Institute of Management, Nirma University BUSINESS REPORT FACTORS EFFECTING POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE WORD OF MOUTH IN SMALL AND

MEDIUM RESTAU RANT INDUSTRY. In partial fulfilment of the requirements of the course Research Methodology of MBA (Full Time) Submitted To: Submitted By: Prof. T S Joshi Group No.14, Sec C Prof. T S Joshi SHIV SINGHAL ( 121350) SUDHEER MALYALA (121352) SUPRAV TALUKDAR (121354) 31st December 2012 Acknowledgement We have taken efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the cooperation and help of many individuals. We extend our sincere than ks to all of them. We are highly indebted to Prof. Tripura Sundari Joshi for her guidance and const ant supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the pro ject.

Contents List of tables 3 Abbreviations 4 Abstract 5 Chapter 1 1.1 Background 6 1.2 Literature Review 1.3 Hypotheses 7 Chapter 2 Methodology 8 Chapter 3 Results and Analysis 9 3.1 Overall 3.2 Food Quality 11 3.3 Service 3.4 Ambiance and Convenience Chapter 4 4.1 Conclusions 16

9 13 15

4.2 Beneficiaries 4.3 Limitations 16 Appendix 1-5 References 32

16 17-31

List of Tables Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics of the Factors effecting WOM 9 Table 3.2 t-Test: Food Quality and Service assuming Unequal Variances 10 Table 3.3 Gender * Food Quality Cross tabulation 10 Table 3.4 Descriptive Statistics of the attributes effecting food quality 11 Table 3.5 t-Test: Taste of Food and Freshness assuming Unequal Variances 12 Table 3.6 Gender * Taste of Food Cross tabulation 12 Table 3.7 Descriptive Statistics of the attributes effecting service quality 13 Table 3.8 t-Test: Taste of Speed of Service and Friendly/Helpful staff assuming Unequal Va riances 14 Table 3.9 Gender * Speed of Service Cross tabulation 14

Abbreviations WOM: Word of Mouth Std. Deviation: Standard Deviation N: Sample Size df: Degree of freedom

Abstract In this study we hypothesize and empirically study that food quality has the lar gest effect and convenience has the least effect on WOM in small and medium res taurants. We also study the underlying attributes that shapes the consumer perce

ption about the factors effecting WOM in small and medium restaurants. Our study finds that taste of food has the largest influence in shaping consumer percepti on about food quality, speed of service has the most influence in shaping consum er perception about service quality, hygiene/cleanliness has the largest influen ce in shaping consumer perception about ambiance and location has the most influ ence in shaping consumer perception about convenience. Keywords: WOM, Food quality, Service, Hygiene, Ambiance, Convenience.

Chapter 1 1.1 Background Restaurant industry plays a significant role in growth of any economy either in terms of employment it creates or the wealth it generates. Particularly in India , restaurant industry has witnessed a rapid growth due to wide range of cusines, different cultures and the diversity in cooking techniques. Post liberalisation India has become hub of different restaurants with huge customer base. Restaura nt industry has become a popular career option for most of the youngsters in Ind ia but still they are certain about what influences the consumer behaviour in ch oosing one restaurant over the other. Generally advertising through mass media like internet, television, and print me dia is applicable to the restaurants which fall in luxury or high end segment. Low end and medium restaurants consumer base highly depends on word of mouth. W ord of Mouth marketing is an unpaid form of promotion where in satisfied or diss atisfied customers tell other people how much they like or hate a particular pro duct, place, or service. Word of Mouth can be either positive or negative. Generally loyal or satisfied c ustomers spread positive word of mouth and switchers or dissatisfied customers s pread negative word of mouth. There is a huge competition in restaurant industry. As a result customers have g ot wide variety of choices to make. It takes more than food to create a good din ing experience. So retention of customers is the key for any restaurant. Our objective is to study what are all the different factors that contribute to word of mouth and how they influence customers in changing their preferences. 1.2 Literature review: Verbal and non-verbal communication between two parties that will enhance/declin e sale of particular product is known as effect of word of mouth. In present era , effect of WOM is very much effective. We can differentiate both parties as pre -customer who need information and post-customer who has used product. Non-verba l communication also plays a key role in effecting customers preferences. For non v erbal communication, all social networking sites can be considered and gesture, attire also affects. For e.g. if somebody i s using any new brand of apparel or mobile and is travelling through public tran sport, so without knowing anybody he is basically leaving some type of impact on pre-customer. Every type of communication between parties contains some amount of cost in term s of time (spent with other parties), money (in terms of phone call, internet co nnection). Even in restaurant industry communication between parties has got gre at impact. 1.3 Hypothesis: H1: Food quality has the maximum effect on WOM.

H2: There is a significant difference between the sample means of the attributes .

Chapter 2 Methodology We conducted a survey with eighty-seven respondents by using a questionnaire in Ahmedabad, Kolkata and Hyderabad. In this sample about 18% of respondents are fe males and the average age of the sample is around 25 years. Four factors (Food Quality, Service, Ambiance, Convenience) were identified that effects WOM. Each of these factors is rated on various attributes on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 5(1 being highest and 5 being lowest). A two-step approach is used to analyse the data. Descriptive statistics are anal ysed of the four factors based on the ratings between themselves. t-Test of samp le mean variation assuming unequal variance was done for some of the factors and their attributes. Each of the attributes are rated on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 to 5(1 being highest and 5 being lowest). Cross tabulation has also been prepared and analysed regarding the responses of male/female and some of the factors and their attributes. In this project a 95% confidence interval has been assumed in all the tests.

Chapter 3 Results and Analysis First we present the overall results and analysis of the four factors effecting WOM and then we shall present analysis about each factors and their attributes. 3.1 Overall: The rating for the factor Convenience has been obtained by averaging the rating of its two attributes Location and Price/Value for Money in the questionnaire. From the table in Appendix 1 we obtained the following descriptive statistics as shown in table 3.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Factors effecting WOM Sum Mean Std. Deviation N Food Quality 161.00 1.8506 1.0623 87.00000 Service 279.00 3.2069 1.1727 87.00000 Hygiene[Ambiance] 274.00 3.1494 1.2532 87.00000 Convenience 334.00 3.8391 0.9134 87.00000 Table 3.1 Since these four factors have been ranked between themselves in order of importa nce (1 highest) of their effect in WOM, we can interpret from Table 3.1 that foo

d quality having the lowest sum among the four factors is most important for pos itive WOM. A t-Test between sample means of food quality and Service is performed assuming unequal variances as shown in table 3.2. From table 3.2 we see that p value in both one-tail and two-tail is much less th an the 95% confidence interval. Hence the null hypothesis that the sample means of food quality and Service are equal is rejected. It can be concluded that sign ificant difference exists between these two means. Table 3.2: t-Test: Food Quality and Service assuming Unequal Variances Food Quality Service Mean 1.850575 3.206897 Variance 1.128575 1.375301 Observations 87 87 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 170 t Stat -7.99495 P(T<=t) one-tail 9.5E-14 t Critical one-tail 1.653866 P(T<=t) two-tail 1.9E-13 t Critical two-tail 1.974017 t-Test between sample means of food quality and other two factors will yield sim ilar results. Hence it can be safely interpreted that food quality is the most important facto r that affects WOM. To study the gender perception cross tabulation between gender and food quality is done as shown in table 3.3. Table 3.3: Gender * Food Quality Cross tabulation Food Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Gender Female Count 7 5 3 1 0 16 Row % 43.8% 31.3% 18.8% 6.3% 0.0% 100.0% Column % 16.3% 20.8% 23.1% 25.0% 0.0% 18.4% Male Count 36 19 10 3 3 71 Row % 50.7% 26.8% 14.1% 4.2% 4.2% 100.0% Column % 83.7% 79.2% 76.9% 75.0% 100.0% 81.6% Total Count 43 24 13 4 3 87 Column % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% From table 3.3 we see that about 44% females rated food quality as the most impo rtant factor effecting WOM and none rated it as the least important factor. Simi larly about 51% males rated food quality as the most important factor effecting WOM and only 4.2% rated it as the least important factor. Of all the people who rated food quality as the most important factor effecting WOM, 83.7% are males a nd 16.3% are females. 3.2 Food Quality: Five attributes have been identified that affects the food quality in a restaura nt. They are: Healthy/Nutritious Food, Taste of Food, Freshness, Variety of food items and Consistency in maintaining the standards. All these attributes were r ated between 1 to 5(1 highest and 5 lowest). From the table in Appendix 2 we obtained the following descriptive statistics as shown in table 3.4. Descriptive Statistics of the attributes of food quality Sum Mean Std. Deviation N Healthy/Nutritious Food 243.0000 2.7931 1.39882 87 Taste of Food 187.0000 2.1494 1.10526 87 Freshness 215.0000 2.4713 1.03248 87

Variety of food items 320.0000 3.6782 1.07286 87 Consistency in maintaining the standards 348.0000 4.0000 1.33817 87 Table 3.4 We can interpret from Table 3.4 that taste of food having the lowest sum among t he five attributes is most important for food quality. A t-Test between sample means of taste of food and freshness is performed assumi ng unequal variances as shown in table 3.5. From table 3.5 we see that p value in both one-tail and two-tail is much less th an the 95% confidence interval. Hence the null hypothesis that the sample means of taste of food and freshness are equal is rejected. It can be concluded that s ignificant difference exists between these two means. t-Test between sample means of taste of food and other factors will yield simila r results. Hence it can be safely interpreted that taste of food is the most important attr ibute that affects food quality. Table 3.5: t-Test: Taste of Food and Freshness Assuming Unequal Variances Taste of food Freshness Mean 2.149425287 2.471264368 Variance 1.221598503 1.066025127 Observations 87 87 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 171 t Stat -1.984751405 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.024385745 t Critical one-tail 1.653813324 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.048771489 t Critical two-tail 1.973933915 To study the gender perception cross tabulation between is done as shown in table 3.6. Table 3.6: Gender * Taste of Food Cross tabulation Taste of Food Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Gender Female Count 3 8 1 3 Row % 18.8% 50.0% 6.3% 18.8% Column % 13.0% 61.5% 4.3% Male Count 20 5 22 12 Row % 28.2% 7.0% 31.0% 16.9% Column % 87.0% 38.5% 95.7% Total Count 23 13 23 15 13 Column % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% gender and taste of food

1 6.3% 20.0% 12 16.9% 80.0% 87 100.0%

16 100.0% 7.7% 18.4% 71 100.0% 92.3% 81.6% 100.0%

From table 3.3 we see that 50% females rated taste of food as the second most im portant attribute effecting food quality and 18.8% rated it as the most importan t factor. About 28% males rated taste of food as the most important attribute ef fecting food quality. Of all the people who rated taste of food as the most impo rtant attribute effecting food quality, 87% are males and 13% are females. 3.3 Service: Five attributes have been identified that affects the service quality in a resta urant. They are: Speed of Service, Knowledgeable Staff, Friendly/Helpful Staff a nd Consistency in maintaining the standards. All these attributes were rated bet ween 1 to 5(1 highest and 5 lowest). From the table in Appendix 3 we obtained the following descriptive statistics as shown in table 3.7. Descriptive Statistics of the attributes of service quality

Sum Mean Std. Deviation N Speed of service 188.0000 2.1609 1.18982 87 Knowledgeable staff 255.0000 2.9310 .91236 87 Friendly/Helpful staff 223.0000 2.5632 1.01959 87 Consistency in maintaining the standards 248.0000 2.8506 1.27159 87 Table 3.7 We can interpret from Table 3.7 that speed of service having the lowest sum amon g the four attributes is most important for service quality. A t-Test between sample means of speed of service and friendly/helpful staff is performed assuming unequal variances as shown in table 3.8. From table 3.8 we see that p value in both one-tail and two-tail is much less th an the 95% confidence interval. Hence the null hypothesis that the sample means service and friendly/helpful staff are equal is rejected. It can be concluded th at significant difference exists between these two means. t-Test between sample means of speed of service and other factors will yield sim ilar results. Hence it can be safely interpreted that speed of service is the most important a ttribute that affects service quality.

Table 3.8: t-Test: Speed of service and Friendly/Helpful staff assuming Unequal Variances Speed of service Friendly/Helpful staff Mean 2.16091954 2.563218391 Variance 1.415664261 1.039561615 Observations 87 87 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 168 t Stat -2.39476384 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.008865817 t Critical one-tail 1.653974209 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.017731635 t Critical two-tail 1.974185153 To study the gender perception cross tabulation between ice is done as shown in table 3.9. Table 3.9: Gender * Speed of service Cross tabulation Speed of service Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Gender Female Count 7 4 3 1 Row % 43.8% 25.0% 18.8% 6.3% Column % 20.6% 17.4% 20.0% Male Count 27 19 12 11 Row % 38.0% 26.8% 16.9% 15.5% Column % 79.4% 82.6% 80.0% Total Count 34 23 15 12 3 Column % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% gender and speed of serv

1 6.3% 8.3% 2 2.8% 91.7% 87 100.0%

16 100.0% 33.3% 18.4% 71 100.0% 66.7% 81.6% 100.0%

From table 3.3 we see that 43.8% females rated speed of service as the most impo rtant attribute effecting service quality. About 38% males rated speed of servic e as the most important attribute effecting service quality. Of all the people w ho rated speed of service as the most important attribute effecting service qual ity, 79.4% are males and 20.6% are females. 3.4 Ambiance and Convenience: Similar analysis of ambiance and convenience data from Appendix 4 and Appendix 5

reveals that cleanliness/hygiene is the most important attribute for ambiance a nd location is the most important attribute for convenience.

Chapter 4 4.1 Conclusions Since small and medium sized restaurants do not have the resources for conventio nal promotion (media), they rely on the WOM promotion. Our study finds that 72 o ut of 87(82%) respondents rely on word of mouth recommendation from family and f riends to try out a new restaurant. Hence restaurants cannot ignore the effect o f word of mouth promotion on its business. Our study suggests that food quality followed by hygiene, service quality and co nvenience are the factors that affects WOM. Our study also indicates that consum er perceives the food quality by its taste followed by freshness. 4.2 Beneficiaries Our study will be beneficiary to the small and medium restaurants as they will f ind our data useful and will know which factors and attributes to concentrate on to generate positive WOM. 4.3 Limitations: 1. Limited experience of team members in conducting research. 2. Limited sample size covering just 3 cities of India. 3. Confined only to low and medium end restaurants.

Appendix 1 Overall Factors Gender Food Female 1 Female 4 Female 2 Female 1 Female 2 Female 2 Female 3 Female 1 Female 2 Female 1 Female 3 Female 1 Female 1

effecting WOM: Service Ambiance [Hygiene] 2 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 5 2 4 3 4 3 1 3 5 4 2 3 2 3 5 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 2 2 3 5 2 4 4

Convenience

Female Female Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Gender Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

1 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 1 Food 2 2 4 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1

5 4 1 4 2 4 4 5 4 5 3 5 3 4 2 2 3 2 3 5 4 5 3 3 Service 1 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 2 5 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 2 5 5 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 4 2 5 2

3 3 2 3 3 5 1 4 5 4 5 2 2 4 2 4 5 3 2 4 5 3 2 4 1 5 5 2 3 5 3 3 4 3 3 5 1 5 4 4 3 5 1 4 1 3 4 4 Ambiance [Hygiene] 3 5 4 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 2 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 1 4 5 3 1 4 3 3 5 5 4 4 2 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 3 5 4 4 4 3 1 4 3 5 4 3 3 5

Convenience

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Gender Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

2 1 2 1 1 2 5 Food 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3

5 5 3 3 5 3 4 Service 3 5 3 2 2 2 1 2

4 2 5 5 5 3 2 5 3 5 1 5 3 4 Ambiance [Hygiene] 4 4 4 3 5 3 1 5 1 5 4 3 4 4 4 3

Convenience

Appendix 2 Food Quality: Gender Healthy/Nutritious food Taste of food Freshness items Consistency in maintaining the standards Female 2 1 4 3 5 Female 5 4 3 2 1 Female 1 2 3 4 5 Female 3 4 4 4 4 Female 1 2 3 4 5 Female 2 1 3 4 5 Female 4 3 1 2 5 Female 2 1 4 3 5 Female 2 1 3 5 4 Female 2 1 3 5 4 Female 4 2 1 5 3 Female 4 1 2 3 5 Female 2 3 1 4 5 Female 2 3 1 4 5 Female 2 4 3 5 1 Female 1 2 3 4 5 Male 1 3 2 4 5 Male 1 2 3 4 5 Male 5 1 3 4 2 Male 1 3 2 5 4 Male 4 1 3 2 5 Male 5 1 4 2 3

Variety of food

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Gender items Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Gender

4 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 3 2 4 5 4 1 2 3 5 1 3 2 5 4 1 3 2 4 5 3 2 4 1 5 3 3 3 4 4 2 1 3 4 5 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 4 5 4 1 2 5 3 1 3 2 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 4 5 Healthy/Nutritious food Taste of food Freshness Consistency in maintaining the standards 1 3 2 5 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2 1 3 4 5 3 2 1 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 1 4 4 5 4 3 2 3 1 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 2 4 5 1 5 1 3 4 2 1 2 5 4 3 5 2 3 4 1 3 1 2 5 4 1 3 2 4 5 3 1 2 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 5 3 1 2 4 5 3 1 2 4 5 3 1 2 5 4 4 1 2 3 5 3 2 4 5 1 3 2 1 4 5 5 3 1 2 4 3 2 1 5 4 5 1 3 2 4 1 3 2 4 5 5 4 2 3 1 2 4 1 3 5 5 1 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 3 1 2 5 4 5 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 4 5 3 2 1 4 5 5 1 2 3 4 2 3 1 4 5 5 4 2 1 3 Healthy/Nutritious food Taste of food Freshness

Variety of food

Variety of food

items Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

Consistency in maintaining the standards 3 4 2 5 1 1 2 4 5 3 4 3 2 1 5 1 2 3 2 1 5 4 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 5 3 1 2 4 5 3 1 2 4 5

Appendix 3 Ambiance: Gender Speed of service Consistency in maintaining the Female 1.00 4.00 2.00 Female 5.00 4.00 3.00 Female 1.00 2.00 3.00 Female 3.00 3.00 4.00 Female 1.00 2.00 3.00 Female 1.00 4.00 3.00 Female 1.00 3.00 2.00 Female 2.00 3.00 4.00 Female 2.00 4.00 3.00 Female 2.00 3.00 4.00 Female 3.00 2.00 1.00 Female 1.00 2.00 4.00 Female 2.00 3.00 4.00 Female 1.00 3.00 2.00 Female 3.00 4.00 1.00 Female 4.00 3.00 2.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 5.00 4.00 2.00 Male 2.00 4.00 3.00 Male 3.00 2.00 1.00 Male 1.00 4.00 2.00 Male 2.00 4.00 1.00 Male 5.00 4.00 4.00 Male 4.00 4.00 3.00 Male 3.00 2.00 1.00 Male 2.00 3.00 1.00 Male 4.00 3.00 3.00 Male 3.00 2.00 1.00 Male 3.00 4.00 1.00

Knowledgeable staff standards 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 2.00

Friendly/Helpful staff

Male 4.00 4.00 4.00 Male 1.00 3.00 4.00 Male 2.00 3.00 3.00 Male 4.00 3.00 2.00 Male 2.00 1.00 3.00 Male 1.00 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 2.00 3.00 Male 3.00 4.00 2.00 Gender Speed of service Consistency in maintaining the Male 1.00 2.00 3.00 Male 1.00 2.00 3.00 Male 4.00 2.00 3.00 Male 2.00 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 2.00 3.00 Male 1.00 3.00 1.00 Male 2.00 3.00 1.00 Male 2.00 1.00 3.00 Male 3.00 4.00 4.00 Male 2.00 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 4.00 3.00 Male 2.00 4.00 1.00 Male 4.00 3.00 2.00 Male 2.00 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 2.00 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 4.00 2.00 Male 1.00 2.00 3.00 Male 2.00 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 1.00 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 2.00 4.00 Male 1.00 2.00 4.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 4.00 2.00 1.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 1.00 3.00 2.00 Male 2.00 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 4.00 2.00 Male 2.00 3.00 3.00 Male 2.00 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 3.00 4.00 Male 4.00 3.00 3.00 Male 4.00 3.00 4.00 Male 4.00 3.00 1.00 Male 4.00 1.00 2.00 Male 3.00 4.00 2.00 Male 3.00 1.00 2.00 Gender Speed of service Consistency in maintaining the Male 3.00 1.00 2.00 Male 3.00 1.00 2.00 Male 2.00 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 2.00 2.00 Male 2.00 3.00 4.00 Male 2.00 3.00 1.00

4.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 Knowledgeable staff standards 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 Knowledgeable staff standards 5.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00

Friendly/Helpful staff

Friendly/Helpful staff

Male Male

3.00 3.00

1.00 2.00

2.00 1.00

4.00 4.00

Appendix 4 Ambiance: Gender Hygiene Female 2.00 Female 4.00 Female 2.00 Female 4.00 Female 2.00 Female 3.00 Female 1.00 Female 4.00 Female 4.00 Female 1.00 Female 3.00 Female 1.00 Female 3.00 Female 1.00 Female 4.00 Female 4.00 Male 2.00 Male 3.00 Male 1.00 Male 1.00 Male 2.00 Male 3.00 Male 4.00 Male 4.00 Male 1.00 Male 2.00 Male 2.00 Male 1.00 Male 2.00 Male 4.00 Male 2.00 Male 2.00 Male 1.00 Male 1.00 Male 1.00 Male 2.00 Male 1.00 Gender Hygiene Male 2.00 Male 2.00 Male 2.00

Appearance of restaurant 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 Appearance of restaurant 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 4.00

Temperature of restaurant

Temperature of restaurant

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Gender Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male

3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 Hygiene 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00

4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 Appearance of restaurant 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 3.00

Temperature of restaurant

Appendix 5 Convenience: Gender Location oney Female 1.00 2.00 Female 5.00 4.00 Female 1.00 2.00 Female 4.00 4.00 Female 1.00 2.00 Female 1.00 4.00 Female 1.00 2.00 Female 4.00 1.00 Female 4.00 1.00 Female 1.00 4.00 Female 1.00 2.00 Female 1.00 3.00 Female 3.00 1.00 Female 2.00 3.00 Female 2.00 3.00 Female 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 4.00 Male 5.00 2.00 Male 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 4.00 Male 2.00 3.00 Male 2.00 4.00 Male 4.00 3.00 Male 4.00 4.00 Male 3.00 2.00 Male 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 4.00 Male 3.00 2.00 Male 3.00 4.00 Male 3.00 2.00 Male 3.00 4.00 Male 3.00 3.00 Male 2.00 3.00 Male 2.00 4.00 Male 1.00 2.00 Male 1.00 4.00 Male 2.00 4.00 Male 4.00 1.00 Gender Location oney Male 1.00 2.00 Male 3.00 4.00 Male 1.00 2.00 Male 4.00 3.00 Male 1.00 2.00 Male 2.00 3.00 Male 2.00 4.00 Male 1.00 4.00 Male 3.00 3.00 Male 2.00 3.00

Ease of parking Discounts/Promotions 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 Ease of 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 5.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 parking Discounts/Promotions 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00

Price/value of M

Price/value of M

Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Gender oney Male Male Male Male Male Male

2.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 Location 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 4.00

3.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 Ease of 2.00 5.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00

1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 parking Discounts/Promotions 4.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 1.00

Price/value of M

References Lang, Bodo (2011), How word of mouth communication varies across service encount ers, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 21 Iss: 6 pp. 583 598, Retrieved on Nov 3, 2012, fr om EBSCO database. Cousins, J., Foskett, D. and Gillespie, C. (2002), Food and Beverage Management, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow, Retrieved on Nov 3, 2012, from Emerald database. Gremler, Dwayne D., Gwinner, Kevin P., Brown, Stephen W. (2001), Generating posi tive word-of-mouth communication through customer-employee relationships, Retrieved o n Nov 3, 2012, from Emerald database. Hashim Fadzil Ariffin, Mohamad Fahmi Bibon, Raja Puteri Saadiah Raja Abdullah, (May, 2011), Restaurant s Atmospheric Elements: What the Customer Wants, Journal of ASIAN Behavioural Studies, Vol. 1, Retrieved on Nov 3, 2012, from Ebsco database . Wetzer, Inge M., Marcel Zeelenberg, and Rik Pieters, (August 2007), Never Eat In That Restaurant, I Did!:Exploring Why People Engage In Negative Word-Of-Mouth Communi cation , Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24(8): 661 680, Retrieved on Nov 3, 2012, from Emerald database. Jaksa Kivela, Robert Inbakaran, John Reece, (1999),"Consumer research in the res taurant environment, Part1: A conceptual model of dining satisfaction and return patrona ge", International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Mgt, Vol. 11 Iss: 5 pp. 2 05 222, Retrieved on Nov 3, 2012, from Emerald database.