction of client loyalty. In spite of the fact that it’s not essential that just in view of brand image a client might be retained; there might be an excessive amount of different components which can help towards customer retention and loyalty and these elements can differ from item to item and market to market.

Satisfaction is attainment of pleasurable sensation and desire fulfillment (Zairi 2000). A satisfied customer will eventually become loyal to the brand/product. Quality has a significant value in the eyes of the buyer. According to Aga (2007), production quality is the basis of existence in this challenging market. Ingredients and constituents of an item affects punter’s satisfaction (Rossomme 2003). And hence, complete satisfaction is reflected by the core product parts. Hence it is important for a company to keep the concept of consumer value if they want to make their consumer loyal towards their brand.

The level of degree to which a customer is happy and fulfilled by services and food items of an organization gives a measure of customer satisfaction. This is critical since a gratified client with ultimately bring about repeat sales and shall use large variety of services. This loyalty with the fast food outlet will enhance business.

Price:

Selection of a fast food outlet depends upon price value. The genre of restaurant is judged by consumer through food selling price; with the view that a costly restaurant will provide a better quality of both service and food (Woods and Muller, 1994). The kind of restaurant, type of occasion, profession and age group. The relative vitality of the restaurant decision vary extensively by restaurant sort, eating event, age and occupation (Kivela, 1997).

Rich clients select feel and ambience level as their determinant determination variables (Kivela, 1997). Different researchers have demonstrated price as client’s first choice (Kara,1995), (Park, 2004), (Andaleeb, 2006), (Tse, 2001)- (Palazon, 2009). Introduction of novelty items and limited time deals reap fruitful and recurrence sales. (Consuegra et al,2007) demonstrated that recognized price impartiality impacts buyer’s contentment and loyalty. Nonetheless, client fulfillment and loyalty are two paramount predecessors of value acknowledgement. In the meantime, (Iglesias and Guillen, 2004), agreed that cost can influence consumer satisfaction. Furthermore (Cater and Cater, 2009) proposed that customer satisfaction is contrarily influenced by cost. It could be characterized as "the procedure by which buyers translate cost and ascribe quality to an product or service". It has intrigued specialists for some years. It is a well-known reality that cost and quality are two significant elements of value. They both accelerate client gratification and additionally client upkeep, which help increment the benefits of any business. So for a chief of fast food restaurant it is significant to know customers discernment of value and price.

Past studies analyzing the effect of cost on perceived value have inferred a negative connection: the higher the value, the lower the product value is discerned (Dodds et al. 1991; Grewal et al. 1998). This is a general phenomenon that when clients go out for shopping they have a tendency to purchase items which have lower costs so they get a better value. This is upheld by (Hutton, 1995) asserting that now more purchasers are attempting to boost quality for cash used, requesting better quality at lower level costs. Even though this may not be fully right for all the consumers on the grounds, since a few customers are ready to pay more if they truly like a product. Higher recognized quality brings about a more amazing eagerness by the purchaser to receive another item (Mcgowan & Sternquist, 1998).

Clients who are eager to pay higher costs for an item or service have a tendency to be brand cognizant and renown touchy. They likewise accept cost is an indicator of quality or status (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). When clients are persuaded that they are getting the best quality product or service, they will have a tendency to improve reliability to it in the long run. Research led by (Kandampully & Suhartanto, 2003) on hospitality industry revealed a positive relationship between cost and client loyalty. Past studies looking at the effect of cost on observed worth have proposed a negative connection: the higher the value, the bring down the item quality is discerned (Dodds et al. 1991; Grewal et al. 1998). This is a general wonder that when clients go out for shopping they have a tendency to purchase items which have more level costs so they improve worth. This is underpinned by (Hutton, 1995) guaranteeing that now more purchasers are attempting to boost worth for cash used, requesting better quality at easier costs. In spite of the fact that this may not be completely accurate for all the clients since a few clients are eager to pay more assuming that they truly like an item. Higher discerned worth brings about a more amazing eagerness by the customer to embrace another item (Mcgowan & Sternquist, 1998).

Hygienic Food:

For the methodologies of prevention of identified vulnerabilities, a world known food safety system called HACCP is followed; it concentrates on SOP’s instead of building and locality domain (Worsfold and Griyth, 1995).

HACCP creates methodology thorough which these risks could be eliminated and asks for necessary paper work and approval of these regulating SOP’s (Codex, 1997). It has been generally welcomed by food and hospitality industry. However, small companies are reluctant to adopt it because of the absence of expertise, nonattendance of lawful prerequisites, fiscal demands and mentality (Taylor, 2001; Walker, Pritchard, & Forsythe, 2003).

Importance of Hygiene in Life

Fundamentally, hygiene could be portrayed as a set of measures and prerequisites important to be satisfied for a sound and positive system for living. There are varieties with respect to hygiene from one nation to another and from one culture to another. However, few fundamental guidelines are common. In our day to day life, hygiene/cleanliness plays a vital part in our beverages manufacture and food items making as well as all other products we get in contact. Therefore, there are distinctive subclasses of hygiene, contingent upon its appearance regions. Without a doubt at the least, we must be attentive to our body fitness, psychological, dental and job related hygiene. Also, to encourage healthy and constructive standard of living, hygiene exists as a distinct subdivision of science.

Hygiene is a Way of Protection from Illnesses

Numerous types of conceivably hazardous sicknesses can be avoided through adopting appropriate hygiene. This hygiene involves body, respirational, food, and drinking water and overall home-based hygiene, as well as of the pets and those who are vulnerable to diseases and ailments. Lack of hygiene causes diseases and illness to spread. In any case, a family which takes great forethought of the aforementioned parts of individual and natural hygiene is a family unit which denies contaminations to infiltrate.

One’s individual hygiene is an unquestionable requirement as people are usually responsible to behave as a carrier for various diseases. The food we consume should be prepared by underlining all essentials of food safety. Cleanliness should be taken care in the utensils we eat in, quality of food ingredients and its preparation. Another most important factor is the pets and domestic cattle we keep. They are likewise notorious for the transfer of various infections and hazardous micro-organisms. Cleaning the household through cleansers (soaps, detergents, etc.) can help finish the germs. Then again, for one’s individual hygiene, you can utilize disinfectants or antibacterial items, for example hand purifiers and also food preparation for high preparation.

Restaurant Ambience:

Law, Hui, and Zhao (2004) demonstrated that staff demeanor, foodstuff quality and assortment and environment essentially impact client contentment in quick service restaurants. Pettijohn, Pettijohn, and Luke (1997) discovered that quality, cleanliness and value to be three most paramount properties in quick nourishment restaurants, while atmosphere and menu diversity were generally insignificant. In a study conducted by King et al. (2004), the appearance of the dish, community cooperation and overall atmosphere showed to have direct positive impacts on variants of aforementioned rudiments on the worth of a certain meals however not all. They established that more exploration is required in this field. It alludes to environment in which services are provided and where clients interact. Indeed, in the early 19th century, Carême called attention to the vitality of décor and a complete composed environment that suited the restaurant's concept (Finkelstein 1989c).

The lighting, sounds, shades and outline of materials can have an extraordinary effect on a food situation, and this may have been one of the key factors behind the varying encounters of the same dish consumed in healing centers, at schools, in the Army and in restaurants (Meiselman et al. 1987; Edwards et al. 2003). Sloan (2004) was of the impression that decoration and theme of the restaurant, its ambience and environment and other amenities imprints a memorable effect on the diner. Dine-in customers who are status conscious prefer chic restaurant as they are overall cared for (Peters, 2005).

(Namkung-Jang, 2007) stated that manifestation and presentation allude to the way meal is decorated and served to achieve client fulfillment in eating places. A specific course meal food place is always appreciated by diners as it provides them a chance to learn about a completely different society (Boyce and Sukalakamala, 2007).

Consumer Care:

The most important thing for any business to be successful is that its primary focus should only beits customers. Whatever name you give them like consumer, customer, buyer, purchaser or client; their loyalty is the way to your victory. The fundamental approach towards expanding gains is through increasing customer care skills. Not just that, contented clients are enduring clients, and increasing their retention will basically bring down your operational expenses.

It has been also revealed that the advancement of exceptional associations with clients additionally assumes a key part in creating client trustworthiness. Persisting relationships with clients furnish a special and maintained aggressive playing point that is barely adopted by contenders. Such tactics are rumored to enhance clients' satisfaction and commitment and additionally raising monetary execution (Andreassen, 1994). Fulfilled clients tell a normal of five individuals, while disappointed clients impart their awful encounters with ten individuals (Brockway, Mangold and Miller, 1999).

Make the Customer Feel Welcome

Welcome your clients properly so that they feel comfortable. There has been always a variety of choices for customers to choose from; they don’t necessarily have to pick you today or in the future.

Begin confidently using a pleasant, friendly welcome, however don't try too hard! "Good Day", "Welcome", "Thanks for coming" are all modest words for welcoming; you can continue with "How can I help", "Are you searching for something specific today" or some other proper statement to demonstrate that you are there to help and that you feel gratifying after helping them.

Always be calm and natural and talk confidently and properly. Whenever desirable, tilt the communication towards the food item or service you need to sell. Don’t be assertive or forceful and be normal; abstain from looking like an idiot as if you are narrating a script. Never criticize your employer in front of a client, about your day, how occupied you are, the administration, your coworkers or any other thing that may create bad feelings and image in the customer’s mind.

Show Them You Care

Your consumers come before anything. Exceptional client care is uncommon these days; and by adopting an excellent customer support strategy, you can bounce on the rivalry and lure new clienteles. This is very essential for prospering a business. Reveal to them, you truly give attention to them and this way you will procure their patronage.

Listen Carefully

Before communicating, do you really know or have comprehended what your consumer is asking for? Listening carefully is a critical aspect of customer care that creates a great rapport.

Understand Your Customer’s Needs and Meet Them

Initiate your actions based on the “Voice of the Customer”. Listening to clients might be carried out through multiple methods. To get the response of the clients, most common are carrying out surveys and filling out feedback forms. Listen; to guarantee organization’s profit and also benefitting the consumer equally.

Deal with Complaints

The most difficult part of customer care is dealing with consumer criticism. Nobody prefers to hear complaints. So it’s a paradox why several dislike when people gripe. Manage client grumblings wisely and you shall earn the returns of great client administration.

Communication:

People give weight to their close relations and friends when opting for fast food chains (Mill, 2007). (Kim and Moon, 2009) were of the opinion that different people have exclusive eating habits and tastes and this may result in diverse choice standard when selecting a food outlet.

Respond to Clients as Soon as Possible

Quickness and promptness is everything for an organization as well as customers, particularlywhen a customer is asking for something that is time sensitive. A fast response to your customers will make them feel contented and will recommend your brand to others without any hesitation.

Keep Clients Updated

Let your clients recognize what you're taking a shot at and how things are advancing, give them fortification that they're counted in. Thus, you must carry your clients forward and keep them updated; at all times.

Open Communication Channels

Globalization and rapidly changing technology has brought up many ways for a client to interact with you. For instance, email, meeting in-person, telephone, using social networks, fax, etc. and would presume that these channels be open and reached without any trouble at all times.

Stay in Contact

Ensure that you are always in contact with your consumers through a newsletter, blog or some other affordable means.

Health Concerns:

Opinions, affiliations, lifestyles are transformed to oblige the new jet age and eating propensities too is no exemption (Solomons, 1995). Complete nutritious food have been traded by the new sustenance mantra – JUNK FOOD! In the situation of planet economy, garbage nourishment or junk food is a worldwide wonder (Holmboe-Ottesen, 2000). The accessibility of Junk Food and snacks at low costs and promoting systems acclimates by makers of such edibles has triggered a development wherein, utilization of nourishments that require not the structure or the readiness of a formal dish. It appears to have immersed each age; each race and the latest entrants on stage are youngsters, school going specifically.

Healthfulness, moreover, is an increasingly concern of contemporary fast food chains and their customers. Consumers may or may not view prepared foods available at retailers such as supermarkets as being competitive with fast food in terms of cost and taste. Fast food restaurants compete heavily on cost and convenience, particularly as it relates to getting food quickly. Food retailers may be in a stronger position to meld healthful eating and prepared foods together.

Junk Food permits individuals to consume without organizing – consume not just when it is preset meal time, additionally when they have free time. Constituents of junks nourishments give extraordinary taste and make them addictive (Allamani, 2007). Fat and sugar in amalgamation are equipped for transforming a dopamine-driven surge of compelling delight in individuals with an affinity for addictive conduct. On the other side, it must be noted that they are unsafe for health as well. High fat content, especially cholesterol, sugar and salts have their unfavorable impacts on health. Sky-high calorie content with sugar can lead to obesity [9]. Fast Food has a huge social impact on the life of the individuals, it is discovered to be the one of the most significant component in the expanding obesity rate in the teenage era (Bowman, Gortmaker et al., 2004).

Health is a quality measurement that has come to be exceptionally critical to numerous customers, and various studies show that, now a days, fitness holds as much importance as flavor. Food quality affects the health of customers. And hence, food ingredients, preparation procedure and serving/delivering methodology are taken into consideration by consumers due to health concerns.As the outcome for one’s good health is a trust issue and is practically impossible to identify in what way the consumed food has affected the health of the consumer.

Client Loyalty:

A loyal client is a client who repurchases from the same supplier at whatever point conceivable, who presses and supports an inspirational mentality towards the service provider/supplier (Bloemer et al. 1999, Gremler and Brown 1999, Shoemaker and Lewis 1999, Kandampully and Suhartanto 2000). According to Jones and Sasser (1995), client faithfulness is characterized as a feeling of connection to or fondness for an organization's service, product and individuals. Allegiance is an enduring bond to repurchase including both rehashed support and positive demeanor (Dick and Basu 1994, Stank et al. 1999). In a business setting steadfastness could be characterized as a client's responsibility to work with a specific association, acquiring their merchandise and administrations over and over, and proposing the administrations and items to other individuals (Mcilroy and Barnett 2000).

As per Nguyen and Leblanc (2001), dependability legitimately exists when the client opposes forces to switch to an alternate mark. Weiner (2000) contends that service suppliers fancy client dependability, on the grounds that a shopper that has an "attitudinal and behavioral responsibility" to an administration business might repurchase regardless of the fact that they are disappointed with the last experience.

Numerous investigates have been led and they have set considerable significance and attention on faithfulness of clients. The major client dedication conduct incorporates word-of-mouth; repurchase plan, grumbling conduct, and value affectability (Leisen & Prosser, 2004). There are numerous elements that are influencing client dependability, for example value affectability which heads towards gainfulness which has an immediate association with client steadfastness (Helgesen, 2006) the more dependable the clients are the more will be the productivity. Besides different elements service quality assumes a significant part in building client reliability like service quality which fast food restaurants are furnishing has an immediate effect on client unwaveringness (Chao, 2008).

In fast food service restaurants additionally the essentialness of corporate image can't be ignored as the brand emphatically impacts clients dependability (Christou, 2003) however shifting barriers in respect to other factors has a negative effect on client faithfulness i.e. the less will be the exchanging restraints the more will be the client dedication (Chen et al. 2009). So from the literary works survey it could be prescribed that money’s worth, brand name, and service quality can make client trustworthiness.

Service Quality:

Service are intangibles, they can't be measured, tallied and stocked. In spite of the fact that restaurants give nourishment, they additionally furnish intangibles, for example the promptness and the dependability of delivery. Affections, mentality, desires and observations come to be more essential in administrations.

Services are not consistent, the level of administration execution shifts from client to client, subject to desires and observations of individuals. Inseparability alludes to the utilization of services occurring in the meantime as they are generated, frequently on the premises of the service association. Services vanish, as they can't be recovered since services are performances, time can't be held over in the future to sell (Parasuraman et al. 1994).

Service quality is reflected in a shopper's evaluative recognition of an experience of service received (Cronin & Taylor, 1994). They recommended that there are natural issues in the utilization of the disconfirmation standard to measure administration quality. Explicitly, they contended that, if administration quality is to be recognized "comparable to a state of mind," as proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985), its operationalization could be better spoken to by a state of mind based on conceptualization. Zeithaml and Bitner (2000) recommended that buyers judge the nature of the service dependent upon their observations of the specialized result furnished and by the procedure by which the conclusion is conveyed and also by the nature of the physical surroundings where the service are provided. Exceptional execution on these perspectives might bring about remarkably discerned service quality for the organization.

(Wansink et al, Parasuraman, 1988) defines unwavering quality as the "capability to perform the guaranteed administration certainly and exactly". Administration brilliance helps client fulfillment which incorporates helpful, well-mannered and accommodating staff, mindful staff, staff welcoming clients and staff being ready to serve (Kivela, 2000). Furthermore, a few studies proposed that there is certain correspondence between client fulfillment and unwaveringness with representative amicability, civility, snappy administration, menu diversity, and service quality (Bateson,1982).

Most quick service buyers appear to place a greater significance on the quality of service (value menu) than they do on the expenses connected with its purchasing (food merely). Advertisers need to stress on the essentialness of service quality as an operational strategy and vital target. Specialists should also additionally comprehend that service quality is an imperative choice making paradigm for service customers (Cronin et al., 2000).

From the written works that has been analyzed, consumer satisfaction appears to be the subject of significance by both promoting experts and scholars since 1970s (Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Jones and Suh, 2000). Organizations and analysts initially tried to measure client satisfaction in the early 1970s, on the hypothesis that expanding it might help them succeed (Coyles and Gokey, 2002). All through the 1980s, specialists depended on consumer contentment and quality evaluations acquired from studies for performance monitoring, compensation and in addition resource assignment (Bolton, 1998) and started to inspect further the bases of client contentment (Swan and Trawick, 1981; Churchill and Surprenant, 1982; Bearden and Teel, 1983). In the 1990s, however, corporations and analysts have come to be progressively worried about the monetary suggestions of their client gratification (Rust and Zahorik, 1993; Bolton, 1998).

While satisfaction has been inspected by numerous scientists in diverse commercial ventures (Fornell, 1992; Anderson and Sullivan, 1993; Bolton, 1998; Ranaweera and Prabhu, 2003), consumer behavioral intents are also influence by service quality (Bitner, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994; Choi et al., 2004). Cronin, Brady and Hult (2000) expressed that looking at a single variable at one time may bewilder the comprehension of buyer choice making and this may prompt unsuitable promoting methodologies. This view is backed via Caruana (2002) and it is significant to study the impact of different developments, for example quality on behavioral plans notwithstanding client fulfillment. This study integrated service quality into the model in examining customer’s benefaction intentions in the restaurant perspective.

Service quality has likewise been connected with client reliability. While a few analysts have reported that there is a lesser effect of service quality than customer loyalty on buy plans (Cronin and Taylor, 1992), there are few others who gave firm meticulous validation supporting the idea that service quality builds client expectations to stay with an organization. It’s been further evaluated that superior service standard of fast food administration results in enhanced recurring sales, which prompts client reliability. Zeithaml et al. (1996) inferred as soon as organizations improve service quality, clients' good behavioral propositions are expanded while unfavorable plans are diminished at the same time.

Creating and maintaining service quality

Follow the following rules for a better quality of service.

Rule 1: Converse, connect, and communicate

Rule 2: The consumer is always correct.

Rule 3: Recruit and train efficiently and effectively.

Rule 4: Provide trainings regularly for proficient development of employees in place.

Rule 5: Make your processes (and your processors) purr.

Measuring Service Quality

An additional pivotal component to be remembered while looking to retain administration and service quality is to have an effective system for "measuring" quality. Business type, consumer expectations and model of service determine your service quality. For instance: for a quick service restaurant (QSR) it could be the increase in revenues as compared to the last month or the method for measurements of quality of service provided by the sale staff may be the amount of bills made as a fraction of entire consumer footfalls. After a framework is implemented for the measurement of quality, an appropriate metric can then be used to ensure the level of service the company is willing to retain.

Quality of Food:

Clark and Wood (1998) investigated through their research about client faithfulness and restaurant selection dependence on eminence and variety of nourishment being provided. In this reading, physical factors bear more value than non-physical ones in client steadfastness. The Quality of nourishment is appraised greatest critical trait impacting outlet choices in numerous researches upon shoppers' behavior of restaurant choice (Soriano, 2002). In a few cases, nourishments of different societies are acknowledged in the event that they have well known constituents and arrangement styles (Bailey and Tian, 2002). Exclusive ingredients and taste assume a critical part for purchasers when opting for a fast food dining place (Monteiro and Josiam, 2004).

Purchasers for the most part anticipate that restaurant administration representatives will be mindful, respectful and possess an exceptional information of the menu (Hensley and Sulek, 2004). Restaurants every now and again introduce fresh and innovative products to lure clients (Jang and Namkung, 2007). Health conscious consumers are appealed by those fast food outlets who usually modify their list of options and surprise such clients (Mill, 2007).

Perception of Quality:

The client view of a food item is one of the other vital aspect that is under observation by the advertisers of today. What client contemplates the nature of an item is a significant component. The expression quality is characterized by Shahzad (2012) as freedom from deformities. It is the totality of characteristics and qualities that exist in a product which can fulfill a client’s requirement. Quality has an immediate impact on client contentment which results into loyalty of client. Betterment in client observed quality will expand client gratification, steadfastness, and gainfulness (E.gummesson, 1998). But is the standard of quality the same is everyone’s view? The issue rolls out by Grönroos (1997) that every section in the market needs distinctive quality items relying upon their acquiring power and prerequisites.

Preference of Customer:

(Lichtenstein , 2006) characterized preference as one’s approach of inclinations in the direction of a collection of things, generally used in an unambiguous choice building. It could also mean to assess decision in the feeling of favoring or detesting an item (Scherer, 2005). However, “preference” could change with time. Inclination might alter eminently by choice making methodologies (Sharot, 2009) Client inclination or preference might be regarded as having a tendency to show decisions around impartial or more esteemed alternatives with acknowledgement demonstrating an ability to endure the norm or a few less attractive alternative (Fife Schaw, 2007). Quick sustenance advertisers may as well comprehend shoppers' observations and inclination for QSR’s and how they vary throughout cultures/countries, so procedures could be customized to enhance the image of their restaurants and to increase sales (Kara et al.,1995).

As mentioned earlier; customer preference depends on time and may change depending on several factors. (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998) found out that customer loyalty has deep roots with brand name. According to Anderson et al. (1994), satisfied consumer is more faithful; which in return enhances brand image. (Andreassen and Lindestad, 1998a, 1998b) stated that commitment in present consumers is dependent on trademark.

(Costabile, 2000) have conducted studies that showed customer prefer outlets where they get their money’s worth. And thus, buyers develop more commitment for a particular trademark where they think they are getting more quality as weighed with contenders (Bitner and Hubbert, 1994). Diverse works of research demonstrated direct impacts on consumer contentment and dedication by trust (Chiou, 2004). For Gommans et al. (2001) trust is a vital segment that assists customer dependability. Trusting convictions accelerate uplifting approach (client fulfillment), which, thus, impact expectation to participate in rehashed buys (buyer staunchness). They have additionally set client fulfillment as an interceding variable between trust and client steadfastness (Lin and Wang 2006).

Promotion:

Most former researches have affirmed connections between obesity and TV viewing. However, some have thrown light actually on how advertising a QSR on TV impacts health in the children. We can assume a positive correlation between calorie consumption and marketing on TV as audited by the Kaiser Family Foundation (2004). Case in point, Giammattei et al. (2003) revealed that kids who viewed more TV had a tendency to devour more beverages, a conceivable result of interaction with fast food promoting on TV. Even momentary exposure to fast food advertisements can impact preteen pupils deeply (Borzekowski and Robinson, 2001). Random experiments yielded that kids who watch videos wih embedded fast food advertisements and promotions were considerably more inclined to pick the publicized products. Conversely, two comprehensive and in-depth explorations quoted in Ashton (2004) backed the contention of mutually exclusive association between child obesity and TV commercials of fast food restaurants.

Youngsters are effortlessly changed through TV advertisements. Young kids ask for a brand while shopping in the market because of the publicity of these brands on Television as shown in studies. Becker and Murphy (1993) recommended a model in which he demonstrated that in the customer value function consumption and publicity are interconnected; i.e. by taking publicity as a complementary product, purchasers may essentially extract more from consuming a more publicized food item. In an attempt to make your clients bonded to your trademark, mouth-watering promotions can be magical. When a consumer feels that you have provided an excellent value for his money and given more than what he expected; he would definitely multiply your returns by promoting your brand to others.

In this connection, our experiential exploration ought to be directed at a bigger scale by recognizing example from diverse customer assemblies. Besides, research have been conducted for customer likings and their fulfillment about the quick service restaurants .This audit shows inconsistency of restaurant characteristics analyzed in the past investigations of buyer fulfillment, especially 'sustenance'. In spite of that, the most widely recognized and successive restaurant traits examined crosswise over studies and background of these researches are looked into. It is likewise noted that numerous studies did not report the impact of restaurant characteristics on buyer fulfillment. It is expected that reporting the effect of these properties on overall buyer fulfillment is indispensable to guarantee that restaurant administration knows the zone that should be enhanced and supporting them in a financial plan for improvement.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Type of research:

This research is a quantitative type of research i.e. quantitatively analyzing the data is an efficient research approach. Questionnaires are used to collect information from a large number of people in a short time. So in this research, data was collected through a survey questionnaire designed to be answered by customers of fast food restaurants. Numerical data was mathematically analyzed.

Population:

Total possible population in this study was 1000 customers. For data collection, the survey was conducted at the Pizza Hut, Hardees, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC), McDonald’s and Subway fast food restaurants. The researcher distributed questionnaires to customers of Pizza Hut, Hardees, KFC, McDonald’s and Subway. Of the 1000, 407 usable questionnaires were collected.

Sample Size :

A sample of 407 customers was selected randomly. Respondents included customers of Pizza Hut, Hardees, KFC, McDonald’s and Subway.

Instrument for Data Collection :

The instrument used was a five-point likert scale from “strongly disagree” to the “strongly agree” inthe questionnaire. The coding of the scale was made as:

- Strongly Agree == 5
- Agree == 4
- Neutral == 3
- Disagree == 2 and
- Strongly Disagree == 1

Data Analysis:

Data was compiled and statistically analyzed using SPSS and Microsoft Excel. For the statistical inference, the probability value (p- value) of a statistical test is set at .05. Descriptive statistics described the respondents’ demographic information in frequencies and percentages, and the measurement reliability test was conducted to indicate the internal consistency with suggested cutoff of .70.

Sampling Technique:

Sampling Technique used was simple random sampling.

Statistical Techniques:

There are two types of statistical techniques.

- Descriptive analysis

- Inferential analysis

In descriptive analysis we have plot bar chart and also check the reliability of the data. In inferential analysis we have applied Correlation Coefficient and ANOVA test.

Elements’ Selection:

The variables used in this research for customer loyalty towards quick service outlets were:

1) Quality of Food
2) Service Quality
3) Price
4) Hygienic
5) Promotion
6) Communication
7) Health Concerns
8) Customer Loyalty

RESULTS, ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Frequency of Factors:

The following graph show the count/frequency of all the eight factors used in the research.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 1: All 8 factors have an unequal importance in the eyes of the customers.

Interpretation:

The output from this graph gives a quick summary of the distribution of the feedback from the customers towards fast food restaurant performance. The graph presented above indicates that consumers give the higher response to the factor “Health Concerns” which has a 4.20 average value. Promotion gets the lowest response i.e. 3.56 for fast food restaurant performance.

Gender Frequency:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 2: Graphical representation of gender

Interpretation:

The above table and graph shows that out of 407, 150 responses are from males and 257 responses are from females.

Age Frequency:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 3: Graphical representation of age

Interpretation:

The table and graph presented above suggests that out of 407, we got 17 responses from people less than 20 years of age, 316 responses between 21 and 30 years, 53 responses from 31 to 40 years of age and 21 responses from the customers above 40 years.

Occupation Frequency:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 4: Graphical representation of occupation

Interpretation:

The table and graph presented above shows that out of 407 we got 74 responses from salaried customers, 89 responses from self- employed, 21 from retired, 126 from students and 97 responses from housewife.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 5: Graphical representation of Gender * which fast food restaurants go mostly?

Interpretation:

The table and graph presented above suggests that out of 150 male respondents, there are 14 male customers who mostly visit Pizza Hut, 50 visit Hardees, 40 visit KFC, 31 visit Macdonald’s and 15 visit Subway. Out of 257 female customers there are 21 who mostly visit Pizza hut, 94 visit Hardees, 60 visit KFC, 56 visit Macdonald’s and 41 visit Subway.

Age Cross Tabulation against Restaurant:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 6: Graphical representation of Age * which fast food restaurants go mostly?

Interpretation:

The table and graph presented above suggests that customers whose age is less than 20 years are 17 and out of these 17 there are 3 customers who visit Pizza hut, 13 visit Hardees, 0 KFC, 0 McDonalds and 1 visit Subway. The customers between the ages of 21 and 30 years are 316 and out of these 316 there are 22 customers who visit Pizza Hut, 101 visit Hardees, 81 visits KFC, 77 visits McDonalds and 35 visit Subway. The customers between the ages of 31 and 40 are 53. While out of these 53 there are 5 customers who visit Pizza hut, 20 visit Hardees, 15 visits KFC, 10 visits McDonalds and 3 visits Subway. The customers above 40 years are 21 and out of these 21 there are 5 customers who visit Pizza hut, 10 visit Hardees, 4 visits KFC, 0 visits Macdonald and 2 visits Subway.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Occupation Cross Tabulation against Restaurant:

Figure 7: Graphical representation of Occupation * which fast food restaurants go mostly?

Interpretation:

The table and graph presented above suggests that out of a total of 74 salaried persons; there are 10 customers who prefer going to Pizza Hut, 30 Hardees, 10 KFC, 18 go McDonalds and 6 visit Subway. The total self-employed customers are 89 and from these there are 5 customers who prefer Pizza Hut, 29 visit Hardees, 25 visit KFC, 21 visit McDonalds and 9 visit Subway. There are a total of 21 retired customers; out of which 2 customers visit Pizza Hut frequently, 6 visit Hardees, 7 visit KFC, 2 visit McDonalds and 4 visit Subway. The student customers were 126. Out of these, 12 customers visit Pizza Hut, 45 visit Hardees, 32 visit KFC, 23 visits McDonalds and 14 visit Subway. The housewife customers were 97; out of which 6 customers visit Pizza Hut, 34 prefer Hardees, 26 go KFC, 23 visit McDonalds and 8 visit Subway.

INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS

Reliability Statistics:

Analysis of reliability helps us to assess the relationship of identified survey elements with just a small detail of measurements. Most significant is Cronbach's alpha, a unique number that lets you know how well a set of things measures a single attribute. This detail is an overall correlation of factors where the values extend between 0 and 1. Values above 0.7 are regularly acknowledged to be suitable.

Reliability Stats

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

If Cronbach alpha’s value is greater than or equal to 0.7, this means the questionnaire is reliable; else if Cronbach alpha value is less than 0.7; that means our questionnaire is not reliable.

In my case Cronbach alpha’s value is 0.721 > 0.7, so the questionnaire is reliable.

Interpretation:

The present study used Cronbach’s alpha, a method of measuring internal consistency, to evaluate whether the scale had reliability. When Cronbach alpha’s value is higher it means the internal consistency of items from the scale is higher. A total of 407 samples were collected. The scale has 8 factors. In order to evaluate the internal consistency, Cronbach alpha’s was calculated, showing that 3 of the factors did not reach the criteria. Thus, these 3 factors were deleted. The final Cronbach alpha for the scale was 0.721, which was satisfactory. The reliability of identified constructs was showed in table above.

Hypothesis 1:

Ho: There is no correlation between service quality & customer loyalty for a fast food restaurant.

H1: There is correlation between service quality & customer loyalty for a fast food restaurant.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 1: correlation between service quality and customer loyalty

Interpretation:

The correlation matrix displays the correlations for each pair of variables. The correlation coefficient of service quality and customer loyalty is r = 0.344. There is positive relationship between two variables. This effectively means that as service quality increases, customer loyalty also rises. There is a medium correlation between the two variables, suggesting quite a moderate relationship betweenservice quality and customer loyalty. We can see that the significance level is p = .000, which is below 0.05 and therefore, it is statistically significant. Thus, our alternative hypothesis is supported.

Results:

The correlation concerning service quality and customer loyalty was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a moderate, positive correlation between the two variables, r = .344, n = 407, p < 0.05, with high levels of service quality associated with high levels of customer loyalty.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 2: correlation between Hygienic Food and Customer Loyalty

Interpretation:

The matrix above displays the correlations between hygienic food and customer loyalty with correlation coefficient r = 0.526. There is positive relationship between two variables. This means that as hygienic food increases in value, customer loyalty also rises. There is a strong positive connection between the two. We can see that the significance level is p = 0.000, which is below 0.05 and therefore, it is statistically significant. Thus, our H1 hypothesis is supported.

Results:

The correlation for service quality &customer loyalty was found using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between the two, r = 0.526, n=407, p<0.05, with high levels of hygienic food associated with high levels of customer loyalty.

Hypothesis 3:

Ho: There is no correlation between communication & customer loyalty for fast food restaurant.

H1: There is correlation between communication and customer loyalty for fast food restaurant.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 3: correlation between Communication and customer loyalty

Interpretation:

Table 3 displays the correlations between communication and customer loyalty with correlation coefficient r = 0.599. There is positive relationship between the two variables. This effectively means that as communication enhances, customer loyalty also rises. There is a solid relationship betweenthe two. We can see that the significance level is p = 0.000, which is below 0.05 and therefore, it is statistically significant. Thus, our alternative hypothesis H1 is supported.

Results:

The correlation concerning communication and customer loyalty was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between the two variables, r = .599, n = 407, p < 0.05, with high levels of communication associated with high levels of customer loyalty.

Hypothesis 4:

Ho: There is no correlation between health concerns & customer loyalty in fast food restaurants.

H1: There is correlation between health concerns & customer loyalty in fast food restaurants.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 4: correlation between Health Concerns and customer loyalty

Interpretation:

The correlation matrix displays the correlations for the pair of variables i.e. health concerns and customer loyalty (where correlation coefficient r = 0.293). There is positive relationship between two variables. This effectively means that as health concerns grows in value, the loyalty of the customer also rises. There exists a modest correlation between the two. We can see that the significance level is (p = .000), which is below 0.05 and therefore, it is statistically significant. Thus, our alternative hypothesis H1 is supported.

Results:

The correlation of health concerns & customer loyalty was studied using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between the two variables, r = 0.293, n = 407, p < 0.05, with high levels of communication associated with high levels of customer loyalty.

Hypothesis 5:

Ho: There is no correlation between price and customer loyalty towards fast food restaurant.

H1: There is correlation between price and customer loyalty towards fast food restaurant.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 5: correlation between Price and customer loyalty

Interpretation:

The correlation matrix displays the correlations for price and customer loyalty (r = 0.333). There is positive relationship between two variables. This effectively means that as price increases, loyalty also increases. There is a medium correlation between the two variables, suggesting quite a modest relationship between the two. We can see that the significance level is (p = .000), which is below 0.05 and therefore, it is statistically significant. Thus, our null hypothesis Ho is rejected and alternative hypothesis H1 is accepted.

Results:

The relationship between price & customer loyalty was deduced using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation between the two variables, r =.333, n = 407, p < 0.05, with high levels of price associated with high levels of customer loyalty.

Hypothesis 6:

Ho: There is no correlation between food quality and customer loyalty in a fast food restaurant.

H1: There is correlation between food quality and customer loyalty in a fast food restaurant.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 6: correlation between Food quality and customer loyalty

Interpretation:

The correlation matrix displays the correlations for food quality and customer loyalty(r = 0.102). There is a positive relationship between two variables. This simply implies that as food quality increases, the consumer loyalty also increases in value. There is a little association between the two variables, prescribing a considerable weak positive relationship betweenfood quality and customer loyalty. In correlation matrix p-value is equal to 0.041 which is less than 0.05; hence, the two variables are statistically significant. Thus our H1 hypothesis is supported.

Results:

The link between food quality& customer loyalty was examined using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a weak but positive correlation between the two, r = .102, n = 407, p < 0.05, with high levels of food quality linked with high levels of customer loyalty.

Hypothesis 7:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 7: correlation between Promotion and customer loyalty

Interpretation:

The table above depicts the correlations for variables namely promotion and customer loyalty (correlation coefficient r = .101). There is a positive relationship between two variables. This effectively implies that as promotions are increased, customer loyalty also rises. There is a little association between the two variables, prescribing a considerable weak yet positive relationship betweenpromotion and customer loyalty. In correlation matrix p-value is = 0.041 < 0.05 which shows that two variables are statistically significant. Thus, our H1 hypothesis is accepted.

Results:

The correlation between promotion& customer loyalty was studied via Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a positive correlation between the two variables, r =.101, n =407, p <0.05, with high levels of promotion linked with high levels of customer loyalty.

Hypothesis 8:

Ho: There is no significant difference among the means of all 8 factors for the customers.

H1: There is significant difference among the means of all 8 factors in the eyes of the customers.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 8: ANOVA Analysis All 8 factors have an unequal importance for customers.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 8: All 8 factors have unequal importance for customers

Interpretation of output from One-way ANOVA:

ANOVA:

In ANOVA table F= 52.522, p = 0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference among the means of 8 factors in the eyes of the customers. The results of the ANOVA test imply that we would reject our because of the low significance level. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparisons will indicate this. In multiple comparison results show that asterisk (*) sign in the table among the group means are significantly different from one another.

Multiple Comparison Interpretation:

Now that we have sufficient evidence for rejecting , we need to determine which groups are different from one another. The multiple comparison table provides the data need to see which groups of data have sufficient evidence to say that they are indeed different. Look at the “Food Quality” compared to “Service”. Notice that both the significant level and the 95% confidence interval are above 0.05 and includes 0 respectively. This means that there is not sufficient data to say that the Customer loyalty response between “Food Quality” and “Service” are different. Conversely, look at “Food Quality” compared to “Price”. Its significant level and confidence interval are below 0.05 and do not contain 0 respectively, so there is sufficient data to say that this pair of data is likely to be different. If you noticed, the mean differences that have an asterisk next to them indicate a significant difference between values.

Means Plot:

We can now look at a graphical representation of the means. If we did not use the ANOVA test, we could not infer the validity of this graph, but now we can say which points contain significant differences. For example, we see graphically that “Food Quality” and “Service” have different means, but now we can say that the this difference is not enough proof to say that they are in fact different (statistically). This illustrates the potentially misleading information in a graph.

Hypothesis 9:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of customer loyalty between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of customer loyalty between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 9: Means of importance of customer loyalty between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 9: Means of importance of customer loyalty between customers of different age groups.

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 0.555, p=.645, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of customer loyalty. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 10:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of food quality between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is significant difference in the means of importance of food quality between customers of different age groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 10: Means of importance of food quality between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 10: Means of importance of food quality between customers of different age groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 1.834, p=0.140, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of food quality. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 11:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of service quality between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is significant difference in the means of importance of service quality between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11: Means of importance of service quality between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 11: Means of importance of service quality between customers of different age groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= .109, p=0.955, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of service quality. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 12:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of Price between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is significant difference in the means of importance of Price between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 11: Means of importance of price between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 12: The means of importance of Price between customers of different age groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 1.883, p=0.132, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of price. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 13:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of Hygienic food between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is significant difference in the means of importance of Hygienic food between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 13: Means of importance of Hygienic food between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 13: Means of importance of Hygienic food between customers of different age groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= .760, p=0.517, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of hygienic food. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 14:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of Promotion between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of Promotion between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 14: Means of importance of Promotion between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 14: The means of importance of Promotion between customers of different age groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= .995, p=0.395, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of promotion. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 15:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of Communication between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of Communication between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 15: Means of importance of communication between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 15: Means of importance of communication between customers of different age groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 9.498, p=0.00, p< 0.05, shows that the importance of Communication between customers of 4 age groups significantly different. We don’t know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheff multiple comparison shows that asterisk * sign in the table among the four group means are significantly different from one another.

Hypothesis 16:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of Heath Concerns between customers of different age groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of different age groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 16: Means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of different age groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 16: Means of importance of Health Concerns between clients of different age groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 12.551, p=0.000, P < 0.05, shows that the importance of Health Concerns between customers of four age groups significantly different. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheffe multiple comparison shows that asterisk * sign in the table among the four group means are significantly different from one another.

Hypothesis 17:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of Customer Loyalty between customers of different occupation groups.

H1: There is significant difference in the means of importance of Customer Loyalty between customers of different occupation groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 17: Means of importance of Customer Loyalty between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 17:Means of importance of Customer Loyalty between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 4.8771, p=0.001, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of customer loyalty. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheff multiple comparison shows that asterisk * sign in the table among the occupation group means are significantly different from one another.

Hypothesis 18:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of food quality between customers of different occupation groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of food quality between customers of different occupation groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 18: Means of importance of food quality between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 18: The means of importance of food quality between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 1.430, p=0.223, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of food quality. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 19:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of service quality between customers of different occupation groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of service quality between customers of occupation groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 19: Means of importance of service quality between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 19: Means of importance of service quality between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 8.996, p=0.000, P < 0.05, shows that the importance of service quality between customers of occupation groups significantly different. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheff multiple comparison shows that asterisk * sign in the table among the four group means are significantly different from one another.

Hypothesis 20:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of price between customers of different occupation groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of price between customers of different occupation groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 20: Means of importance of price between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 20: The means of importance of price between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 5.551, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of price. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheff multiple comparison shows that asterisk * sign in the table among the four group means are significantly different from one another.

Hypothesis 21:

Ho: There is not a significant difference in the means of importance of hygienic food between customers of different occupation groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of hygienic food between customers of different occupation groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 21: Means of importance of hygienic food between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 21: Means of importance of hygienic food between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F=2.050, p=0.087, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of hygienic. In multiple comparison table results indicates that all the significant values are more than the 0.05, so there is no difference in the means of the groups.

Hypothesis 22:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of promotion between customers of occupation groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of promotion between customers of occupation groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 22: Means of importance of promotion between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 22: The means of importance of promotion between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 3.228, p=0.013, P < 0.05, shows that the importance of promotion between customers of occupation groups significantly different. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheff multiple comparison shows that asterisk * sign in the table among the four group means are significantly different from one another.

Hypothesis 23:

Ho: There is no significant difference in the means of importance of communication between customers of different occupation groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of communication between customers of different occupation groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 23: Means of importance of communication between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 23: Means of importance of communication between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 10.417, p=0.000, p< 0.05, shows that the importance of communication between customers of occupation groups is significantly different. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheff multiple comparison shows that * in the table among the 4 group means are significantly different from one another.

Hypothesis 24:

Ho: There is not a significant difference in the means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of different occupational groups.

H1: There is a significant difference in the means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of different occupational groups.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 24: Means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of occupation groups

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Figure 24: Means of importance of Health Concerns between customers of occupation groups

Interpretation:

In ANOVA table F= 5.797, p=0.000, P < 0.05, shows that the importance of health concerns between customers of occupation groups significantly different. We do not know which group means are different, multiple comparison test will indicate this. Scheff multiple comparison shows that asterisk * sign in the table among the four group means are significantly different from one another.

Discussion of Analysis:

Using descriptive statistics we plotted the bar graph, in which we had taken the average of eight elements for 407 reactions (Customers input towards quick food restaurant). This graph also shows that clients give the better feedback to the element "Health Concerns" while "Promotion" gets the most minimal response from the customers of quick nourishment eating places.

We investigated the every one of the Eight components have an equivalent significance in the eyes of the clients. One way ANOVA was performed for this reason. Statistically, there was a huge distance between the groups from the 200 responses obtained. In the eyes of the clients all 8 factors (Food Quality, Service, Price, Hygienic, and promotion, Communication, Health Concerns and Customer Loyalty) are of equal value according to the evidence. Hence, the Null Hypothesis F is discarded as a test indicates an important bond and implies that the populace methods are equivalent. The Multiple comparison test will show that we do not have an idea which group means are different. When we get a huge F test result done by an ANOVA test for a primary impact of a component with more than two levels, this lets us know we can reject Null Hypothesis (H0). i.e. the population does have the same mean from which samples were taken out. Difference between groups can be assessed by the results of multiple comparison test. The outcomes of the ANOVA test suggest that we might reject our Null Hypothesis in view of the low criticalness level, on the other hand we have to confirm this with the Welch and Drown-Forsythe tests (Robust Test for Equality of Means). Vigorous tests of Equality of Means produce the same outcomes as our ANOVA test, (centrality levels of .000) we can utilize the ANOVA results.

To have enduring victory in the fast food restaurant industry it is essential to make faithful customers through a system of marketing the relationships. An important part to building a relationship is client fulfillment with business dealings. They imply that happy customers are more motivated to be held. Consistent with our discoveries, the keys to client fulfillment for fast food outlets are (in place) Food quality, Service quality, Hygienic Food, value for money, promotion, correspondence, health issues and Customer trustworthiness.

Above all else, the research indicated that data is dependable for this reason Cronbach alpha is computed through SPSS, Cronbach's alpha coefficients are near or higher than the needed level of 0.7. Fast Food quality was additionally revealed to be vital to the fast food purchasers. Moreover, need of preparation of food should guarantee that it has a consistent taste, same quantity, and is provided at in the same degree of hotness or coldness. Along these lines, restaurants need trustworthy suppliers with and proficient supply chains for their ingredients of food.

It is evident that it is critical for a restaurant to furnish a minding and customized administration to clients." The results additionally uncovered that quality of service has the strongest positive impact on client steadfastness towards Fast Food restaurants. Clearly, comfort and fast administration are part of the quality that customers are searching for in their purchasing conduct. Actually, to keep costs low, speedy food chains regularly work with low revenues. In that capacity, the speedier that buyer’s requests are met the faster the income. Higher turnover accumulates, in general to bigger gains over a given time frame. Procedures and cooking methods must be proficient and predictable to minimize the time between when a client order and its execution. Numerous procedures can minimize service time by incorporating modern methods of outsourcing the request to a call center, utilizing more individuals at key times, or innovating to accelerate the sustenance readiness time.

Prosperous outlets contend efficiently on cost. Advancements utilizing coupons are regularly used to give low cost dishes. In this way, purchasers observe more worth of their money. An alternate part of rivaling low cost sustenance, is that restaurants must look after operational proficiency keeping in mind the end goal to keep sets backs as low as possible. The value of price is .333(**) which is additionally noteworthy and shows an immediate relationship and positive effect on the client faith for the brand.

As indicated in our discoveries, Hygienic Food has a huge effect on customer faithfulness in quick nourishment division. Fast food administration is responsible to give a sheltered and clean restaurant environment by decreasing the load of ailment from consumption. Likewise proper food keeping is essential. Indeed, holding temperatures is a standout amongst the most vital routines for regulating the development of microorganisms in sustenance. Regulating temperature averts numerous types of pathogens from reproducing to the extent that may cause disease and at last, sustenance must be optimally cooked. Undercooked meats, Dairy products, and eggs can transmit enough bacteria to harm clients. While not getting sick does not mean that customer is happy but otherwise will definitely bring about an unsuitable feasting background. Written works infer that hygiene in preparing meals enhances safety of food but is constrained by an absence of comprehension of the aforementioned variables in helping fruitful results. There is a need to improve preparing strategies that are demonstrated to change conduct and in addition giving knowledge.

Consistent with our research communication has a critical effect on Customer loyalty in this industry. Hence, responsiveness of QSR’s workers might be enhanced through expanded staff incentive, enhanced marketing aptitudes, positive behavior, vibrant job insight, high knowledge of service provision and high familiarity with organizational strategies. Supervising client fulfillment levels is a basic method for QSR’s to hold their present clients and likewise empower them to lure more potential clients through communication.

Concerns about Health has the critical impact on consumer’s loyalty in quick service segment. Cognizance of nutrient value on junk food is far from reality among people. Consuming a nutritious diet is a hard-working job. Consequently each parent in society has to be knowledgeable about such food products and their effect on their young ones health, who can teach them well to keep away from this kind of food.

According to our research, Promotion has a huge effect on Customer faithfulness in quick service restaurant industry. It was discovered that the promotions and publicizing an item or service firmly in the brain of the shopper, results in an increased rehashed sale of the item. This additionally makes brand dependability and item distinction. From different sources, the past experience and state of psyche, the customer may figure out the effect that promotions has on him/her.

In an effort to enhance imparting information to the clients and to have their consideration, promoters make some exceptional moments that will reverberates the brain of the target client and propel the gathering of people to buy the publicized item or service. The point when an organization likes to give essentialness and plan on finance more than publicizing to get the temporary outcome, it will miss the long lasting food item image. Organizations may as well deliberately utilize both techniques to supplement one another, as numerous giants of this industry do. Additionally, these sorts of talks and surmises infer that the enduring impact of publicizing on brand building is unquestionable. Studies have indicated that a finest trademark is more often sustained by publicizing. It has been discovered that, in connection to sales advancement, promotions makes buyers less cost touchy, which is often held responsible for encouraging buyer's psyche by deals. Obviously, this is indicating the positive effect that publicizing and advertising has on shopper behavior.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDINGS

Descriptive analysis:

- The output from the graph gives a quick summary of the distribution of the feedback from the Customers towards fast food restaurant performance. The graph indicates that student gives the higher response to the factor “Health Concerns” which is 4.20. Promotion gets the lowest response from the Customers 3.56 towards Fast food restaurant performance.
- The table and graph shows that out of 407, 150 responses from male and 257 responses from female.
- The table and graph suggests that out of 407, we got 17 responses from less than 20 age, 316 responses from 21-30 age, 53 responses from 31-40 age and 21 responses from the customer above 40.
- The table and graph suggests that out of 407 we got 74 responses from salaried customers, 89 responses from self- employed, 21 from retired, 126 from students and 97 responses from housewife.
- The table and graph suggests that out of 150 male there are 14 male customers who mostly visit Pizza hut, 50 visit Hardees, 40 visit KFC, 31 visit Macdonald’s and 15 visit Subway. Out of 257 female customers there are 21who mostly visit Pizza hut, 94 visit Hardees, 60 visit KFC, 56 visit Macdonald’s and 41 visit Subway.
- The table and graph suggests that customers whose age is less than 20 out of 17 there are 3 customers who visit Pizza hut, 13 visit Hardees, 0 KFC, 0 Macdonald and 1 visit Subway. The customers between the ages of 21-30, out of 316 there are 22 customers visit Pizza hut, 101 visit Hardees, 81 visits KFC, 77 visits Macdonald and 35 visits Subway. The customers between the ages of 31-40 out of 53 there are 5 customers who visit Pizza hut, 20 visit Hardees, 15 visits KFC, 10 visits Macdonald and 3 visits Subway. The customers between the ages of above 40, out of 21 there are 5 customers who visit Pizza hut, 10 visit Hardees, 4 visits KFC, 0 visits Macdonald and 2 visits Subway.
- The table and graph suggests that out of 74 there are 10 salaried customer visits Pizza hut, 30 visits Hardees, 10 visits KFC, 18 visits Macdonald and 6 visits Subway. The Self-employed customers out of 89 there are 5 customer visits Pizza hut, 29 visits Hardees, 25 visits KFC, 21 visits Macdonald and 9 visits Subway. The Retired customers out of 21 there are 2 customer visits Pizza hut, 6 visits Hardees, 7 visits KFC, 2 visits Macdonald and 4 visits Subway. The student customers out of 126 there are 12 customer visits Pizza hut, 45 visits Hardees, 32 visits KFC, 23 visits Macdonald and 14 visits Subway. The housewife customers out of 97 there are 6 customer visits Pizza hut, 34 visits Hardees, 26 visits KFC, 23 visits Macdonald and 8 visits Subway.

ANOVA analysis:

ANOVA analysis shows that the independent variables that are food quality, service, price, promotion, communication, hygienic food, health concerns have a positive impact on dependent variable that is customer loyalty. In ANOVA table F= 52.522, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference among the means of 8 factors in the eyes of the customers. The results of the ANOVA test imply that we would reject our because of the low significance level.

Impact of Food quality on customer loyalty:

Food quality value is .102(**) which is significant at 0.05 level which shows food quality has a direct relationship and positive impact on the dependent variable that is customer loyalty, So hypothesis one i.e. food quality is positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty.

Impact of service quality on customer loyalty:

Service quality value is .344 (significant at 0.05 level) which shows service quality has a direct and positive relationship with the dependent variable that is customer loyalty, so hypothesis one i.e. service quality is positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty.

Impact of hygienic food on customer loyalty:

Hygienic food value is .526(**) which is significant at 0.05 level which shows hygienic food has a direct relationship and positive impact on the dependent variable that is customer loyalty, So hypothesis one i.e. hygienic food is positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty.

Impact of communication on customer loyalty:

Communication value is .599(**) which is significant at 0.05 level which shows communication has a direct relationship and positive impact on the dependent variable that is customer loyalty, So hypothesis one i.e. communication is positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty.

Impact of Health concerns on customer loyalty:

Health concerns value is .293(**) which is significant at 0.05 level which shows health concerns has a direct relationship and positive impact on the dependent variable that is customer loyalty, So hypothesis one i.e. health concerns is positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty.

Impact of price on customer loyalty:

Price value is .333(**) which is significant at 0.05 level which shows price has a direct relationship and positive impact on the dependent variable that is customer loyalty, So hypothesis one i.e. price is positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty.

Impact of promotion on customer loyalty:

Promotion value is .101(**) which is significant at 0.05 level which shows promotion has a direct relationship and positive impact on the dependent variable that is customer loyalty, So hypothesis one i.e. promotion is positively and significantly correlated with customer loyalty.

ANOVA analysis on Age:

- In ANOVA table F= .555, p=.645, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of customer loyalty.
- In ANOVA table F= 1.834, p=0.140, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of food quality.
- In ANOVA table F= .109, p=0.955, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of service quality.
- In ANOVA table F= 1.883, p=0.132, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of price.
- In ANOVA table F= .760, p=0.517, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of hygienic food.
- In ANOVA table F= .995, p=0.395, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of promotion.
- In ANOVA table F= 9.498, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of communication.
- In ANOVA table F= 12.551, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the four age groups for the importance of health concerns.

ANOVA analysis on Occupation:

- In ANOVA table F= 4.8771, p=0.001, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of customer loyalty.
- In ANOVA table F= 1.430, p=0.223, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of food quality.
- In ANOVA table F= 8.996, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of service quality.
- In ANOVA table F= 5.551, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of price.
- In ANOVA table F=2.050, p=0.087, P > 0.05, so there is no significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of hygienic food.
- In ANOVA table F= 3.228, p=0.013, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of promotion.
- In ANOVA table F= 10.417, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of communication.
- In ANOVA table F= 5.797, p=0.000, P < 0.05, so there is a significant difference between the means of the occupation groups for the importance of health concerns.

Research Implications:

Client steadfastness is most paramount variable for any association. Future investigations on client faithfulness could be directed by analyzing diverse administration parts e.g. telecom, financial institutions and tourism etc. and such a correlation can give a lucid picture of client trustworthiness. Further administrations and items examination in connection with client reliability could attract future research. Anticipated examination could be directed by scrutinizing diverse demographic variables e.g. age, and wages level with the considered variables in this research. As age and salary level effect might be investigated on client dependability, so distinctive earnings level can see price factor in a different way. Correspondingly, diverse age bunches reliability level with restaurant and lodging could be distinctive, so in future research demographic components may as well additionally be considered. Customer loyalty is increased by conducting such researches. Administrators of these businesses should know what elements should attract customer loyalty. This study signifies the components which are essential for making clientele. Fast food industry giants may consider that trademark of their restaurant or lodging is a dominant aspect as brand name can make organizations to face and adapt to great rivalry. Price is additionally a critical variable which supervisors might as well remember as clients are just eager to pay when they are receiving desired services. The most significant component for the administrators of service sector is the administration quality. Quality of service empowers the association to hold its clients and it can make fulfillment which eventually brings about client faithfulness. Selling price and quality of service are associated with each other and allows an organization to construct a positive image while the third factor of brand image helps in the betterment of overall quality. So administrators should underline on value of administration quality, price, and brand image keeping in mind the end goal to make and improve client dependability.

Research limitations:

Despite its implications, this study also has some limitations. The data were collected at only fast food restaurants of Lahore. If this study expands the population to other regions, the findings will be more reliable and concrete. Due to this reason the results were limited.

CONCLUSION:

This research has indicated the catalyst of customer faithfulness. Past studies have shown the relationship between operations execution and client dedication. In the light of this study, it might be presumed that in businesses like hotels and restaurants, client devotion is the most essential element. We ought to hold clients as well as pull in new and attempt to make them reliable clients. Client faithfulness relies on upon quality of meals, administration quality, cost, hygiene, health concerns, communication and promotions. All these are in immediate association with consumer loyalty so we might as well center and fortify these variables. My findings indicated that all distinguished elements in this research absolutely help the client trust. Further variables might be distinguished for future research which can influence client loyalty.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

After analyzing all the findings we suggest that fast food restaurant should focus on the following factors which are mainly focused by the customers. Fast food restaurant must reduce their prices and improve the quality and quantity as the customers are feeling bored and are not happy to pay the prices for the concerning deals. This could be beneficial for fast food restaurant in making wise decisions because now customer have more options and they are more price conscious. Also, this could help them in providing good atmosphere and healthier fast food because now people are more health conscious.

Clients search for a quick service restaurant’s menu that incorporates return for money foodstuff, however abstain from cutting your income level excessively low with profound rebates, coupons and free offers. Value deals commonly offer a couple of dishes, numerous food items taken from the principle menu, one or two refreshments and no less than one minimal dessert course.

Based on our research we suggest that fast food restaurant should improve the quality of their food because majority of people found fast food restaurant a less healthy option. Keep your restaurant clean from inside and make beautiful the territory around the drive-through window to enhance the client recognition of your restaurant. A client who encounters quality feasting is a happy client, and that means rehash sales and greater restaurant revenues. A fulfilled client additionally proposes your restaurant to others.

Superior consumer service pushes a satisfying experience for your buyers. A grin and welcome from your staff when clients enter the restaurant helps set the tone for the visit - and teaching needed to get representatives to utter a simple welcome is negligible. Train your workers to follow how to utilize the register, and control raw material requesting so your restaurant doesn't finish all the famous food stuff. Prepare staff in the utilization of equipment so the customer’s food is for sure quickly delivered, and fresh and delicious.

Fast food restaurants must establish meaningful standards for child-targeted marketing. These standards should apply to all fast food restaurants. The nutrition criteria for foods presented in child-targeted marketing must apply to kids’ meals served, not just the items pictured in marketing. Child-targeted marketing must do more to persuade children to want the healthy options available, not just to encourage them to ask their parents to visit the restaurants. Restaurants must redefine “child-targeted” marketing to include TV ads and other forms of marketing viewed by large numbers of children, but not exclusively targeted to them.

Restaurants must expand the definition of “advertising” to include all forms of marketing viewed by children. Fast food restaurants must do more to develop and promote lower-calorie and more nutritious menu items. The focus in all forms of marketing must be reversed to emphasize the healthier options instead of the high-calorie poor quality items now promoted most extensively. Restaurants must increase the relative number of lower calorie, more nutritious items on their menus.

Suggestions for Future Analysis:

Customer contentment is the main factor for any organization. Future exploration upon customer satisfaction may be performed by comparing different service sectors e.g. telecommunications, financial institutions and hospitality etc.; this kind of comparison can provide a more apparent picture of purchaser’s loyalty. Future study should be performed at the larger level throughout the different towns of Pakistan. Since, we collected data from only 407 customers; and so in future the research needs to be performed with a substantial sample dimension. In future many other restaurants should come under observation to help validate the present study’s findings.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Acheson, D. and Wicking, N. (1992), “Fast food Franchising and Finance”. In Fast Food Operations and Their Management (Ball, S., ed.), Stanley Thornes, pp 147-68.
2. Anderson, E.W. and Sullivan, M. (1993), “The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms”, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 125-43
3. Aaker, D.A. and Jacobson, R. (1994), “The financial information content of perceived quality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 191-201.
4. Andreassen, T. W., (1994), Satisfaction, Loyalty and Reputation as Indicators of Customer Orientation in the Public Sector, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 16-34.
5. Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., and Lehmann, D.R., (1994), Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability; findings from Sweden, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 53-66.
6. A. Al Khatib, K. Dobie, and S. J. Vitell (1995) “Consumer ethics in developing countries: an empirical investigation”, Journal of European Marketing, 4, 87-109.
7. Andreassen, T.W., and Lindestad, B., (1998a), Customer Loyalty and Complex Services: The impact of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 7-23.
8. Andreassen, T.W., and Lindestad, B., (1998b), The Effect of Corporate Image on in the Formation of Customer Loyalty, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 82-92.
9. Ashton D. 2004. Food Advertising and Childhood Obesity. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 97: 51-2.
10. Auh, S., & Johnson, M. D. (2005). Compatibility effects in evaluations of satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Economic psychology, 26, 35-57.
11. S. S. Andaleeb, & C.Conway, “Customer satisfaction in the restaurant industry: an examination of the transaction-specific model,” Journal of Services Marketing, 20(1), 3-11, 2006.
12. Agnelo, R.M. and Vladmir, A.N. (2007), “Hospitality today: an introduction,” Education Institute of the American Hotel and Lodging Association.
13. Aga, M. Safakli, V.O. (2007). An empirical investigation of service quality and customer satisfaction in professional accounting firms: Evidence from North Cyprus. Problems and practices in Management. Volume 5.
14. Allamani A. Addiction, risk, and resources. Subst Use Misuse 2007; 42: 421-39.
15. N. A. Anir, M. N. M. H. Nizam, and A. Masliyana (2008). “RFID Tag for Halal Food Tracking in Malaysia: Users Perceptions and Opportunities”. Paper presented at the 7th WSEAS Int. Conf. on TELECOMMUNICATIONS and INFORMATICS, Istanbul, Turkey.
16. M. Abdul, H. Ismail, H. Hashim, and J. Johari (2009). “Consumer decision making process in shopping for halal food in Malaysia”, China-USA Business Review, 8, 40-47.
17. J. W. Brehm (1956).“Post-decision changes in desirability of choice alternatives,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52,384-389.
18. J. E. G. Bateson and E. Langeard, “Consumer Uses of Common Dimensions in The Appraisal of Services,” Advances in Consumer research, 9, 173-176, 1982
19. Bearden, W. O., and Teel, J. E. (1983). Selected Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint Reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), 21–28.
20. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69–82.
21. Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R. and Zeithaml, V. (1993), “A dynamic process model of service quality: from expectations to behavioural intentions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, February, pp. 7-27.
22. Becker GS, Murphy KM. 1993. A Simple Theory of Advertising as a Good or Bad. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 941-64.
23. Bitner, M.J., and Hubbert, A.R., (1994), Encounter Satisfaction versus Overall Satisfaction versus Quality, In Service Quality: New Direction in Theory and Practice, Chap. 3, Eds. Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 72-94.
24. Bolton, R.N. (1998), “A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a continuous service provider: the role of customer satisfaction”, Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 45-65.
25. Brockway, G.R., Mangold, W.G. and Miller, F. (1999). Word-of-mouth Communication in the Service Market Place, The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(1):73-89.
26. Bloemer J, K Ruyter & M Wetzels. 1999. Linking perceived service quality and service loyalty: a multi- dimensional perspective. European Journal of Marketing 33 (11/12): 1082-1106
27. J. T., Bowen, and S.-L. Chen, “The relationship between customer loyalty and customer satisfaction”, International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(4), 213-217, 2001.
28. Borzekowski DL, Robinson TN. 2001. The 30-Second Effect: An Experiment Revealing the Impact of Television Commercials on Food Preferences of Preschoolers. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 101: 42-6.
29. Bailey, R. and Tian, R.G. (2002). Cultural Understanding and Consumer Behavior: A Case Study of Southern American Perception of Indian Food, Journal of American Academy of Business, 2(1):58-65.
30. Bowman, S. A., S. L. Gortmaker, et al. (2004). "Effects of Fast-Food Consumption on Energy Intake and Diet Quality Among Children in a National Household Survey." Pediatrics, 113(1): 112-118.
31. Boyce, J.B. and Sukalakamala, P. (2007). Customer Perceptions for Expectations and Acceptance of an Authentic Dining Experience in Thai Restaurants, Journal of Food Service, 18(2):69-75.
32. Bodet, G. (2008). Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: two concepts, four construct several relationships. Journal of retailing and consumer services, 15, 156-162.
33. Churchill, G. A., and Surprenant, C. (1982). An Investigation into the Determinants of Consumer Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 491–504.
34. Cronin, J. J., and Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125–131.
35. Codex Alimentarius Commission (1997). Report of the 30th session of the Codex Commission on Food Hygiene, ALINORM 99/13 Rome: Codex Alimentarius Commission.
36. Clark, M & Wood, CR 1998, „Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry: A preliminary exploration of the issues‟, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, vol. 10, no 4, pp. 139–144.
37. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., and Hult, G. (2000). Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
38. Costabile, M. (2000), A dynamic model of customer loyalty, In 16th IMP-conference, Bath, U.K.
39. Coyles, S. and Gokey, T. C. (2002). Customer Retention is Not Enough. The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 2.
40. Caruana, A. (2002). Service Loyalty: The Effects of Service Quality and the Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 811–828.
41. Christou, E. (2003). Guest loyalty likelihood in relation to hotels corporate image and reputation: a study of three countries in Europe, Journal of Hospitality & Leisure Marketing, Vol.10, No.3/4, pp.85-99.
42. Choi, K. S., Cho, W. H., Lee, S. H., Lee, H. J., and Kim, C. K. (2004). The Relationships among Quality, Value, Satisfaction and Behavioral Intention in Health Care Provider Choice: A South Korean Study. Journal of Business Research, 57(8), 913–921.
43. Chiou, J.S., (2004), The antecedents of consumer’s loyalty towards Internet service providers, Information & Management, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 685-695.
44. D. M. Consuegra, A. Molina, and A. Esteban (2007). “An Integrated Model of Price, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Empirical Analysis in the Service Sector”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16 (7), 459-468.
45. Chao, P. (2008). Exploring the nature of the relationships between service quality and customer loyalty: an attribute-level analysis. The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 95-116.
46. B. Cater, and T. Cater, “Relationship-value-based antecedents of customer satisfaction and loyalty in manufacturing”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(8), 585-597, 2009.
47. Chen, Y., Shen, Y., & Liao, S. (2009). An integrated model of customer loyalty: an empirical examination in retailing practice, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 267-280.
48. G.Coppin, S. Delplanque, I. Cayeu, C. Porcherot, and D. Sander (2010). I’m no longer torn after choice: How explicit choices can implicitly shape preferences for odors. Psychological Science, 21, 489-493.
49. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyer’s product evaluations, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, pp. 307-319.
50. Dick A.S and K. Basu.1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 22 (2): 99-113.
51. Dittmer, P.R. (2002), “Dimensions of Hospitality Industry”, John Wiley and Sons. New York Eklo¨ f, J. and Westlund, A. (2002), “The pan-European customer satisfaction index programme-current work and the way ahead”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 8, pp. 1099-106.
52. Edwards JSA, Meiselman HL, Edwards A, Lesher L (2003). The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference 14 :647–52.
53. Finkelstein, J. (1989). Dining out: A sociology of modern manners. Cambridge, UK: Policy Press.
54. Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, January, pp. 6-21.
55. C. Fife Schaw, T. Kelay, I. Vloerbergh, J. Chenoweth, G. Morrison, and C. Lundéhn (2007). Measuring customer preferences for drinking water services.
56. U. Z. A. U. Fatimah, H. C. Boo, M. Sambasivan, and R. Salleh (2011).“Foodservice Hygiene Factors- The Consumer Perspective”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 38-45.
57. Gronroos Christian (1997). From marketing Mix to Relationship Marketing – Towards a Paradigm Shift in Marketing, Management Decision, 35/4, 322-339.
58. Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value and transaction value, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp.46–60.
59. Gummesson, E. (1998). Productivity, quality and relationship marketing in service operations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(1), 4-15.
60. Gremler DD and SW Brown. 1999. The loyalty ripple effect appreciating the full value of customers. International Journal of Service Industry Management 10 (3): 271-291.
61. Gommans, M., Krishnan, K.S., & Scheffold, B., (2001), From Brand Loyalty to E-Loyalty: A Conceptual Framework, Journal of Economic and Social Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 43-58
62. Gerpott,T. J., Rams,W., & Schindler, A. (2001) Customer retention, loyalty, and satisfaction in the German mobile cellular telecommunications market Telecommunications Policy, 25, 249-269.
63. Giammattei J, Blix G, Marshak HH, Wollitzer AO, Pettitt DJ. 2003. Television Watching and Soft Drink Consumption: Associations with Obesity in 11- to 13-Year-Old Schoolchildren. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 157: 882-6.
64. Hutton, B. (1995). Survey of South Korea: fear of subsides-Bethan: Hutton announces the overdue birth of the Korean consumer,’ Financial Times, London edition, p. 4.
65. Holmboe-Ottesen G. Global trends in food consumption and nutrition. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 2000; 120:78-82.
66. Hensley, R.L. and Sulek, J.M. (2004). The Relative Importance of Food, Atmosphere and Fairness of Wait: The Case of a Full Service Restaurant, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45(3):235-247.
67. Helgesen, Ø. (2006). Are Loyal Customers Profitable? Customer Satisfaction, Customer (Action) Loyalty and Customer Profitability at the Individual Level, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 245-266.
68. R. J. Harrington, M. C. Ottenbacher, and K (2010). “A. Way, QSR Choice: Key restaurant attributes and the role of gender, age and dining frequency”, Paper presented at the International CHRIE Conference-Refereed Track, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
69. M. P. Iglesias and M. J. Y. Guillen (2004). “Perceived quality and price: their impact on the satisfaction of restaurant customers”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16 (6), 373-379.
70. Islam, N & Ullah, SGM 2010, „Factors Affecting Consumers‟ Preferences On Fast Food Items In Bangladesh‟, The Journal of Applied Business Research, vol. 26, no. 4.
71. Jones, T.O and E.W Sasser. 1995. Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard Business Review 73 (6): 88-99.
72. Jones, M. A., and Suh, J. (2000). Transaction-Specific Satisfaction and Overall Satisfaction: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(2), 147–159.
73. Josiam, B.M. and Monteiro, P.A. (2004). Tandori Tastes: Perceptions of Indian Restaurants in America, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16(1):18-26.
74. Jang, S. and Namkung, Y. (2007). Does Food Quality Really Matter in Restaurants? Its Impact on Customer Satisfaction and Behavioral Intentions, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 31(3):387-410.
75. Kristensen, K., Dahlgaard, J.J. and Kanji, G.K. (1992), “On measurement of customer satisfaction”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 123-8.
76. A. Kara, E. Kaynak, and O. Kucuke miroglu(1995) .“Marketing strategies for fast-food restaurants: a customer view”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(4), 16-22.
77. Kivela, J. (1997). Restaurant Marketing: Selection and Segmentation in Hong Kong, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9(3):116-123.
78. Kendrick, “Promotional products vs price promotion in fostering customer loyalty: a report of two controlled field experiments”, The Journal Of Service Marketing, 12(4), 312-326, 1998.
79. J. Kivela., R. Inbakaran, & J. Reece, “Consumer Research in The Restaurant Environment, Part 3: Analysis, Findings and Conclusions,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(1), 13-30, 2000.
80. Kandampully, J, and D Suhartanto. 2000. Customer loyalty in the hotel industry: the role of customer satisfaction and image. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 12 (6): 346-51.
81. Kandampully, J. & Suhartanto, D. (2003). The Role of Customer Satisfaction and Image in Gaining Customer Loyalty in the Hotel Industry, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 3-25.
82. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2004. The Role of Media In Childhood Obesity, Menlo Park, CA.
83. King SC, Weber AJ, Meiselman HL, Lv N (2004). The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability, Food Quality and Preference 15:645–53.
84. B. Kim and W. G. Kim (2005). “The relationship between brand equity and firm’s performance in luxury hotels and chain restaurants,” Tourism Management, 26, 549-560.
85. Kim, W.G. and Moon, Y.J. (2009). Customers’ Cognitive, Emotional and Actionable Response to the Servicescape: A Test of the Moderating Effect of the Restaurant Type, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(1):144-156.
86. Kim, K.J., jeong, I. J., Park, J. C., Park, Y. j., Kim, C. G., & Kim, T. H. (2007). The impact of network performance on customer satisfaction and loyalty: High speed internet service case in Korea. Expert system with Applications, 32, 822-831.
87. K. A. Loscocco, and K. T. Leicht (1993). “Gender, work-family lingkages and economic among small business owners”, Journal of Marriage and The Family 5, 875-887.
88. Lashley, C. and Morrison,A. (Eds) (2000),“Franchising Hospitality Services”, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
89. Leisen, B. & Prosser, E. (2004). Customers' Perception of Expensiveness and Its Impact on Loyalty Behaviors, Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 35-52.
90. Law, A. K. Y., Hui, Y. V., & Zhao, X. (2004). Modelings repurchase frequency and customer satisfaction for fast food outlets. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 21(5), 545–563.
91. S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic, The construction of preference: New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
92. Lin, H.H., and Wang, Y.S., (2006), An examination of the determinants of customer loyalty in mobile commerce contexts, Information & Management, Vol. 43, pp. 271-282.
93. S. Lichtenstein, and P. Slovic(2006). The construction of preference: New York: Cambridge University Press.
94. Meiselman HL, Hirsch ES, Popper RD (1987). Sensory, hedonic and situational factors in food acceptance and consumption. In: Food Acceptability (ed. DMH Thomson). Elsevier: London.
95. Muller, C.C. and Woods, R.H. (1994). An Expanded Restaurant Typology, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 35(3):27-37.
96. McGowan, K., & Sternquist, B. (1998). Dimensions of price as marketing universal: a comparison of Japanese and US consumers, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 49–65.
97. M. Marshall, L. Wray, and P. Epstein (1999). 21st century community focus: better results by linking citizens, government and performance measurement. Public Management, 81(10), 12-19.
98. McIlroy A. and S. Barnett.2000. Building customer relationships: do discount cards work? Managing Service Quality 10 (6): 347-355.
99. McColl-Kennedy, J. and Schneider, U. (2000), “Measuring customer satisfaction: why, what, and how”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 883-9.
100. Mueller J. and Kleiner B. (2004), “Determining Exempt and non-Exempt status in the fast food Industry”, Management Research News, Vol. 27, Issue 10.
101. Mill, R.C. (2007). Restaurant Management: Customers, Operations and Employees. Pearson-Prentice Hall.
102. Nguyen N, G. Leblanc. 2001. Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8: 227-236.
103. R. L. Oliver, Customer Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York, NY: Mc Graw-Hill, 1997.
104. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.
105. A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry (1988), “SERVQUAL(1988).A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality”. Journal of Retailing, 64 (Spring), 12-37.
106. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., and Berry, L. L. (1994). Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for further research. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111–124.
107. Pettijohn, L. S., Pettijohn, C. E., & Luke, R. H. (1997). An evaluation of fast food restaurant satisfaction: Determinants, competitive comparisons and impact on future patronage. Journal of Restaurant and Food Service Marketing, 2(3), 3–20.
108. Park, C. (2004). “Efficient or Enjoyable? Consumer Values of Eating-out and Fast Food Restaurant Consumption in Korea”. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23, 87-94.
109. Peters, T. (2005). Understanding Consumer Involvement Influence on Consumer Behavior in Fine Restaurants, The Business Review, 3(2):155-160.
110. Powell, M.L. Chaloupka, J.F. Bao, Y (2007). The Availability of Fast-Food and Full-Service Restaurants in the United States Associations with Neighborhood Characteristics. Community, State and other Environmental issues. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
111. M. Palazon and E. Delgado, “The Moderating Role of Price Consciousness on The Effectiveness of Price Discounts and Premium Promotions”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(4), 306-312, 2009.
112. A. R. Rao and K. B. Monroe (1989). “The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers' Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrated Review’, Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (August), 351-357.
113. Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer Satisfaction, Customer Retention and Market Share. Journal of retailing, 69 (2), 193-215.
114. Rust, R. T., Zahorik, A. J., and Keiningham, T. L. (1995). Return on Quality (ROQ): Making Service Quality Financially Accountable. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 58–70.
115. G. Rice(1999). “The Islamic work ethics”, Journal of Business Ethics, 18 (4), 345-358.
116. J. Rossomme, (2003). “Customer satisfaction measurement in a business-to-business context: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 179-95.
117. Ranaweera, C., and Prabhu, J. (2003). On the relative importance of customer satisfaction and trust as determinants of customer retention and positive word of mouth. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(1), 82–90.
118. Swan, J. E., and Trawick, I. F. (1981). Disconfirmation of Expectations and Satisfaction with a Retail Service. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 49–67.
119. Sproles, G. B. & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 20, pp. 267–79.
120. R. Srinivasan, C. Y. Woo, and A. C. Cooper (1994). Performance determinants for men and female entrepreneurs. Babson College, MA.
121. Solomons NW, Gross R. Urban nutrition in developing countries. Nutr Rev 1995; 53: 95.
122. Sen, K.C. (1998),“The use of franchising as a growth strategy by US restaurant franchisors”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4 pp 397- 407.
123. Stank T.P, T.J. Goldsby and S.K. Vickery. 1999. Effect of service supplier performance on satisfaction and loyalty of store managers in the fast food industry. Journal of Operations Management 17: 429- 447.
124. Shoemaker S. and R.C. Lewis.1999. Customer loyalty: The future of hospitality marketing. Hospitality Marketing 18: 345-370.
125. Soriano, D.R. (2002). Customers’ Expectations Factors in Restaurants: The Situation in Spain, The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 19(8/9):1055-1067.
126. Shankar, V., Amy, K. Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2003). Customer satisfaction & loyalty in online & offline environments. International journal of research, 20, 153-175.
127. Sloan, D. (2004). Culinary Taste: Consumer Behavior in the International Restaurant Sector, Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
128. K. R. Scherer, “What are emotions? And how can they be measured?” Social Science Information, 44, 695-729, 2005.
129. S. Shafie and P. D. M. N. Othman (2006). Halal Certification: an international marketing issues and challenges.Paper presented at IFSAM VIII World Congress 2006, September 28–30, Berlin, Germany.
130. T. Sharot, T., Martino, B. D., and R. J. Dolan, “ How choice reveals and shapes expected hedonic outcome”. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 3760-3765, 2009.
131. Shahzad khan, Syed Majid Hussain and Fahad Yaqoob (2012) “Determinants of customer satisfaction in fast food industry” International journal of management and strategy vol. No.3, issue 4, january-june 2012.
132. Shahzad khan & Faryal Noor (2012)” Factors affecting buying behavior of females for purchase of cosmetics” International review of business & social sciences vol. 1, #. 9, 68-76.
133. Taylor, S. and Lyon, P. (1995), “Paradigm lost: the rise and fall of McDonaldization”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 7 Issue 2/3, pp 64-68.
134. A. C. B. Tse, “How Much More Are Consumers Willing To Pay For A Higher Level of Service? A Preliminary Survey”, Journal of Service Marketing, 15(1), 11-17, 2001.
135. Taylor, E. (2001). HACCP in small companies: beneWt or burden? Food Control, 12(4), 217–222.
136. R. Verma, M. E. Pullman, and J. C.Goodale, Designing and Positioning Food service in Multicultural Market. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 40(6), 76-87, 1999.
137. Veloutsou, C., Gilbert, R.G., Moutinho, L.A. and Good, M.M. (2005). Measuring Transaction specific satisfaction in services. European Journal of Marketing, 39(5-6), 606-628.
138. Vesel, P.& Zabkar, V. (2009). Managing customer loyalty through the mediating role of satisfaction in the DIY retail loyalty program. Journal of retailing and customer services, 16, 396-406.
139. Worsfold, D., & GriYth, C. (1995). A generic model for evaluating consumer food safety behavior. Food Control, 6(6), 357–363.
140. Weiner B. 2000. Attributional thoughts about consumer behavior. Journal of Travel Research 27: 382-387.
141. B. Wansink, J. Painter, and K. V. Ittersum (2001). “Descriptive Menu Labels' Effect on Sales,” The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42 (6), 68-72.
142. T. V. d. Wiele, P. Boselie, and M. Hesselink, “Empirical evidence for the relationship between customer satisfaction and business performance”. Managing Service Quality, 12(3), 184-193, 2002.
143. Walker, E., Pritchard, C., & Forsythe, S. (2003). Food handler’s hygiene knowledge in small food businesses. Food Control, 14(5), 339–343.
144. B. Wansink, K. V. Ittersum, and J. Painter (2005). How Descriptive Food Names Bias Sensory Perceptions in Restaurants.16, 5 (393-400).
145. Yi, Y. (1991) in Seithmal, V.A. (Ed.), Review of Marketing, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. Library Review [Online]. [Accessed 03/05/2013].
146. Yeung, M., Chew-Ging, L. and Ennew, C. (2002), “Customer satisfaction and profitability: a reappraisal of the nature of the relationship”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-33.
147. Yeung, M., Chew-Ging, L. and Ennew, C. (2002), “Customer satisfaction and profitability: a reappraisal of the nature of the relationship”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-33.
148. V. A. Zeithaml (1988).Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 52 (3), 2-22.
149. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996),“The behavioral consequences of service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 31-46.
150. V. A. Zeithaml, “Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what we know and what we need to learn”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 67-85, 2000.
151. Zairi, M. (2000). Managing Customer Dissatisfaction through Effective Complaint Management Systems. The TQM Magazine, 12 (5), 331-335.

152. N. Zakaria, and A. N. Abdul-Talib (2010).“Applying Islamic market-oriented cultural model to sensitize strategies towards global customers, competitors, and environment”, Journal of Islamic Marketing, 1 (1), 51-62.

QUESTIONAIRRE:

USAGE OF TQM TECHNIQUES FOR ACHIEVING MAXIMUM CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN FAST FOOD SECTOR

Respondent profile:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Fast food restaurant visited frequently?

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

STATEMENT :

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

97 von 97 Seiten

Details

Titel
Factors affecting customer satisfaction in fast food sector
Hochschule
Lovely Professional University, Punjab
Autor
Jahr
2013
Seiten
97
Katalognummer
V281199
ISBN (Buch)
9783656754404
Dateigröße
1260 KB
Sprache
Deutsch
Schlagworte
factors
Arbeit zitieren
Abdullah Afzal (Autor), 2013, Factors affecting customer satisfaction in fast food sector, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/281199

Kommentare

  • Noch keine Kommentare.
Im eBook lesen
Titel: Factors affecting customer satisfaction in fast food sector


Ihre Arbeit hochladen

Ihre Hausarbeit / Abschlussarbeit:

- Publikation als eBook und Buch
- Hohes Honorar auf die Verkäufe
- Für Sie komplett kostenlos – mit ISBN
- Es dauert nur 5 Minuten
- Jede Arbeit findet Leser

Kostenlos Autor werden