A Thesis Presented To
The Faculty of College of Business and Economics
De La Salle University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Marketing
By
Franchette Pascual-Poon
December 2005
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABSTRACT
Limited menus, self-service, takeout orders and high turnover have long
characterized fast-food restaurants. Capturing or retaining market position is intuitively
tied to keeping up with the preference of the Filipino consumers in this study, particularly
those in Metro Manila.
The most recent trend in fast food restaurants has been toward value pricing.
While it was a novelty for a short time to McDonalds, value pricing has become a part of
almost every competitor herein referred to as value meals McDonalds is bringing
attention to its value menu by spending an estimated $10 million on a national advertising
campaign focused on its value meals. In the light of this situation in the food service
industry, the researcher determined that the factors affecting the choice of consumers
towards value meal is affordable price and taste. It described the profile of value meal
consumers in Metro Manila. Using Factor analysis the following clusters emerged:
experiencer, it/sports enthusiast, home centered individuals, entertainment oriented,
health conscious and those that spends their time wisely.
Findings indicated that bundled meal is preferred to ala carte menu in the fast
food outlets
(pertaining to age, gender, civil status and income only) except education as to the
likelihood of purchasing bundled meal.
Purchase occasion & consumption frequency showed no positive relationship to
the preference of bundled meals. Physical surrounding in the same manner was not
found to influence decision to purchase bundled meal although menu board and
promotions garnered sizeable mentions posting a majority in the tabulated survey.
Primary data was captured using focus group discussion and a structured
questionnaire was utilized through a face to face survey. The variables were analyzed
using non-parametric statistical tool Chi square, Kolmogoriv-Smirnov goodness of fit test
and contingency coefficient.
Results of this investigation are discussed to help provide specific indicators of
consumer behavior towards bundled food value meals which could serve as bases for
marketing strategy formulation by practitioners specifically for Maxims Tea House with
which the researcher has an affiliation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgement------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii
Abstract-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii
List of Tables------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vii
List of Figures-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Appendices------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xi
Chapters
I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND--------------------------------
Introduction-------------------------------------------------------------------
Situation Analysis------------------------------------------------------------
Theoretical Framework------------------------------------------------------
Operational Framework-----------------------------------------------------
10
10
12
Choice Behavior---------------------------------------------------------------- 21
Bundling------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Value Meals--------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
Conclusion----------------------------------------------------------------------- 26
III. METHODOLOGY----------------------------------------------------------------- 28
Research Design---------------------------------------------------------------- 28
Sampling Technique------------------------------------------------------------ 29
Data Collection Method-------------------------------------------------------- 35
Data Analysis Method---------------------------------------------------------- 38
IV PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS-----------------------------------47
Psychographic Profiling--------------------------------------------------------48
Dining in Fast Food Outlets----------------------------------------------------62
Meal Preference------------------------------------------------------------------65
Factors Considered in Meal Choice-------------------------------------------69
Purchase Situations--------------------------------------------------------------80
Socio-Demographic Profile----------------------------------------------------92
V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS-------------------------------101
Bibliography---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------108
Appendices-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------112
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Communalities---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54
Component Matrix----------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
10
11
12
13
14
Type of Meal Ordered the Last Time Dined in a Fast Food Outlet----------------66
15
Fast Food Outlet Dined In the Last Time Ordered a Value Meal------------------ 67
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order
in a Fast Food Outlet--------------------------------------------------------------------- 82
38
39
Usual Companion in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast
Food Outlet (Observed Frequencies vs. Expected Frequencies)------------------- 84
40
41
Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order
in a Fast Food Outlet-------------------------------------------------------------------- 86
42
43
Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet (Observed Frequencies vs. Expected Frequencies)------------- 88
44
45
Time of Day Usually Dine in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order
in a Fast Food Outlet--------------------------------------------------------------------- 89
46
47
For Whom Usually Buy when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually
Order in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------------------------------------------- 91
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Monthly Household Income vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet----- 96
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Chi Sq Test for Independence & Contingency Coefficient Test for Correlation
Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet----------100
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Operational Framework-------------------------------------------------------------------9
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
1
Questionnaire-----------------------------------------------------------------------------126
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Packaging your products and services can be a powerful marketing technique to
move more products and services and add more value. By packaging I am not talking
about how you wrap up the package. I am talking about the package offer you present
to your customer, sometimes called a bundled offer. A great example of this strategy is
presented to you nearly every day at fast food restaurants. When you buy a happy meal
for your child, you are buying a package deal. Instead of purchasing a soft drink, fries,
and burger separately, it all comes together in one happy meal package (they even throw
in a toy!). Bundling is so common in the fast food industry that 98% of all sales are
package sales. (David Frey, Power of Bundling) By combining different items to create a
so-called bundle, companies have one of the most powerful weapons available for
repositioning themselves as a provider of premium products or services.
Bundling as a promotion is not only applicable to the food service industry. It is
common in many industries; this promotion emerged in economics theory in the 1970s
as a strategy to maximum sales.
bundling to great success in the 1990s. By bundling its Microsoft Word and Excel, it
outgrew and rendered its competitors like WordPerfect obsolete. In the Philippines,
PLDT has come up with its own bundling scheme. If you subscribe to PLDT DSL and
pay right away you get a free printer with the DSL connection. When utilized properly
and in timely fashion, bundling can provide increased revenues to suppliers and added
benefits to consumers. The practice of bundling in its many forms affects primarily
consumers and providers and can be a rewarding strategy. Bundling is so simple that
even neighborhood beauty salons have come up with their own bundling promotions.
You can see their promotions written in cartolina and taped at the side of the door free
shampoo for every haircut. Companies can increase sales by bundling various services;
a growing trend in the Philippines, but the strategy is not as simple as throwing a couple
of products together and slapping on a discounted price. (Prof. Agarwal, State University
of New York)
Like any other kind of promotions, bundling has its benefits to the company.
First, assembling multiple products or services to sell in a package not only increases
your overall sales but also gives you the ability to sell slow moving merchandise. Just
like in some groceries when you buy Colgate toothpaste sometimes they bundle it with
Palmolive soap, bundling a market leader to sell a slow moving soap which is not the
market leader. The second benefit is it automatically upsells your customers without
having to ask for it. This is true when fast food companies are promoting a new product.
They usually bundle the new product with an old time favorite. In a sense you buy the old
time favorite but you have to get the new product as well. Third, bundling lowers your
marketing costs because it allows you to move multiple types of products or services
through one advertisement. This is evident in the new ordering board of McDonalds.
They post big pictures of their main products, which is the hamburger, and put only one
picture of Coke and French fries on the side. By doing this they have lowered their cost
in printing because they placed the value meal menu and a la carte menu on the same
ordering board. People get to choose whether to order the burger only or get the value
meal in just one ordering board. Lastly, it promotes a higher perceived value to your
customers. Bundling gives the customer a hedonic benefit. By choosing a value meal the
customer not only gets to save a little cash but also is satisfied in the fact that he got
additional food items as well.
There are many types of bundling, from pure bundling (wherein the product is
only available as a bundle) to mixed bundling (the product is priced separately and as a
bundle). Sales rebates is another form of bundling the vendor rebates money to buyers
who meet defined spending levels. In Premium bundling, the bundle is priced higher
than the prices of the items separately. The researcher would like to concentrate on the
bundling promotion that suits the thesis most, which is mixed bundling.
The researcher will concentrate in the fast food market value meals to further
understand the intricate workings of how the customer responds to value meals. What
makes a good bundle, what are the market segments that opt for bundling?
The
researcher is affiliated with Maxims Tea House, a fast food company, and feels that this
is the best way to help the company come up with better promotions to help increase
sales.
Situational Analysis
It does not take an economist to see that Filipinos like to eat and will spend a
major part of their incomes on food. If the economy continues its steady climb (Family
Income & Expenditure Survey FIES 2003), the food and restaurant sector will continue to
bubble with more activity. The middle class will continue to expand and it will be very
good for business. For the fast food industry the most important factor would be the
middle class that has become stronger with economic growth in recent years. Mr. Yang
of McDonalds believes the entry of new fast food restaurant is likely to level off after
some time. There will be attrition and it is the efficient ones that will stay.
Fast food is presently attracting considerable consumer interest since it is among
the top fastest growing markets. The FCB grid developed by Richard Vaughn of the
Foote, Cone & Belding Advertising Agency classifies fast food with low-involvement
feel products along with soaps, soft drinks and snacks. Firms must determine the
marketing strategies that they need to adjust in order to adapt successfully in this dynamic
and fast changing market.
followed. Jollibee came up with Apat na Sikat Meals, Wendys with their Combo Meals.
Not only those in the burger type of business but evident in the Chinese fast food with
Chowkings Almuchow; Maxims Sulit Sarap and Maximeals and in the pizza sector
Greenwichs Value Treat. This type of food bundling strategy can also be seen in the
high-end restaurants and fine dining like the hotels which comes in different names such
as executive meal or specialty for the day etc. The effectiveness in meeting consumer
needs and wants directly influences marketers profitability. The better they understand
the factors underlying consumer behavior, the better able they are to develop effective
marketing strategies to meet consumer needs.
Figure 1. Sample Value Meal Discount
Maxims: Maximeal #1
McDonalds: Big Mac Meal
Jollibees:
Kiddie Meal
Value Meals
Ala Carte
McDonalds
McDonalds
Cheeseburger Meal
P 57.00 Cheeseburger
Regular Soft Drink
Regular French Fries
P 35.00
18.00
20.00
Total
P 57.00 Total
P 73.00
Greenwich Pizza
Greenwich Pizza
P 99.00
Lasagna Supreme
1 pc. Chicken
Regular Soft Drink
Total
P 99.00
Total
P 59.00
52.00
16.00
P 127.00
Maximeal # 1
P 65.00
P 31.25
36.25
6.50
20.00
Total
P 65.00
Total
P 94.00
Theoretical Framework
Consumer
Monetary Promotion
Product
Utilitarian
Benefits
Savings
Quality
Convenience
Non-monetary Promotion
Hedonic
Benefits
Value Expression
Entertainment
Exploration
entertainment, & exploration) and three utilitarian benefits (savings, higher product
quality, & improved shopping convenience). The benefits are defined as follows: savings
benefits would refer to the monetary savings that the sales promotions provide. However
sales promotions may also enable consumers to upgrade to higher-quality products by
reducing the price of otherwise unaffordable products (quality benefit). Sales promotions
can also reduce consumer search and decision costs and therefore improve shopping
convenience (convenience benefit).
The various importance of benefits sought implies in turn, that the effectiveness
of a sales promotion is higher when its benefits are congruent with those sought for the
purchase occasion. Simply stated, the benefit congruency principle proposes that sales
promotions are more effective in influencing brand choice when they provide the benefits
that have the largest weight in the evaluation of a purchase alternative.
Operational Framework
With the hypothesis that value meal is preferred in the fastfood restaurants in the
key cities of Metro Manila and there are factors affecting the choice or preference of
value meals, the schematic diagram below has been developed to show the operational
framework of the study. This frameworks integrates the independent variables, such as
the consumer characteristic profile based on demographics particularly age, gender,
income & civil status; Psychographics covering activity and interest only and behavioral
pertaining to purchase occasion and consumption frequency that maybe related to
preference of value meal to ala carte food item.
Figure 4. Operational Framework
Independent Variables
Dependent Variables
Value Meal
H3: Consumers belonging to younger age brackets (15-25) are more likely to choose
bundled meals than their older (26-59) counterparts.
H4: Consumers from middle to lower income households are more likely to choose
bundled meals than those from upper income households.
H5:
giveaways.
H6: Consumers dining alone are more likely to choose bundled meals.
Consumers
dining with family/friend are more likely to order a la carte menu items.
H7: Consumers dining in fast food outlets for no special occasion are more likely to
order bundled meals. Consumers celebrating special occasions are more likely to
order ala carte menu items.
H8:
Consumers dining during major day segments (breakfast, lunch, dinner) will
more likely order bundled meals than consumers dining at odd hours.
H9: Consumers buying meals for themselves will more likely opt for bundled meals
than consumers who buy for others.
H10: Consumers who regularly (i.e. more frequent than once a month) dine in fast
food outlets are more likely to order bundled meals than consumers who are not
regular fast food outlet patrons.
Assumptions of the Study
1. The sample population drawn from major malls in the key cities of Metro Manila
is representative of the general trend since most fast food restaurants are located
inside the malls.
is construed with a given time frame, it is now a fixed part of the menu selection offered
by most fastfood restaurant. Only it comes in different names such as value treat,
executive meals, combo meals, sulit sarap meals, apat na sikat meals and many more.
Franchisees, entrepreneurs and investors should see much opportunity in offering the
right selection and combination of value meals.
Significance to Managers in the Fast Food Sector. Fast food market is a top
growing market providing economic values that depend on income growth levels and
respond to social changes (time saving). Studying how and when a bundling promotion
work, the framework will have implication on improving effectiveness of a bundling as a
promotional tool as they increase their presence in the marketing mix.
Significance to the Academe. This study may serve as a reference for students in
their future research work. Bundling is a marketing strategy not only applicable to the
food industry but to other areas of business as well such as the airline, telecom ,
accounting services and a host of businesses. As for the teachers, this study may be used
as a guide and as an example to clearly explain to their students the topic related to the
study.
The study primarily probed the factors for choosing value meals and non-value
meal items. Secondly, it determined the profile of value meal and non-value meal
consumers as to demographics pertaining only to age, gender, income and civil status;
psychographic characteristics defined by lifestyle variables: activities and interests; and
behavioral pattern which focused on purchase situations and fast food consumption
frequency. The researcher has identified that purchase situations are characterized by
displays (physical surrounding), social surroundings (who are present when purchasing
value meal, the occasion), time (breakfast, lunch, between meals, dinner) and task
definition (purchasing for oneself or for the family, friends). Thirdly it explains the
correlation existing between the profile of the consumer and the reasons for preference to
value meal. Finally the researcher examines out preference between value meal and
items bought at an ala carte price in the key cities of Metro Manila.
The primary data gathered to fulfill the objectives of the study are focus group
discussion and a face to face survey (using questionnaire) of male and female
respondents belonging to the age group of 15 to 60 years old. Qualified respondents are
screened on their recency of food outlet patronage. That is, they must have eaten in a fast
food outlet or a casual dining restaurant in the past three months.
Due to the large scope of the food industry affecting the financial resources and
time constraint, the researcher limited the study to consumers in the fast food and casual
dining restaurants only.
The study employed the use of quota and purposive sampling, a non-probability
type of sampling since the researcher is affiliated with a fast food chain (Maxims Tea
House). This is the venue where qualified respondents may be intercepted for interview.
Survey will be collected from four key cities in Metro Manila where Maxims has an
outlet. Simple random method with the aid of table of random numbers was used to
determine the areas where the survey will be conducted. These are Makati (Glorietta
Mall), Mandaluyong ( SM Megamall), San Juan (Greenhills) and Quezon City (SM
NorthEdsa Mall).
restaurant outlets and the researcher has chosen the flagship malls in Manila where
people from different walks of life is represented. The area of coverage is limited due to
funding shortage to support a bigger-scale research.
Definition of Terms
Value Meal -- a type of mixed bundling strategy. A combination of food and drinks and
to some a mixture of food from appetizer to dessert at a discounted price when compared
to buying the items individually in a menu selection.
Bundled Meal popularly termed value meal. As the term value meal is coined by
McDonalds. The generic term to refer to package or combination of food and drinks at a
discounted price.
Mixed bundling the bundled products and individual products are available for
purchase. McDonalds fast food restaurants Value Meals are an excellent example of
this bundle. It is the most common form of bundling.
Consumers one that consumes; someone who utilizes economic goods for the
satisfaction of human wants. In this study the consumers referred to are those belonging
to the age group of 15-60 years old, has eaten in a fastfood restaurant in the past three
months and a resident of Metro Manila.
Low involvement purchases that are less important or risky, and are not worth the
consumers time and effort; the choice is characterized by limited decision-making.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Promotions
Are monetary savings the only explanation for consumer response to a sales
promotion?
promotions are more effective for utilitarian products than for hedonic products. There is
ample empirical support for benefit congruency framework, in the literature on
persuasion (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). For example, Edwards (1990) finds that hedonic
information on the smell of a beverage is more persuasive than utilitarian information on
its storage requirements when the attitude toward the beverage is based on hedonic
benefits (taste) than when it is based on utilitarian benefits (nutrition). Theories of
attitude change can account for the effects of benefit congruency. Functional theories of
attitudes contend that persuasion is enhanced when a persuasive message emphasizes the
utilitarian or hedonic function that provides the motivational basis of the attitude to be
modified (Kat 1960). Similarly, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) argue that persuasions are
more effective when they address the salient beliefs underlying the attitude to be
changed, that is the beliefs that are the most important antecedents of an attitude. Finally,
the compatibility principle (Tversky, Sattath and Slovic 1988) suggests that consumers
weight more heavily the dimension of an object (say its utilitarian benefits) when it is
compatible with or similar to their goal (say choosing between two utilitarian alternatives
as opposed to choosing between two hedonic alternatives).
Pricing
sensitive and unresponsive to the attributes, and others are sensitive to the features of the
product but do not necessarily want more of these features. This proves that some
consumers are price sensitive to bundles and others are more keen on what is included in
the bundle, just like in choosing the Maximeals the researcher would like to know
whether consumers are more interested in the price or what products are included in the
meal.
Choice Behavior
Trijp, Hoyer and Inman addressed two key issues that have received inadequate
attention in the choice behavior literature on variety seeking. First, they separated true
variety-seeking behavior from derived varied behavior.
The results showed that variety seeking behavior does not occur for all
products to the same extent and identify several product category-level determinants of
variety seeking behavior. It did not state which products have the most effect in variety
seeking behavior.
Bundling
Bundling is a pricing strategy which takes many forms, but its principal
characteristic is offering a package consisting of two or more goods and services, or a
combination of these, that makes the main product more attractive to consumers than
purchasing the goods separately. Sellers try to influence consumer preferences; demand
for the product should be price inelastic. Benefits in favor of bundling include demand
inducement or revenue enhancement, improvement in cost via better scales of economies
and faster movement of inventory.
Bundling unquestionably raises profits. The common marginal cost of the bundle
insures the profitability of bundling, as long as prices are chosen appropriately. Profits
are better with the modified bundling or mixed bundling than with none. Jannett Highfill
(International Advances in Economic Research 5/1/2001)
Value Meals
Value meals, they are the rage among students and the favorite of ordinary
salaried employees. The inexpensive and popular value meals are being offered by
fastfood chains, restaurants, cafeterias and lately, even by exclusive proprietary clubs. It
is the answer to the yearnings of weary housewives whose everyday budget for the kids
at school and the working husband is being stretched far too long. Value meals are a
combination of two or more foodstuff plus, a cola or juice drink. Value meals were first
introduced to shoppers in the late 1980s they were known as combo meals then, the
promotional idea immediately caught the fancy of diners. Suppliers like soft drink
companies, bakeries, plastic cups and foam packs also enjoyed big volume orders from
their traditional institutional clients due to value meals. (Manila Bulletin 9/1/2002)
Research show that consumers rate Value Meals as the second most important reason for
selecting a quick service restaurant, first reason is restaurant location, and consumers who
purchase value meals generally seize the opportunity to upsize. (Mediaweek 10/18/1993)
Offering value meals sandwich or entre, chips or a side, plus a beverage and maybe even
dessert, is the most effective way to increase revenue in corporate dining facilities,
according to a recent study. Other than value meals operators say the best way to
improve is via offering coupons, posting limited-run menu items, implementing cashless
payment, delivery to offices, and call-in ordering for take-out. (Food Service Director
2002)
The Hamburger and sandwich segment of the fast food industry posted sales
increases of 5% and 7%, respectively, for the fiscal year ending August 1994, according
to a report by the NPD Group Inc. Major industry trends include continued reduction of
operational costs, offering value-priced combination meals, and emphasizing basic
burgers and other items. While the burger segment as a whole did well, the performance
figures from many companies were not so rosy. Competition, already cutthroat, has
intensified, with everyone now pitching super value prices. (Restaurant Business 1995)
Here is a look at how the Value Meals are doing in the fastfood market. What are
the reasons for its success, and how much of company sales are from value meals.
Burger King, moved to further boost value meal sales, launched 3 new value meals
catering to the consumers need for choices. Value Meals are significantly important
menu offerings as they represent approximately 40% of main menu purchases and 51%
of Burger King sales. Value Meals had been introduced to the stores since 1994 and is
the product offering the greatest cost savings to consumers while also offering a greater
profit margin for restaurants, according to Dana Frydman, senior director, product
marketing for Burger King Corp.
(Mediaweek 10/18/1993)
McDonalds contacted its ad roster shops to dole out an estimated $10 million on
a national promotional campaign related to its Value Meals. McDonalds Value Meals
accounts for 45% of the total sales in the stores. (Brandweek 12/13/2001) The Big Mac
Value Meal alone in mid 1993 claimed that purchases of its Value Meals packages
accounted for 45% of all the systems transactions. (Americas Top 2000 Brands 1993)
Simplicity is the new way for McDonalds Corp., simplify its core business, expand
restaurant concepts and create retail opportunities, all the while improving customer
service and satisfaction. McDonalds is ramping up on a consumer rewards program; it is
aimed at tracking customer behavior to improve customer frequency. Customers visiting
a McDonalds outlet will gain points toward prizes from partners such as Walt Disney
Co. and Mattel. The company is considering using the program for boosting sales for
after school and on weekends. (Advertising Age 4/2/2001).
Wendys and Hardees started bundling specially priced meal combos. They have
committed themselves to specialty burgers and sandwiches, pitched more as real food.
At mid year 1993, Wendys showed 6% growth and Hardees sales increased 13% from
last year where the overall quick service restaurant segment grew comparatively at just
over 3%. (Americas Top 2000 Brands 1993) Wendys core strategy of value pricing
balanced with premium sandwich offers has proved a winner. Now they are accelerating
unit expansion, continuing improvement of existing operations and of their franchising
system. Hardees was among the last of the burger chains to succumb to the value menu
lure, its campaign Choice Values was launched last June. Its Choice Values response
features a two-tiered menu of 99cents sandwiches and $1.99 complete meals, including a
double cheeseburger one piece chicken and biscuit, and junior chicken filet, augmented
by small fries and small drinks.
Jack-in-the-Box also introduced value meal offerings in 1994, under the title
Supreme Value Combos.
offering a free month of the cable movie service with purchase, and a Christmas Kid Pack
promotion tied to Steven Spielbergs more kid friendly Were Back: A Dinosaur Story.
Pizza Hut, used its Blockbuster and HBO ties logically to promote home delivery of its
new Bigfoot mega-pizza, an effort to steal share from steadily rising Little Caesars,
whose basic point of different for years has been its Pizza! Pizza! two pies for the price
of one offer. (Americas Top 2000 Brands 1993)
Dominos Pizza is introducing two new value meals Pepperoni Mania Value
Meals these Value Meals offer two combinations of pizzas, side orders and drinks.
Allan Ang, Dommal Food Services General Manager, said, This is our way of saying
thanks to our loyal customers. We also hope to attract new customers. The value meal
saves the customers 16 cents as compared with when they order the items separately.
(New Straits Times 10/12/2002)
Conclusion
So, whether one is in the mood for a combo meal in Quiapo, Greenbelt Makati or
at Fort Bonifacio, the economies of scale of value meals are proving to be cost-effective
proposition to patrons as well as entrepreneurs. Marketers must emphasize the value or
benefit of what they are offering and therefore it is best to understand the underlying
factors affecting the choice of value meals in order to be relevant and competitive in
strategy.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
There are three generally recognized categories of research based on the nature of
information to be gathered, namely, exploratory, descriptive and causal (Naresh
Malhotra 2004; Lehmann, Gupta and Steckel 1998). This study employs the first two
categories.
There is, sadly, a noted absence of substantial studies in the local food service
industry specifically investigating the value meal phenomenon that can be publicly and
freely accessed. Fast food outlets like Jollibee and McDonalds do have studies of this
sort but are largely for internal use only.
commissioned to third party research agencies that would automatically render such
studies as proprietary to these fast food client companies. While there may be syndicated
fast food industry studies conducted by research agencies, such may only be acquired via
purchase and with a high price tag attached. Thus, the exploratory approach lays the
groundwork intended to uncover initial data patterns or characteristics of variables
(Edralin 2000) that should serve as bases for further investigative efforts. These data
patterns may be translated to observed behavioral responses of the studys target market
relative to value meal consumption, e.g., what drives them to choose a value meal
offering among all other menu items or what degree of importance is attributed to each of
these factors on the eventual meal choice.
This study moves the research initiative a notch higher by utilizing the descriptive
approach with the exploratory research results serving as valuable inputs. As the name
suggests, this phase intends to accurately describe the variables of interest as identified in
the study (Naresh Malhotra 2004), namely, purchase likelihood, factors considered in
choosing value meals, value meal consumer profile as defined by demographics,
psychographics and behavior. The status quo is presented through a survey and the
relationships
among
variables
are
established
through
correlation
studies
(http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged-5980a/5980/newpage110.htm,
June 2005) --- both of which are undertaken in this study.
Sampling Technique
The target population as defined by the study included every male and female consumer
residing in Metro Manila with ages ranging from 15 to 60 years old. An additional
selection criterion was included based on recency of food outlet patronage stipulating that
all respondents must have dined in a fast food outlet or casual dining restaurant within the
past 3 months to qualify. The 3-month time frame ensures that respondents dining out
experiences is current enough for them to remember when prompted with specific
questions. Note that no further requirement was made as to a respondents economic
status (i.e., must belong to classes AB and C or only to classes C and D) as the study
Given the need to strike a balance between cost and efficiency considerations, this
study chose to generate non-probability samples via quota sampling. Quotas were set
based on population proportions defined by the selected age brackets and gender. Of the
total 17 cities and municipalities in Metro Manila, the number of cities/municipalities to
include in the survey was judgmentally determined to be 4 as sufficient to represent the
target population. The latest population data (2000) from the National Statistics Office
(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2003/pr0312tx.html, June 2005) were used as basis for computing pertinent population
proportions as tabulated below.
Table 1.
AGE GROUP
TOTAL COUNT
PERCENT
Male
Female
Male
Female
15-24
972,219
1,115,576
32%
31%
34%
25-34
919,353
953,877
29%
29%
29%
35-44
665,465
672,135
21%
21%
20%
45-60
569,424
579,515
18%
18%
17%
Total
3,126,461
3,321,103
48%
52%
100%
100%
100%
Thus, this studys sampled base comprised an almost equal number of males and females,
48% vs. 52%, respectively. The 15-34 age bracket likewise constituted a majority at 61%
of the respondents. This trend was also evident when looking at gender breakdown per
age group where males aged 15-34 represented 60% of the total male quota vis--vis their
female counterparts at 63%.
Additionally, given the studys assumption that samples drawn from malls are
representative of the general trend on fast food consumption, a food chain, Maxims Tea
House, was chosen as the central location where the mall intercepts will be generated.
Maxims was chosen owing to the researchers affiliation with this food chain, thereby
relaxing the usual requirement of getting a permit to conduct a study within the food
outlets premises. But beyond mere convenience, selecting respondents who opted to dine
in a casual dining restaurant over a fast food outlet is expected to generate richer views
on and stronger reasons for finally deciding to order a bundled product offering. This
assumption is based on an observation that a casual dining restaurants menu offers
infinitely more food choices than those of a fast food outlet --- with the bundled items far
less in number and different in composition than all other menu items. On the other
hand, bundled food items from fast food outlets are not that much different over other
individual menu items such that the main course in a bundled offer is very much the same
item individually listed on the menu board.
numerous food items to choose from with bundled meals representing a lesser slice of the
pie, it naturally follows that the probability of finally opting for ala carte items far
outweighs a bundled meal choice.
offerings in a food outlet that serves more ala carte items is definitely an event that may
not be attributed to just chance variation. This scenario will be explored more fully
among consumers coming from a casual dining restaurant (such as Maxims) than in a
fast food outlet (such as Jollibee or McDonalds).
The sampling frame consisted of a listing of all Maxims branches within Metro
Manila. The four Maxims sites that were included in the survey were selected through
simple random sampling via a Table of Random Numbers resulting into outlets located in
the cities of Quezon City, Mandaluyong, Makati and San Juan as the studys areas of
coverage. Thus, intercepts were conducted at a Maxims branch inside the following
malls:
1. SM City North Edsa .
Quezon City
2. SM Megamall ...
Mandaluyong
3. Glorietta Makati
4. Greenhills Shopping Center .
San Juan
Given that major malls are melting pots of consumers from all over the
metropolis, the above locations should be able to generate a cross-section of value meal
patrons from which this study will be drawing insights.
Note, however, that this does not imply a residence restriction on sample
generation, i.e., a respondent will still qualify even if he/she resided outside these cities
but within Metro Manila as long as he/she falls within the age and gender quotas to be
met.
Estimation of the sample size took into account the following basic considerations
(Naresh Malhotra 2004; Lehmann, Gupta and Steckel 1998; Roberto 1987):
1. Confidence level (z) This represents the error in the estimation process. This z
value is indicative of the confidence with respect to the accuracy of the estimate
of the variable of interest yielded by the sample data.
preferred 95% confidence level (with z = 1.96 which this study adopted) says that
this study can be wrong 5% of the time in accepting the estimated proportion from
the sample as the true proportion.
2. Margin of error (MOE) This corresponds to the error of the estimate. The
generally tolerated MOE of 5% (as this study is willing to tolerate) says that an
estimated proportion as a measure of the variable of interest derived from the
sample data will approximate the true proportion within limits of +5%.
3. Variability Data variability is a measure of the degree of homogeneity of the
population relative to the variable(s) under study. Measured in proportion, this
takes the form p(1-p), where p is the proportion this study is interested in.
However, since no prior variability estimate is available (e.g., standard deviation),
the study took a conservative stance and assumed that maximum variability
existed in value meal consumption among target consumers. Given that p is a
proportion, its values range between 0 and 1. Thus, assigning values to p within
this range and computing variability of p(1-p), the maximum point is reached
when p = .50. The study, thus, adopted a p of 0.50.
Using the sample size formula below with the foregoing considerations in mind
yields a sample size of approximately 400 respondents. This is further broken down
(Table 2) applying the population proportions from Table 1.
z2 [p(1-p)]
(1.96)2 (.50)(1-.50)
(MOE)2
n
Table 2.
(.05)2
400 respondents
384
AGE GROUP
PERCENT
SAMPLE SIZE
Male
Female
Male
Female
15-24
31%
34%
60
69
25-34
29%
29%
57
59
35-44
21%
20%
41
42
45-60
18%
17%
35
36
194
206
48%
52%
Total
%
400 respondents ..
in Metro Manila. Thus, there were 100 respondents interviewed in each Maxims branch
located in the cities of Mandaluyong, Makati, San Juan and Quezon City.
Primary data gathering is the selected data collection method executed in two
phases involving both the exploratory and descriptive research approaches.
The initial phase was exploratory through the focus group discussion (FGD)
intended to elicit responses to be used as options for close-ended questions in the second
phase of the study. Two sessions were conducted with both panels representing the target
market based on age, gender, past 3-month product usage criterion and past 4-week fast
food visit. Panel membership was made up of about 8-10 respondents per group. The
first group consisted of the younger set of male and female respondents from AB and C
households whose ages ranged from 15 to 25 and the second group comprised their older
male and female counterparts belonging to the 26 to 59 age bracket similarly from classes
AB and C. The discussion guide (Appendix B) included questions that were asked
during the large-scale survey phase. The sessions were conducted on August 13, 2005.
The exploratory research report and transcriptions of the actual discussions are provided
in Appendix C.
The descriptive phase of the study was executed through a survey using face-to-face
interviews conducted inside selected Maxims Tea House outlets (given the researchers
affiliation with this food chain and the appropriateness of choosing a casual dining
restaurant over a fast food outlet as the central location for respondent generation as
previously discussed) located in Metro Manila malls earlier enumerated. Prospective
respondents were intercepted and invited to participate in the study.
Those willing
enough to spare a few minutes of their time were interviewed either while waiting for
their orders (if the order takes long to be served) or right after dining (if the order is
served almost immediately). Fieldwork ran during August 31 September 30, 2005.
The screening portion ensured that the predetermined respondent criterion based
on recency of food outlet patronage (must have dined in a fast food outlet or casual
dining restaurant within the past 3 months) and sample size quotas based on age, gender
and city proportions will be met with strict accuracy.
proportions here refers to the sample size broken down equally into 100 respondents
generated from each mall outlet enumerated earlier (not respective population
proportions).
The core portion represented by sectional subgroups B-E intended to measure the
identified variables of interest, i.e., Section B Preference for specific menu items and
fast food outlets, Section C Factors considered important in meal choice (initially asked
through a close-ended question and subsequently through the use of a rating scale
measuring attitude toward each meal decision factor), Section D Purchase situations (as
measured by questions on influence of physical surroundings on actual purchase, usual
companion, occasion at time of purchase, usual time of day when visiting fast food
outlets, for whom usually buy) and Section E Psychographic profile as measured by the
degree of agreement along a 5-point rating scale to statements describing activities and
interests.
scales, answers to close-ended questions, list of attributes) were used to facilitate the
interview process and to ensure that the respondent understood each question clearly.
All
respondents from both the FGD and survey phases received tokens.
The absence of formal studies on value meal consumption in the local fast food
industry suggests that the data drawn from this studys sampled base of respondents
cannot be assumed to have originated from a population with a known distribution (e.g.,
normal or binomial).
hypothesis testing were most appropriate for analyzing this type of data. The following
three tests were used in proving whether or not there existed relationships between
variables under study:
3. Contingency coefficient C
This test is ideal for measuring the extent of relation between 2 sets of attributes
consisting of an unordered series of frequencies (Siegel 1956). The level of
measurement needs to be nominal for each variable of interest at the very least.
Specific to the study, these variable pairs are as follows:
a. Meal preference vs. Age groupings (Q#B3 and Q#A2)
b. Meal preference vs. Gender (Q#B3 and Gender Screening Questionnaire
Section A)
c. Meal preference vs. Civil status (Q#B3 and Civil Status Questionnaire
Section F)
d. Meal preference vs. Monthly household income (Q#B3 and Monthly
household income Questionnaire Section F)
All other questions on the questionnaire that do not involve hypothesis testing
(Q#B2, Q#B4, Q#B5) were described through observed frequencies and corresponding
percentages.
Table 3.
Measurement
Hypothesis
Variables
Objectives
Statistical
Treatment
H1: Purchase
Chi square ( 2)
likelihood
the preference of
one-sample test
consumers between
items bought at an
= 0.05
menu items).
H2: Factors
Obj2: To
Chi square ( 2)
considered in meal
determine the
one-sample test
choice
factors why
choice.
consumers choose
certain meal items
offerings
= 0.05
Table 3.
Measurement
Hypothesis
Variables
Objectives
Statistical
Treatment
Kolmogorov-
= 0.05
H3: Correlation of
Obj3: To identify
Contingency
meal preference to
the profile of a
coefficient C
consumers
value meal
demographic and
behavioral profiles
cities of Metro
and frequency of
visit
consumers gender.
Manila
= .05
Table 3.
Measurement
Variables
Hypothesis
consumers civil status.
Objectives
Statistical
Treatment
Table 3.
Measurement
Hypothesis
Variables
Objectives
Statistical
Treatment
Table 3.
Measurement
Variables
Hypothesis
order bundled meals than
consumers dining at odd hours.
Objectives
Statistical
Treatment
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
Results of the survey are presented below in the form of frequency tables and
cross tabulations generated using SPSS 13. The hypothesis testing and factor analysis
outputs were likewise ran through the same statistical software and corresponding tables
similarly presented and discussed in support of the decision to accept a hypothesis or not.
Discussion of succeeding results is broken down into sections as presented on the survey
questionnaire. Where applicable, the rest of the FGD results will be incorporated into the
survey findings that follow.
The FGD results revealed the following lifestyle habits and practices that the
target market normally observed:
2. Bonding, therefore, is an important aspect of their lives such that most of their
activities are normally done with someone else --- be they friends or family
members.
themselves.
4. Health consciousness among the older market segment is more apparent. Thus,
engaging in regular sports activities and a cautious food intake relative to
resulting benefits or implications are quite evident.
5. Malling is prevalent among both the young and the older market segments. The
latter, however, sees malling more as a necessity than a want.
6. Dining out is likewise a habitual routine among both market segments. Given that
bonding is important to them, as well as the basic need to feed themselves, dining
out in fast food outlets has become a regular activity done outside the home.
Thus, the study tried to incorporate the above findings into the survey
questionnaire via the 23 lifestyle statements focusing on activities and interests that were
handed to respondents to be rated using a 5-point agree/disagree scale. Statements
garnering the highest top box and top 2 box ratings are tabulated below (Table 4) while
the distribution of ratings for all statements is found on Table 5.
Table 4. Highly Rated Activities and Interests Describing Fast Food Consumers
LIFESTYLE STATEMENTS
TOP BOX
TOP 2 BOX
Base = 400
71%
89%
56%
86%
40%
70%
40%
71%
40%
75%
39%
73%
37%
59%
35%
62%
31%
59%
30%
64%
223
125
120
160
76
111
94
It'
s worth paying extra for quality
goods.
157
73
No.
39%
24%
28%
19%
40%
30%
31%
56%
18%
134
101
80
87
125
136
111
121
110
No.
LIFESTYLE STATEMENTS
Table 5.
4
34%
25%
20%
22%
31%
34%
28%
30%
28%
78
104
110
126
82
89
92
44
111
No.
20%
26%
28%
32%
21%
22%
23%
11%
28%
19
58
49
71
21
33
34
60
No.
5%
15%
12%
18%
5%
8%
9%
2%
15%
12
43
50
40
12
22
38
46
No.
3%
11%
13%
10%
3%
6%
10%
2%
12%
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Total
86
158
58
96
161
73
I do volunteer work in my
community or in school.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
101
139
11
83
10
No.
25%
18%
40%
24%
15%
40%
22%
35%
21%
102
118
120
84
129
143
88
108
110
No.
LIFESTYLE STATEMENTS
Table 5.
4
26%
30%
30%
21%
32%
36%
22%
27%
28%
141
134
91
97
100
74
130
98
103
No.
35%
34%
23%
24%
25%
19%
33%
25%
26%
35
40
19
61
56
20
59
37
43
No.
9%
10%
5%
15%
14%
5%
15%
9%
11%
21
35
62
57
37
18
61
No.
5%
9%
2%
16%
14%
1%
9%
5%
15%
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Total
285
22
23
4 Agree somewhat
5 Agree a lot
Rating scale
48
21
71%
12%
20%
24%
37%
72
58
115
128
88
No.
79
95
20
149
19
No.
LIFESTYLE STATEMENTS
Table 5.
4
18%
15%
29%
32%
22%
8%
26%
26%
31%
22%
75
54
38
54
No.
2%
19%
14%
10%
14%
1 Disagree a lot
2 Disagree somewhat
31
102
103
122
88
No.
117
49
17
21
No.
2%
29%
12%
4%
5%
400
400
400
400
400
Total
In profiling the target market based on lifestyle patterns, factor analysis was
employed for a) data reduction, i.e., reducing the original 23 statements to a smaller
number of uncorrelated statements to describe the markets activities and interests, and b)
detection of structure in the relationships among the lifestyle variables, i.e., variable
classification. Results are shown on Tables 6-9.
Table 6. Communalities
Initial
Extraction
Activities/Interests 1
Activities/Interests 2
Activities/Interests 3
Activities/Interests 4
Activities/Interests 5
Activities/Interests 6
Activities/Interests 7
Activities/Interests 8
Activities/Interests 9
Activities/Interests 10
Activities/Interests 11
Activities/Interests 12
Activities/Interests 13
Activities/Interests 14
Activities/Interests 15
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.441
0.562
0.640
0.601
0.597
0.532
0.485
0.584
0.724
0.626
0.550
0.658
0.765
0.548
0.636
Table 6. Communalities
Initial
Extraction
Activities/Interests 16
Activities/Interests 17
Activities/Interests 18
Activities/Interests 19
Activities/Interests 20
Activities/Interests 21
Activities/Interests 22
Activities/Interests 23
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.765
0.495
0.609
0.516
0.661
0.688
0.717
0.672
The next issue, therefore, is how many factors have been extracted in the factor
solution and how many to retain. One common rule observed is to retain variables with
eigenvalues greater than 1. An eigenvalue represents a measure of the variance in all
variables that can be explained by a factor. For instance, Factor 1 on Table 7 posts an
initial eigenvalue of 4.004. Intuitively, this means that Factor 1 contains information
equal to information from roughly 4.004 variables. Additionally, Factor 1 can also
explain about 17.408% of the observed variance in the variables.
Applying the eigenvalue > 1 rule, the table lists the extracted 8 components or
factors that can explain about 61.181% of the variance in all the variables (Extraction
Sums of Squared Loadings). While loss of information of approximately 38.819% is
evident, accounting for about 60%-80% of the variance is generally considered large
enough to capture most of the information in the original data.
Maximizing and
redistributing the variance among the factors in the solution set is shown under Rotation
Sums of Squared Loadings without any apparent change in the total variance. This is
done to improve the interpretability of the factors.
4.004
2.178
1.637
1.559
1.312
1.254
1.108
1.021
0.904
0.796
0.755
0.749
0.687
0.672
0.613
0.576
0.538
0.514
0.495
0.453
0.420
0.394
0.362
Total
17.408
9.469
7.115
6.778
5.702
5.452
4.816
4.440
3.929
3.462
3.284
3.257
2.987
2.922
2.666
2.503
2.341
2.235
2.152
1.969
1.828
1.713
1.572
% of
Variance
17.408
26.877
33.992
40.770
46.473
51.925
56.741
61.181
65.110
68.571
71.855
75.112
78.099
81.021
83.687
86.191
88.532
90.767
92.918
94.887
96.715
98.428
100.000
Cumulative
%
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Component
Initial Eigenvalues
4.004
2.178
1.637
1.559
1.312
1.254
1.108
1.021
Total
17.408
9.469
7.115
6.778
5.702
5.452
4.816
4.440
% of
Variance
17.408
26.877
33.992
40.770
46.473
51.925
56.741
61.181
Cumulative
%
Extraction Sums
of Squared Loadings
3.425
1.954
1.617
1.492
1.444
1.441
1.435
1.264
Total
14.890
8.497
7.031
6.487
6.277
6.267
6.238
5.496
% of
Variance
14.890
23.386
30.417
36.904
43.181
49.448
55.685
61.181
Cumulative
%
Rotation Sums
of Squared Loadings
1
0.5027
0.1023
(0.1644)
(0.0262)
0.0435
0.3571
0.2455
0.5291
0.0538
0.7260
0.6165
0.6078
0.1569
0.0435
0.6130
0.2749
0.6366
0.5810
0.5992
0.2358
0.4021
0.3430
0.2220
Activities/Interests 1
Activities/Interests 2
Activities/Interests 3
Activities/Interests 4
Activities/Interests 5
Activities/Interests 6
Activities/Interests 7
Activities/Interests 8
Activities/Interests 9
Activities/Interests 10
Activities/Interests 11
Activities/Interests 12
Activities/Interests 13
Activities/Interests 14
Activities/Interests 15
Activities/Interests 16
Activities/Interests 17
Activities/Interests 18
Activities/Interests 19
Activities/Interests 20
Activities/Interests 21
Activities/Interests 22
Activities/Interests 23
3
(0.3662)
0.5152
(0.1216)
(0.0748)
0.1305
(0.3767)
(0.3652)
(0.4940)
0.1310
(0.1968)
(0.0377)
(0.1366)
(0.0479)
0.1585
0.2897
0.2457
(0.0410)
0.3034
0.2447
0.1111
0.3643
0.1183
0.3463
Component
4
5
(0.0328)
0.0568
0.3045
0.1127
0.2370
0.2529
0.0274
0.4904
0.4923
(0.2165)
0.2604
0.0439
0.2453
(0.3100)
0.0656
(0.0553)
0.3918
(0.4279)
0.0264
(0.0600)
0.1426
(0.0193)
(0.0319)
0.2974
(0.0573)
0.4369
(0.0497)
(0.1216)
(0.3838)
0.0794
0.2965
(0.0581)
(0.0924)
(0.0972)
0.1426
0.1889
0.1390
(0.0492)
0.0200
(0.2824)
(0.4206)
(0.2669)
(0.4727)
(0.0460)
0.4101
0.3895
6
0.1643
0.2097
(0.3800)
(0.0597)
0.2232
(0.3219)
(0.0937)
(0.0700)
0.4546
0.0412
0.1698
0.3084
0.4511
0.0419
(0.0798)
(0.4442)
0.0907
(0.2359)
(0.1267)
(0.1938)
(0.0868)
(0.0224)
(0.0328)
7
(0.0126)
(0.1494)
0.2212
0.0678
0.2399
(0.0598)
(0.2099)
0.0996
0.3137
0.0359
(0.1364)
(0.0661)
(0.0335)
(0.3343)
0.0419
0.3712
0.1861
0.0109
(0.0859)
(0.6001)
0.0661
0.3385
(0.1424)
8
0.1043
(0.3235)
(0.1882)
(0.1164)
(0.1100)
(0.0942)
0.0165
0.1919
0.0263
(0.1873)
(0.0506)
(0.2618)
0.4896
0.0410
(0.0637)
0.4083
0.1096
(0.2292)
(0.0662)
0.1428
0.1525
(0.0824)
0.4004
2
0.0833
(0.0028)
(0.0051)
0.1240
(0.0031)
(0.0748)
(0.1071)
0.0196
0.0388
0.1362
(0.0579)
0.0545
0.0952
0.2734
0.6378
0.0897
0.2958
0.1820
0.1296
0.1173
0.7678
0.7888
(0.1629)
1
0.5399
0.0483
(0.1910)
(0.0662)
(0.0033)
0.3783
0.2620
0.5643
0.0179
0.7677
0.6727
0.7238
0.0856
(0.1544)
0.3814
0.0646
0.5631
0.4760
0.4978
0.0406
0.0452
0.1029
0.0847
Activities/Interests 1
Activities/Interests 2
Activities/Interests 3
Activities/Interests 4
Activities/Interests 5
Activities/Interests 6
Activities/Interests 7
Activities/Interests 8
Activities/Interests 9
Activities/Interests 10
Activities/Interests 11
Activities/Interests 12
Activities/Interests 13
Activities/Interests 14
Activities/Interests 15
Activities/Interests 16
Activities/Interests 17
Activities/Interests 18
Activities/Interests 19
Activities/Interests 20
Activities/Interests 21
Activities/Interests 22
Activities/Interests 23
Table 9.
3
0.0730
0.0284
0.7649
0.6745
0.2207
0.4879
0.1669
0.1246
(0.1188)
(0.0138)
(0.2435)
0.0293
0.0563
0.1648
(0.0178)
(0.0003)
(0.1697)
0.1267
(0.1399)
(0.0632)
(0.1227)
0.2270
0.0284
Component
4
5
(0.0732)
0.0405
(0.0007)
0.2293
0.0698
0.0877
(0.1385)
(0.0179)
0.0466
0.7175
0.1072
0.0183
(0.0362)
0.2208
0.1350
0.0439
0.0043
0.8401
0.0377
0.0311
0.1144
0.0052
(0.1883)
(0.0758)
(0.0403)
0.0529
(0.1727)
0.1483
0.1016
(0.1831)
0.8489
0.0770
0.1856
0.0770
0.3493
(0.1196)
0.3467
(0.0405)
0.0569
(0.0692)
0.1215
0.0459
(0.1145)
0.0941
0.5559
(0.0359)
6
0.1070
0.0646
0.0114
0.0114
0.0875
0.3005
0.4975
0.1157
0.0041
0.0298
0.0541
(0.1172)
0.0098
0.5634
0.0439
(0.0889)
(0.0558)
(0.0054)
0.1221
0.7923
0.2520
(0.0319)
0.1065
7
(0.2499)
0.7082
(0.0183)
0.1058
0.1524
(0.1804)
(0.2639)
(0.4586)
0.0245
(0.0251)
0.1352
0.2102
(0.0595)
0.1313
0.1890
(0.1032)
(0.1244)
0.4187
0.2758
0.0759
0.0031
(0.0893)
0.3347
8
0.2377
0.0226
(0.0759)
0.3092
0.0080
(0.1008)
(0.0994)
0.0772
0.0436
(0.1168)
0.0153
0.1775
0.8590
0.1882
0.0403
(0.0847)
0.0512
(0.1479)
(0.1382)
(0.0014)
0.0249
0.0424
0.4519
The two preceding tables show the respective factor loadings for each variable
(lifestyle statement) on the unrotated components (Table 8) and the rotated components
(Table 9). As the central output for factor analysis, the factor loadings represent the
correlation coefficients between the factors and variables and form the bases for labeling
the factors in the solution set. Loadings of at least 0.6 are generally considered high vis-vis 0.4 as considerably low. Between the unrotated component and rotated component
matrices, the latter matrix presents a more readable output as to which lifestyle statement
loads heavily on a factor (note highlighted cells).
The 8 factors in the solution set are as follows. Labels have likewise been
provided to classify the lifestyle statements for ease of interpretation. Note that the
labeling process is rather subjective and the labels that follow are those that seem to make
the most sense.
Factor 1: Experiencer
a. When I see a new brand on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what it'
s like.
b. I shop around a lot to take advantage of specials or bargains.
c. I like attending social occasions like weddings, birthdays, parties, etc.
d. I like dining out.
e. I like spending my free time in malls.
f. I follow the latest trends and fashions.
g. I like going to the movies.
h. I would like to spend my vacation traveling to far and different places.
Factor 3: Home-centered
a. I would rather spend my free time at home than go out.
b. I am concerned about health but tend not to do much about it.
c. I often buy take-out meals to eat at home.
Factor 4: Entertainment-oriented
a. I enjoy watching TV and home videos.
b. I enjoy being in the company of friends and/or family.
Factor 7: Quality-focused
a. It'
s worth paying extra for quality goods.
Factor 8: Risk-taker
a. I like to try out new food products.
Value meal consumers may, thus, be described to fall into any of these 8
segments.
They may be experiencers or those who love social activities and new
products, are fashion-oriented and like to travel. There are some who might be described
as adventure seekers who love both the outdoor (sports) and indoor (internet surfing,
online gaming) activities. Still another segment is fond of spending quiet times at home.
Entertainment for some is key as they prefer to be in the company of friends and relatives
or when by themselves, would prefer to watch movies or home videos. Health is one
concern, as well as wise use of their spare time as evidenced by hobbies or community
work. They may be rather discriminating when buying because they wouldnt mind
spending more for quality. Another segment may be described as risk-takers when it
comes to food choice as they are not apprehensive about trying out new food products.
Further tests using these descriptors may be done in future studies to find out
which segments the target market seems to cluster most or if these lifestyle variables do
affect menu choice.
The FGD results revealed that eating out is a habitual practice given that the target
market spent most of their time outside their homes and that there is a prevalence of
several food outlets in the metropolis. Dining in was generally the more common service
availed of when in fast food outlets compared to either take-out or delivery. This was
validated when survey results pointed to a majority (66%) of responses among total
respondents clustering around the once a week to 2-6x a week dining out
frequencies, with the 2-6x a week frequency posting the most mentions from about 4in-10 of target consumers. The remaining fourth of respondents visited fast food outlets
at least once a week (Table 10).
A similar clustering of responses consistent across gender and age groups was
evident within the same dining out frequencies --- at least once a week to at most 6x
times a week (Table 10).
Table 10. Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet by Gender and Age Groups
FREQUENCY
OF DINING
OUT
Everyday
2-6 times a week
Gender
Age Groups
Total
Male
Female
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-60
No.
5%
6%
5%
7%
2%
7%
22
6%
45%
38%
49%
42%
34%
34%
165
41%
Table 10. Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet by Gender and Age Groups
FREQUENCY
OF DINING
OUT
Gender
Age Groups
Total
Male
Female
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-60
No.
Once a week
22%
28%
23%
22%
27%
33%
101
25%
2-3 times a
month
18%
18%
15%
20%
27%
11%
72
18%
Once a month
6%
4%
1%
7%
8%
6%
20
5%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
6%
2%
Once every 2
months
1%
1%
2%
0%
0%
3%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
3%
2%
1%
0%
2%
191
100%
209
100%
130
100%
117
100%
83
100%
70
100%
400
100%
Total
Trial of almost all fast food outlets is apparent in the FGD results, with mentions
recorded for McDonalds, Jollibee, KFC, Pizza Hut, Greenwich, Chowking, Burger King
and Shakeys. Regular patronage, however, was reserved for the first three fast food
outlets (i.e., McDonalds, Jollibee, KFC). This was validated in the survey results that
follow.
When asked which fast food outlet total respondents visited most often, Jollibee
garnered the most mentions at 32%. Regular patronage of the McDonalds outlet came in
a close second from among a fourth of respondents, while KFC trailed behind with a 12%
share (Table 11). Note that this was likewise the trend observed across male and female
target consumers. Regular patronage across age groups, however, was markedly different
among the 15-24 bracket where shares between Jollibee and McDonalds were almost the
similar, while those aged 45-60 patronized less of these two fast food outlets.
Gender
Age Groups
Total
Male
Female
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-60
No.
Jollibee
32%
32%
33%
34%
35%
23%
128
32%
McDonald'
s
21%
25%
34%
21%
14%
19%
94
24%
KFC
Maxim'
s Tea
House
Chowking
11%
13%
9%
15%
12%
11%
48
12%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
43
11%
8%
8%
7%
9%
8%
9%
32
8%
Pizza Hut
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
10
3%
Greenwich
3%
1%
2%
1%
4%
1%
2%
Tokyo Tokyo
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
Shakey'
s
2%
1%
2%
1%
2%
3%
2%
Goldilocks
2%
3%
3%
1%
1%
6%
1%
Sbarro
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
1%
1%
Wendy'
s
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
4%
1%
Burger King
12%
10%
5%
14%
16%
11%
0%
Red Ribbon
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
Others
3%
2%
1%
3%
2%
7%
11
3%
191
100%
209
100%
130
100%
117
100%
83
100%
70
100%
400
100%
Total
Meal Preference
The target markets dining out experience was further examined to find out what
particular meal type they usually order when in fast food outlets. The FGD results noted
value meals as the more prevalent menu choice when in fast food outlets.
Table 12. Type of Meal Usually Ordered when Dining in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL ORDERED
No.
110
28%
233
58%
57
14%
Total
400
100%
When tested for significance (Table 13), results yielded acceptance of hypothesis
H1: Consumers visiting fast food outlets and casual dining restaurants are more likely to
purchase all forms of bundled product offers (value meals only, value meals and other
menu items) at
= .05. A la carte menu items are, therefore, the less popular food choice
Table 13. Chi Square One-Sample Test Statistics: What Usually Order in a Fast
Food Outlet
Observed N
110
233
57
400
Expected N
133.3
133.3
133.3
Residual
-23.3
99.7
-76.3
0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 133.3.
As a further check for consistency, when respondents were asked what they
ordered the last time they were at a fast food outlet. And true enough, a collective
majority did mention value meals, as well as other menu items (Table 14).
Table 14.
Type of Meal Ordered the Last Time Dined in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL ORDERED
No.
130
32%
220
55%
50
12%
Total
400
100%
Those who indicated preference for value meals only or in combination with other
menu items were asked from which fast food outlet they ordered these meals the last time
they dined out.
Similarly, the top two fast food outlets, Jollibee and McDonalds,
previously frequented by the identified target market consistently emerged as the most
mentioned outlets they were at the last time they dined out --- implying a strong sense of
brand loyalty towards these fast food outlets (Table 15).
Note that Maxims Tea House managed to come in third surpassing KFC.
Maxims Tea Houses outlet dined in most often share was 11% (Table 11) vs. its share
of 14% as the outlet dined in the last time ordered a value meal (Table 15). This
seeming consistency may be attributed to all respondents being intercepted inside
Maxims and were probably regular patrons. This result may have been incidental in this
study; hence, repeating this under different data gathering parameters will probably not
yield similar results relative to Maxims patronage shares.
Table 15. Fast Food Outlet Dined In the Last Time Ordered a Value Meal
FAST FOOD OUTLET
Jollibee
McDonald'
s
Maxim'
s Tea House
KFC
Chowking
Tokyo Tokyo
Greenwich
Burger King
Wendy'
s
Pizza Hut
Goldilocks
Shakey'
s
Sbarro
Others
Total
No.
105
69
50
35
28
9
8
7
7
6
4
2
2
18
30%
20%
14%
10%
8%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
5%
350
100%
Another area of interest was establishing whether there existed any correlation
between frequency of dining out and purchase likelihood of a particular menu item. The
following cross tabulation (Table 16) showed that a majority of target consumers who
regularly (i.e., more frequent than once a month) dined out showed no particular leaning
towards a menu offering. The clustering of responses across all menu offerings was
consistently observed to fall within the once a week and 2-6x a week dining out
frequencies.
Table 16. Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
DINING
FREQUENCY
Everyday
2-6 times a week
Once a week
2-3 times a month
Once a month
Less than once a month
Once every 2 months
Less than once every 2 months
Less than once every 3 months
Total
Value
meal only
Individual
menu items
only
Total
10
43
27
15
9
0
3
0
3
110
8
98
58
49
10
6
0
1
3
233
4
24
16
8
1
2
1
0
1
57
22
165
101
72
20
8
4
1
7
400
Hence, testing for significance (Table 17) validated the preceding observation of
no difference between both variables given that the probability of occurrence associated
with the test statistic is definitely greater than
= .05.
Consumers who regularly (i.e., more frequent than once a month) dine in food outlets are
more likely to order bundled meals than consumers who are not regular food outlet
Value
0.230
400
Approx. Sig.
0.134
Table 18. Factors Considered Important when Choosing a Particular Menu Item
FACTORS
No.
Affordably priced
Taste
Ease of ordering
Completeness of food combinations
Big serving size
Availability of menu item
Affinity towards menu item ("nakasanayan")
Trial of new product offering
292
246
121
100
99
87
66
52
73%
62%
30%
25%
25%
22%
17%
13%
Table 18. Factors Considered Important when Choosing a Particular Menu Item
FACTORS
Type of food in mind
Promotion (discounts, give-aways)
Variety of menu choices
Recommendation of others
Attractiveness of visual ads
Others
No.
50
47
41
38
32
2
13%
12%
10%
10%
8%
1%
Testing the above for significance (Table 19) substantiated hypothesis H2a1:
Low price/Affordable pricing is a significant factor influencing consumers in meal choice
at the predetermined
when deciding what to order when dining in food outlets --- giving weight to the
prevalence of value meals as common food choices.
FACTOR
Affordably priced
Taste
Ease of ordering
Completeness of food combinations
Big serving size
Availability of menu item
Affinity towards menu item
("nakasanayan")
Trial of new product offering
Type of food in mind
Promotion (discounts, give-aways)
Variety of menu choices
Recommendation of others
Attractiveness of visual ads
Others
Whether consider
factor as important
or not
Yes
No
292
108
246
154
121
279
100
300
99
301
87
313
ChiSquare
df
Asymp.
Sig.
84.64
62.41
127.69
100.00
21.16
102.01
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
66
334
179.56
0.000
52
50
47
41
38
32
2
348
350
353
359
362
368
398
219.04
282.24
225.00
234.09
262.44
252.81
392.04
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 200.0.
Having identified which factors were deemed important in menu item selection,
the next step involved determining the degree of importance that the target market
attached to each of these factors. Factor ratings of 5 and 4 should be able to provide
a fairly indicative measure of importance. However, top box ratings (5), ideally,
provide the best indication of the target markets sentiments towards any particular
factor. Thus, considering top 2 box ratings (5 & 4) on importance receiving a
majority of mentions as exhibited on Table 20 would indiscriminately lead to the
conclusion that consumers are influenced by all identified factors relative to menu
selection. But limiting the choice to just top box ratings with scores higher than 50%
once more singled out taste and affordably priced as the principal determinants of
what consumers would usually order at a fast food outlet.
When tested for significance (Table 21), the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirmed
that the observed clustering of responses on certain importance ratings for each decision
factor was significantly different across the 5-point importance scale --- consistent across
all factors. But as earlier stated, the concentration of responses was observed to fall only
between ratings 5 and 4 across all decision factors --- implying that target consumers
were not too keen on determining the degree of importance that each factor exerted on
their menu selection process. However, it has earlier been argued on that this study will
discriminately select such factors with majority top box ratings on importance. Hence,
between hypotheses H2b1 and H2b2 enumerated on Table 19, the study accepts only
H2b1, i.e., low price/affordable pricing as an important factor that highly influence
consumers in their choice of menu items to order when dining in fast food outlets. Thus,
the consumers decision to order value meals when in food outlets is significantly
affected more by low price/affordable pricing than any other factor.
4 Somewhat important
5 Very important
Importance scale
Affordably priced
Taste
Ease of ordering
Completeness of food
combinations
Big serving size
Availability of menu item
Affinity towards menu item
("nakasanayan")
Trial of new product offering
Type of food in mind
Promotion (discounts, giveaways)
Variety of menu choices
Recommendation of others
Attractiveness of visual ads
FACTORS
49%
45%
48%
33%
23%
35%
34%
47%
33%
36%
195
178
190
132
92
138
137
189
131
143
101
124
108
123
128
144
116
103
124
128
No.
40
44
124
25%
31%
27%
31%
32%
36%
29%
26%
31%
32%
%
10%
11%
31%
79
101
101
94
120
95
107
76
60
54
No.
29
14
65
%
81%
85%
49%
No.
325
338
196
20%
25%
25%
24%
30%
24%
27%
19%
15%
14%
%
7%
4%
16%
7%
8%
8%
7%
11%
5%
9%
8%
5%
4%
%
1%
1%
3%
4
14
18
19
17
5
13
7
No.
2
3
2 Somewhat unimportant
27
30
30
27
43
18
37
30
19
16
No.
4
4
12
1%
4%
5%
5%
4%
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
%
1%
0%
1%
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Total
Minimum
Maximum
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Minimum
Maximum
Absolute
Positive
Negative
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Uniform Parameters (a,b)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Uniform Parameters (a,b)
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 5
Factor 6
400
400
400
400
400
400
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.8125
0.55
0.535
0.5575
0.845
0.4525
0.005
0.0075
0.0175
0.0175
0.01
0.0325
-0.8125
-0.55
-0.535
-0.5575
-0.845
-0.4525
16.25
11
10.7
11.15
16.9
9.05
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 21. Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-sample Test: Importance Ratings of Meal Choice Factors c
Note that there was not much difference observed in perceived importance among
both types of consumers across a majority of factors. That is, Factors 1-6 and 13 were
deemed very important in their choice of ordering either value or non-value meal items
when in fast food outlets (Tables 22-27 and 34). All other factors posted a mere plurality
of mentions spread across the very important, somewhat important and neither
important nor unimportant ratings assigned by consumers from each meal segment.
Table 22. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 1 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 1
Affordably priced
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
84
15
Individual
menu
items only
41
7
14
2
0
110
0
1
233
Value
meal only
Total
325
40
81%
10%
29
7%
2
1
57
4
2
400
1%
1%
100%
Table 23. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 2 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 2
Ease of ordering
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
57
21
Individual
menu
items only
27
22
26
33
6
0
110
4
3
233
Value
meal only
Total
196
124
49%
31%
65
16%
2
0
57
12
3
400
3%
1%
100%
Table 24. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 3 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 3
Availability of menu item
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
43
38
Individual
menu
items only
31
12
23
30
6
0
110
10
3
233
Value
meal only
Total
190
124
48%
31%
60
15%
3
4
57
19
7
400
5%
2%
100%
Table 25. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 4 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 4
Completeness of food
combinations
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
Value
meal only
Individual
menu
items only
Total
45
34
130
78
20
16
195
128
49%
32%
18
21
15
54
14%
9
4
110
2
2
233
5
1
57
16
7
400
4%
2%
100%
Table 26. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 5 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 5
Taste
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
92
13
Individual
menu
items only
42
8
0
0
110
3
0
233
Value
meal only
Total
338
44
85%
11%
14
4%
1
0
57
4
0
400
1%
0%
100%
Table 27. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 6 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 6
Big serving size
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
47
26
Individual
menu
items only
17
17
21
41
11
5
110
14
4
233
Value
meal only
Total
178
103
45%
26%
14
76
19%
5
4
57
30
13
400
8%
3%
100%
Table 28. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 7 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 7
Affinity towards menu item
(nakasanayan)
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
Value
meal only
Individual
menu
items only
Total
37
33
81
66
14
17
132
116
33%
29%
27
62
18
107
27%
11
2
110
21
3
233
5
3
57
37
8
400
9%
2%
100%
Table 29. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 8 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 8
Trial of new product
offering
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
19
33
Individual
menu
items only
19
12
40
64
12
6
110
24
8
233
Value
meal only
Total
92
128
23%
32%
16
120
30%
7
3
57
43
17
400
11%
4%
100%
Table 30. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 9 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 9
Attractiveness of visual ads
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
39
31
Individual
menu
items only
13
21
20
63
12
8
110
14
9
233
Value
meal only
Total
143
108
36%
27%
18
101
25%
4
1
57
30
18
400
8%
5%
100%
Table 31. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 10 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 10
Type of food in mind
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
30
37
Individual
menu
items only
17
24
32
51
9
2
110
7
1
233
Value
meal only
Total
138
144
35%
36%
12
95
24%
2
2
57
18
5
400
5%
1%
100%
Table 32. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 11 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 11
Promotion
(discounts, give-aways)
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
Value
meal only
Individual
menu
items only
Total
43
33
85
71
9
19
137
123
34%
31%
24
52
18
94
24%
5
5
110
16
9
233
6
5
57
27
19
400
7%
5%
100%
Table 33. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 12 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
FACTOR 12
Recommendation of others
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
33
33
Individual
menu
items only
21
17
30
59
10
4
110
16
7
233
Value
meal only
Total
124
131
33%
31%
12
101
25%
4
3
57
30
14
400
8%
4%
100%
Table 34. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 13 vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
51
32
Individual
menu
items only
28
10
19
45
7
1
110
17
2
233
FACTOR 13
Variety of menu choices
Value
meal only
Very important
Somewhat important
Neither important nor
unimportant
Somewhat unimportant
Not important at all
Total
Total
189
101
47%
25%
15
79
20%
3
1
57
27
4
400
7%
1%
100%
Purchase Situations
Table 35. What Influences Meal Choice when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually
Order in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
Value
ORDERED
meal only
PHYSICAL
(Base = 110)
SURROUNDINGS
Menu board
51
Promotion
26
(discounts, give-aways)
Flyers
27
Banners
18
Product sampling
7
None
10
(Base = 233)
Individual
menu items
only
129
30
210
53%
72
18
116
29%
59
49
28
23
17
9
2
3
103
76
37
36
26%
19%
9%
9%
Total
(n=400)
(Base = 57)
approximate significance figures were all greater than 0.05, hypothesis H3f: Meal choice
is largely influenced by promotions such as discounts and give-aways cannot be accepted
at the predetermined
that greatly influences consumers to purchase a particular type of meal (value meal or
otherwise).
Table 36. Contingency Test Statistics: What Influences Meal Choice when in a
Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Physical
Surroundings
Flyers
Banners
Menu board
Promotion
Product sampling
None
Symmetric Measures
Contingency Coefficient Value
Approx. Sig.
(Nominal by Nominal)
0.0387
0.7405
0.0612
0.4718
0.0777
0.2970
0.0728
0.3447
0.1160
0.0654
0.0544
0.5519
N of Valid
Cases
400
400
400
400
400
400
The consumers social surroundings were defined as their usual companions when
dining in fast food outlets. Multiple answers were likewise allowed. The following cross
tabulation (Table 37) does not show any particular companion(s) consistently with target
consumers in fast food outlets. But it does show that consumers generally dine with
others when in fast food outlets. The majority of mentions were clustered between
family/relatives and friends consistent across meal types ordered.
Table 37. Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
USUAL
COMPANION
Family / Relatives
Friends
Self / Alone
Officemates
Schoolmates
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
(n=400)
38
42
14
12
7
86
85
33
29
4
31
18
3
5
1
155
145
50
46
12
39%
36%
13%
12%
3%
(Base = 110)
(Base = 233)
(Base = 57)
Thus, hypothesis H3g: Consumers dining alone are more likely to choose bundled
meals while consumers dining with family/friends are more likely to order a la carte
menu items cannot be accepted at an
(family/relatives and friends) obviously opted for bundled meals. There is no correlation
established between consumers social surroundings and their menu selection process.
The likelihood that consumers will order value meals is not affected by any particular
companion that they are usually with when dining in food outlets.
Note that the FGD results similarly echoed the above finding as the target market
did claim that there were times when their meal choice was likely to be influenced by
recommendations of friends or relatives but their personal choice generally prevailed
most of the time.
Table 38. Contingency Test Statistics: Usual Companion when in a Fast Food
Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Usual companion
Family / Relatives
Friends
Self / Alone
Officemates
Schoolmates
Symmetric Measures
Contingency Coefficient Value
Approx. Sig.
(Nominal by Nominal)
0.1314
0.0298
0.0424
0.6973
0.0908
0.1898
0.0406
0.7191
0.1206
0.0524
N of Valid
Cases
400
400
400
400
400
Of particular interest is how the results will appear when consumers usual dining
companions are further collapsed into a single category aggregately labeled as Others
vs. Self / Alone as another category. These social surrounding variables are then cross
tabulated against meal orders that are similarly collapsed into just two categories, namely,
Value Meal (value meal only + value meal and other menu items) and A la carte
(individual menu items only).
exclusive cell counts that should sum up to the total number of respondents surveyed
(400). For instance, if a respondent happens to dine in with both friends and officemates
most of the time, then the corresponding count is not 2 but just 1 under Others vs.
the earlier tabulation that gives both variables 1 count each. There are, however, still a
few respondents who equally claim dining in with others or just by themselves most of
the time. A separate category is, thus, created for this and aptly labeled as Self or
Others. Table 39 below shows the resulting breakdown of responses (Observed
column), as well as the expected frequencies. It is quite evident from the tabulation that
both types of consumers (i.e., value meal or a la carte) generally dine in with others when
in fast food outlets.
Table 39.
Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order
in a Fast Food Outlet: Observed frequencies vs. Expected frequencies
USUAL COMPANION
Others
Self / Alone
Self or Others
TOTAL
MEAL ORDERED
Value meal
A la carte
Observed Expected Observed Expected
294
53
298
49
42
3
39
6
7
1
7
1
343
57
TOTAL
347
45
8
400
Testing for independence between row and column classifications using the Chi
Square test does not yield a significant result at = 0.05 (Table 40). This is further
supported by the preceding cross tabulation (Table 39) between social surrounding
variables and type of meal ordered showing no great deviation between the observed
correlation is not significant at = 0.05 (Table 40). This is to be expected since the
Contingency Coefficient incorporates the Chi Square value in computing its test statistic
and the significance of the Contingency Coefficient is dependent on the significance of
the Chi Square statistic. The difference between both tests is that the Contingency
Coefficient takes a step further and provides a measure of the degree of association
between variables, not just the existence of association.
Therefore, results from both significance tests echo the earlier conclusion that the
type of meal consumers order is not dependent on who they are with when dining in fast
food outlets.
bundled meals while consumers dining with family/friends are more likely to order a la
carte menu items once again cannot be accepted at
Table 40. Chi Square Test for Independence and Contingency Coefficient Test for
Correlation: Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What
Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Pearson Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
a
Value
2.435 a
400
Df
2
1 cell (16.7%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.14.
Contingency Coefficient
Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value
0.078
400
Approx. Sig.
0.296
Occasion was another purchase situation variable that the study wanted to
correlate with what consumers usually order when in fast food outlets.
The cross
tabulation below (Table 41) does not show any apparent association with specific
occasions driving purchase of a particular meal type. In fact a high majority of target
consumers dined in fast food outlets during no special occasion --- consistent across types
of meal ordered. This was likewise the FGD finding when both market segments (i.e.,
young and old) agreed that there need not be any special occasion to avail of services
offered in fast food outlets.
Table 41. Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
OCCASION
Birthday
Date
Reunion
Anniversary
Christening
Business meeting
No occasion
Total
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
4
4
4
2
1
0
95
110
17
4
2
1
0
1
208
233
8
1
1
3
1
1
42
57
29
9
7
6
2
2
345
400
7%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
86%
100%
The Contingency Coefficient test statistics (Table 42) proved that a significant
correlation exists between the occasion attended and type of meal usually ordered when
in fast food outlets --- but only because the option no occasion was included as another
occasion variable. The no occasion option garnered a high majority of responses that
led to the test yielding significant results. There was no strong link suggesting that
special occasions will be reason enough to order a la carte menu items as it appeared on
the preceding cross tabulation that even those who celebrated special occasions in fast
food outlets were almost equally likely to order both value meals and a la carte items.
Thus, hypothesis H3h stating that Consumers dining in fast food outlets for no
special reason are more likely to order bundled meals is accepted at an
= .05. There is
clearly no correlation between occasions attended when in a fast food outlet vis--vis
what consumers usually order. Thus, the alternate statement stating that Consumers
celebrating special occasions are more likely order ala carte menu items is not a valid
conclusion.
Value
0.2398
400
Approx. Sig.
0.0179
expected frequencies occurring under type of occasion vs. type of meal ordered. Note
that the predominant clustering of responses falls under the No occasion event across
both types of meal ordered.
Table 43.
OCCASION
Special occasion
No occasion
TOTAL
MEAL ORDERED
Value meal
A la carte
Observed Expected Observed Expected
40
15
47
8
303
42
296
49
343
57
TOTAL
55
345
400
Testing for significance using both the Chi Square test for independence and the
Contingency Coefficient test for correlation yields associated probabilities of occurrence
lower than = 0.05 for both test statistics (Table 44). This suggests sufficient evidence
that the type of meal ordered is associated with the occasion attended when dining in fast
food outlets. This supports the conclusion earlier arrived at where hypothesis H3h
stating that Consumers dining in fast food outlets for no special reason are more likely
to order bundled meals is once again accepted at
order value meals regardless of the occasion they are celebrating when in fast food
outlets.
Table 44. Chi Square Test for Independence and Contingency Coefficient Test for
Correlation: Occasion Attended when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What
Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Value
8.850 a
400
Pearson Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
a
Df
1
0 cell (.0%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.84.
Value
0.147
Contingency Coefficient
Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Approx. Sig.
0.003
400
Day time segment was similarly explored for possible correlation with the menu
selection process. Respondents were asked when they usually dined in fast food outlets.
Multiple responses were allowed. Table 45 shows that the lunch time segment posted the
most mentions from among 60% of the target market --- consistent across all meal types.
Table 45. Time of Day Usually Dine in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast
Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
TIME
OF DAY
Breakfast
Morning snack
Lunch
Afternoon snack
Dinner
No particular time
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
(n=400)
3
6
65
35
17
7
7
9
144
83
67
22
3
5
32
12
22
4
13
20
241
130
106
33
3%
5%
60%
33%
27%
8%
(Base = 110)
(Base = 233)
(Base = 57)
Given that multiple responses were allowed per respondent, individual tests for
significance had to be run for each time segment (Table 46). Similar to occasion, the
significance detected for the dinner segment means that the proportion of respondents
who did not dine in fast food outlets during dinner was materially different from those
who did. This is substantiated by the preceding table where only a minority (27%) of
total respondents answered dinner as the usual time of day they dined in fast food outlets.
All other time segments failed to register a difference in respective proportions relative to
dining during that time or not.
Thus, the hypothesis of no difference under H3i stating that Preference for
bundled meals has no correlation with the time of day that consumers usually dine in fast
food outlets is accepted at
affected by the day time segment when consumers dine in food outlets. The alternate
hypothesis Consumers dining during major day segments (breakfast, lunch, dinner) will
more likely order bundled meals than consumers dining at odd hours, therefore is not a
valid conclusion.
Table 46. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Time of Day Usually Dine in
Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Time of day
Breakfast
Morning snack
Lunch
Afternoon snack
Dinner
No particular time
Symmetric Measures
Contingency Coefficient Value
Approx. Sig.
(Nominal by Nominal)
0.0467
0.6456
0.0771
0.3028
0.0417
0.7053
0.1051
0.1073
0.1691
0.0028
0.0516
0.5860
N of Valid
Cases
400
400
400
400
400
400
Task definition was defined as the action of buying a fast food meal for a
particular entity (self, family/relatives, friends, officemates, and schoolmates). Multiple
answers were allowed. Table 47 shows that consumers generally bought meals for
themselves and when they did so, they generally ordered either value meals or a la carte
menu items. Those who bought for others likewise chose value meals.
Table 47. For Whom Usually Buy when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a
Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
FOR
WHOM BUY
Self
Family / Relatives
Friends
Officemates
Schoolmates
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
(n=400)
60
42
9
1
1
130
75
22
10
0
21
27
6
1
1
211
144
37
12
2
53%
36%
9%
3%
1%
(Base = 110)
(Base = 233)
(Base = 57)
Buying for oneself was the only task definition variable vs. meal type usually
ordered that managed to register significant responses under the Contingency Coefficient
test for correlation (Table 48).
generally opt for value meals. Thus, hypothesis H3j: Consumers buying meals for
themselves will more likely opt for bundled meals than consumers who buy for others is
accepted at
Table 48. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: For Whom Usually Buy when
in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
For whom usually
buy
Self
Family / Relatives
Friends
Officemates
Schoolmates
Symmetric Measures
Contingency Coefficient Value
Approx. Sig.
(Nominal by Nominal)
0.1293
0.0334
0.1099
0.0866
0.0260
0.8736
0.0904
0.1927
0.0910
0.1879
N of Valid
Cases
400
400
400
400
400
Socio-Demographic Profile
The value meal and non-value meal market segments will be profiled relative to
socio-demographic variables such as age group, gender, civil status, monthly household
income, social class and educational attainment. Cross tabulations among variables of
interest and corresponding correlation tests will be presented in the succeeding
discussions.
The cross tabulation on Table 49 of age groups vis--vis type of meal usually
ordered at fast food outlets shows no clustering of a majority of responses within a
particular cell(s). Thus, when tested for significance, no correlation was detected at
.05 (Table 50).
brackets are more likely to choose bundled meals than their older counterparts cannot be
accepted at the predetermined level of significance. Age does not affect the likelihood of
ordering value meals.
Table 49. Age Group vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
AGE
GROUP
15 24
25 34
35 44
45 60
Total
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
44
31
15
20
110
71
70
55
37
233
15
16
13
13
57
130
117
83
70
400
Table 50. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Age Group vs. What Usually
Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by Nominal
Contingency Coefficient
N of Valid Cases .
Value
0.1400
400
Approx. Sig.
0.2381
Gender breakdown per type of meal ordered did not appear to lean towards only
males or only females (Table 51). The test for significance consequently failed to prove a
correlation existed between gender and type of meal ordered at fast food outlets (Table
52). Hypothesis H3b: Meal preference has no significant correlation with consumers
gender is, therefore, accepted at
ordering value meals. Therefore, both male and female consumers order bundled meals.
Table 51. Gender vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
GENDER
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
Male
Female
Total
58
52
110
111
122
233
22
35
57
191
209
400
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by Nominal
Contingency Coefficient
N of Valid Cases .
Value
0.0864
400
Approx. Sig.
0.2223
However, future studies can focus on gender vis--vis meal portioning where one
possible hypothesis may be that males are more likely to opt for upsizing an order. This
is assumed given the observation that males generally consume larger quantities than
females.
Cross tabulating civil status vis--vis type of meal ordered (Table 53) showed that
no particular preference among the single or married segments was evident for any meal
type ordered. This was further confirmed when the resulting Contingency Coefficient
test statistics failed to establish a correlation between both variables (Table 54).
Hypothesis H3c: Meal preference has no significant correlation with consumers civil
status is, thus, accepted at
determined by consumers civil status. Both single and married consumers order bundled
meals.
Table 53. Civil Status vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
CIVIL
STATUS
Single
Widow/Widower
Separated/Divorced
Annulled
Married
Common law/Live-in
Total
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
68
2
2
1
37
0
110
118
2
5
1
106
1
233
24
2
0
1
30
0
57
210
6
7
3
173
1
400
Table 54. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Civil Status vs. What Usually
Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by Nominal
Contingency Coefficient
N of Valid Cases .
Value
0.1722
400
Approx. Sig.
0.2704
Consumers belonging to
Table 55. Monthly Household Income vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food
Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
MO.
HH INCOME
P8,000 and below
P 8,001 - 15,000
P 15,001 - 100,000
P 100,001 and above
No answer/Don'
t
know/Refused
Total
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
12
22
33
5
12
53
72
16
1
10
13
6
25
85
118
27
38
80
27
145
110
233
57
400
Table 56. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Monthly Household Income vs.
What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by Nominal
Contingency Coefficient
N of Valid Cases .
Value
0.1714
400
Approx. Sig.
0.1464
considerably big and can still be subdivided into smaller intervals such as P15,001
50,000 and P50,001100,000.
resulted into different clustering patterns and possibly, a different significance test
outcome.
Table 57 classified total respondents into social classes with Class C posting a
majority of mentions across meal type ordered. However, the resulting correlation test
failed to establish any association between both variables at
Table 57. Social Class vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
SOCIAL
CLASS
AB
C
D
E
Total
Value
meal only
Individual menu
items only
Total
15
60
33
2
110
47
122
61
3
233
9
41
6
1
57
71
223
100
6
400
Table 58. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Social Class vs. What Usually
Order in a Fast Food Outlet
Symmetric Measures
Nominal by Nominal
Contingency Coefficient
N of Valid Cases .
Value
0.1658
400
Approx. Sig.
0.0795
The corresponding
correlation test returned significant measures (Table 60), establishing a strong association
between both variables. Thus, hypothesis H3e: Meal preference has no significant
correlation with consumers educational attainment is rejected at
that educational attainment does have an inherent effect on consumers menu selection
process.
Table 59. Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet
MEAL
ORDERED
EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT
No formal education
Some elementary
Completed elementary
Some high school
Completed high school
Some vocational
Completed vocational
Some college
Completed college
Post graduate
Don'
t know/Refused
Total
Value meal
only
Individual
menu items
only
Total
1
1
1
4
11
4
6
25
47
3
7
110
0
0
0
1
10
7
7
42
132
23
11
233
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
13
28
1
8
57
1
1
1
5
23
13
16
80
207
27
26
400
Value
0.2994
400
Approx. Sig.
0.0060
Compressing the above educational attainment levels into Some college and
below as one group, College graduate and above as another and Dont
know/Refused as the third group yields the following distribution of responses (Table
61). A high majority of observations clustered under value meal as the predominant type
of meal ordered in fast food outlets regardless of consumers educational attainment.
Within educational attainment levels, more than half of responses were concentrated
under the college graduate and above category.
Table 61.
EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT
Some college and below
College graduate and
above
Dont know / Refused
TOTAL
MEAL ORDERED
Value meal
A la carte
Observed Expected Observed Expected
120
20
120
20
205
29
201
33
18
8
22
4
343
57
TOTAL
140
234
26
400
Testing for significance using the Chi Square test for independence and the
Contingency Coefficient test for correlation both yield significant results at = 0.05
(Table 62).
This confirms the previous conclusion before collapsing both row and
column categories.
= .05.
Educational attainment is associated with the type of meal (value meals, in particular)
that consumers order when in fast food outlets.
Table 62. Chi Square Test for Independence and Contingency Coefficient Test for
Correlation: Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast
Food Outlet
Pearson Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
a
Value
6.467 a
400
df
2
1 cell (16.7%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.71.
Contingency Coefficient
Nominal by Nominal
N of Valid Cases
Value
0.126
Approx. Sig.
0.039
400
Note however that accepting the foregoing conclusions following test results from
Tables 60 (original educational attainment levels) and 62 (collapsed educational
attainment categories) is not supported by the reality that in Metro Manila a high majority
of Filipino consumers did reach the collegiate level vs. those who did not (given the high
emphasis on education in our culture) hence, resulting into the obvious clustering at that
point that proved to be significant. If the scope of this study were on a nationwide level,
a different distribution of responses might have been evident and possibly a different
significance outcome.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Dynamics Toward Patronage of Fast Food Outlets
Considering the habitual eating habit and the annoyingly presence of fast foods
everywhere, target market groups regardless of socio-demographic profile are likely to
have tried a multitude of fast food. The more frequently visited fast food by these target
market groups include McDonalds, Jollibee and KFC.
From the focus group discussion it was derived that the decision making process
when choosing for a fast food outlet to patronize varies among the target market groups.
While collaborative decision-making process is usually adopted by young age segments
(15-25), the older age segments (26-59) are more lenient as they usually let their
companions in deciding which one to go to. From the results of Contingency Coefficient
treatment it can be seen that the likelihood of consumers ordering value meals is not
affected by any particular companion that they are with when dining in fast food outlets.
Whether they are alone or with the company of others they will still opt for bundled
meals
Relatively, while there are times when choice of food to order are likely to be
influenced by the recommendations of friends or relatives, generally personal choice
prevails most of the time. The survey revealed positive correlation of consumers buying
for themselves to bundled meals than consumers who buy for others.
Among the target market groups, various considerations are taken into account as
well when choosing for a food item to order in a fast food. The degree of importance in
their consideration however established that affordable pricing and taste significantly top
the rating.
When food craved for is not included in any of the value meals
offered
ordered.
motivates purchase include merchandising visuals in-store, free items (toys) and
sampling.
Lifestyle Habits and Practices
Malling has become a way of life among the target market groups. However
differing behavior seem to prevail between the two market groups as while the younger
age segment (15-25) feels that it is a need, the older age segment (26-59) finds it more of
a necessity than a need. Such is deduced considering the frequency of doing and the
reason for doing such an activity.
Regardless of socio-demographic profile, target market groups spend their time
generally outside their home either at work, school or other activities that suit their needs.
Such that dining out like malling has been a prevalent routine. In fact it does not take any
special occasion to do such an activity. Regular eating out are generally done in fast
foods.
Recommendation
The study revealed that packaged prices are sought after and attract diners to the
establishment like magnets. Bundled meals (value meals) are definitely a boon to the
familys purse that is why it is widely accepted. With the strong push of the Maxims
bundled meal maximeal they can get more discounts and longer credit line with
suppliers like plastic cups, foam packs, drink companies etc.
A combination of factors affect the consumers choice of bundled meal but the
most mention and significantly correlated with meal decision are affordable pricing and
taste which is characteristic of a utilitarian value. With this in mind fast food companies
should carefully evaluate their food combinations as well as adapt to the majority of the
Filipino taste and appetite. This might be the reason why KFC recently launched the P29
chicken steak meal with superb flavor and reasonable price. It is therefore suggested to
Maxims to sit down with their chefs and create an irresistible treat to consumers.
Consumers choice of bundled meals is not bounded by any socio-demographic
profile whether young or old, male and female, married or single, middle or higher
income household, less education or high education ..bundled meal is a popular order
in fast food outlets. Strategy in terms of marketing campaign should have appeal to the
general family. It is therefore recommended that a particular fast food restaurant conduct
its own study to find out who are the dominant key decision influencers for choosing a
particular fast food outlet that they may determine their primary target market and thus
develop campaign material intended for them.
No occasion situation is more prevalent reason for dining in fast food outlet and
ordering of bundled meals. It was not established that during special occasion there is
preference for ala carte menu therefore it is recommended to offer special package food
combinations and treats for particular occasions such as birthday, graduation, baptismal
and reunions as this maybe an additional source of increasing profit for value
meal/bundled meal sales. For instance Maxims can offer dimsum bilao this Christmas
Season for a discounted price. It should be cheaper compared to buying the dimsum in a
one order size.
According to the results of the study Meal Choice is not greatly influenced by any
single collateral or event in the fast food outlet (physical surrounding). Although a
majority of responses clustered around menu board as what might prompt them to
notice and order bundled meal. With this, fast food outlet particularly Maxims should
consider an attractive menu board with visuals of the food package that is eye-catching
and mouth watering with its corresponding affordable price tag. Promotions and Product
Sampling although statistically not significant influencer also plays a role to encourage
bundled meal offer.
promotion to support the sales of bundled meal. For instance, since the people of Metro
Manila are technology crazed society Maxims could offer an hour of wireless internet
access for a value meal order. Technology and fast food is quite a combination to offer a
great way to unwire, unwind and enjoy extra value meal and catch up on email. For busy
people who rely on laptops and PDAs it makes a lot of sense. The concept fits many
types of consumers benefiting from high speed access while escaping from the office or
school for a few minutes. Understanding the importance of value, speed, convenience
and ease of service are for todays time-pressed consumers and with a good promotion
Maxims can be a relevant choice out there.
Further research can be made investigating total food industry including fine
dining restaurants and factors affecting the choice of meals. Areas such as value meal
upsizing could also be correlated to specific demographics that might affect the sales of
bundled meal.
extracted to find out which segment of the target market seems to cluster most or if such
lifestyle variable affects menu choice. Future correlation studies involving monthly
household income as a variable should be subject to further refinement such that income
gradation permits classification into low, medium and high levels. Additionally, the
P15,001100,000 bracket is considerably big and can still be subdivided into smaller
intervals such as P15,00150,000 and P50,001100,000. Introducing these intervals in
the survey might have resulted into different clustering patterns and possibly a different
significance test outcome. The research can also be replicated in other areas such as
provincial since it was limited to Metro Manila. Further external validity can be achieved
by applying this research in other regions in the Philippines for a comparison of results
across areas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Assael, Henry. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. 6th Edition. New York
University, 1998.
Chan, T.S. Consumer Behavior In Asia: Issues and Marketing Practice. Haworth Press
Inc., 1999.
Edralin, Divina. Business Research Concepts and Applications. De La Salle University
Press, Inc. 2000.
Go, Josiah. Contemporary Marketing Strategy in the Philippine Setting (Updated
Edition). April 1996
Lehmann, Donald R., Sunil Gupta and Joel H. Steckel. Marketing Research. New York:
Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., 1998.
Malhotra, Naresh. Marketing Research An Applied Orientation 4th Edition. Pearson
Prentice Hall 2004.
Moutinho, Luiz, Mark Goode and Fiona Davies. Quantitative Analysis in Marketing
Management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1998.
Roberto, Eduardo L. Applied Marketing Research. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 1987.
Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. International
Student Edition. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Ltd., 1956.
Periodicals
Asim Ansari, S. Siddarth and Charles Weinberg. Pricing a Bundle of Products or
Services: The Case of Nonprofits. Journal of Marketing Research Vol XXXIII
(February 1996) 86-93.
Chandon, Pierre; Wansik Brian and Laurent Gilles. A Benefit Congruency Framework
of Sales Promotion Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Vol.64 (October
2000), 65-81.
Dilip Soman and John T. Gourville. Transaction Decoupling: How Price Bundling
Affects The Decision to Consume. Journal of Marketing Research Vol
XXXVIII (February 2001) 30-44.
Eric T. Bradlow and Vithala R. Rao. A Hierarchical Bayes Model for Assortment
Choice. Journal of Marketing Research Vol XXXVII (May 2000) 259-268.
Francis J. Mulhern and Daniel T. Padgett. The Relationship Between Retail Price
Promotions and Regular Price Purchases. Journal of Marketing Vol.59
(October 1995) 83-90
Jannet Highfill Mixed Bundling with Profit and Sales Objectives International
Advances in Economic Research; May 1, 2001
Joel Tanchuco and Neriza Delfino. Business Focus: The Benefits of Bundling. Manila
Bulletin; August 30, 2004.
Wubker Georg.
Internet
www.census.gov.ph
www.cbsnews.com Save By Bundling
www.wikipedia.org (encyclopedia)
www.jollibee.com.ph
www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage110.htm, June 2005.
Key, James P. Research Design in Occupational Education.
Interviews Conducted
Rara Naval
Research Manager
McDonalds Philippines
Email sent on December 11, 2004
Dr. Antonio Conception
Chairman Marketing Management DLSU
Corporate Marketing Research Manager, San Miguel Corp.
Email sent on November 7, 2004
Bill Marvin
Author Guest Based Marketing: How to Increase Restaurant Sales Without
Breaking your Budget 1997
Restaurant Doctor
Email sent November 2004
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE
I. Introduction/Warm Up (5 mins.)
1. Brief Introduction of purpose of meeting, confidentiality of survey
2. Discussion of rules, i.e., no right or wrong answer, take turns in answering questions
3. Brief introduction of moderator and participants
II. Warm-Up/ Lifestyle Habits Information (20 mins.)
How do you go about your day? Describe your typical day? What time wake up and
your activities after? What time do you end your day?
When are you most likely at home (daypart/time/day of the week)? What activities
do when at home? How often do such activity? Companions when doing so?
(Aside from work) What activities do you do during weekdays? How about
weekends?
What activities do you do out of home? Where do activities? Companions when
doing so? How often engage in such activity?
When engaging in (activity) who do you usually spend it with ?
What leisure activities do you do when your just alone? What about when with
friends? Family/kins?
Where do you spend such leisure/entertainment activities? Who do you spend it
with?
Additional Probes if not mention in leisure activities:
Do you go out malling? What activities do you do in a mall? How often do such
activity?
Do you indulge yourself in dining or eating out?
III. Eating out Habits (15 minutes)
What types of food outlets patronized when eat out/dine-in?
Probe: Do you patronize the services of a fast food outlet? What services avail of,
i.e., dine-in, take out, delivery?
How often patronize services of fast food or quick service restaurant for specific
services?
Occasions/Time of the day when visit fast food outlet/quick service restaurants?
Companions when dine-in at fast food/quick service restaurant?
Amount spent usually spent when eat out/dine-in at fast food restaurant
Which fast food outlet/quick service restaurant have they availed service from? Which
is most often? Why most often?
Who usually decides which fast food /quick service restaurant to patronize?
Foods usually ordered when dine-in in fast food/quick service restaurants?
Whether take out food when dine in? Occasions when take out food? How often take
out food?
For whom usually take out food?
What foods usually take out?
IV. Consumption/Purchase Patterns for Value Meals/Food Bundled Promo (30 minutes)
How do you normally choose the food to order in a fast food /quick service restaurant?
Whether take a look at the menu or already have a planned food to order prior to
visiting the outlet/restaurant?
What usually is the basis for ordering a food item? What motivates them to order a
food item? Who usually decides what to order?
Whether avail of value meals/food bundled promo when availing services of
fast food /quick service restaurant? When do they avail of value meals/food bundled
promo, i.e., dine-in or take out?
How often order value meal/food bundled promo when visit fast food/quick service
restaurant? Compare ratio of ordering value meal to ordering individual meals, how
many percent of the time would you order a value meal each time you go to a fast
food/quick service restaurant?
Reasons why opt to order value meals/food bundled promo/Factors that motivated to
order value meals/food bundled promo
When ordering a value meal/food bundled promo, what do you consider or take into
account when choosing which value meal to order? Why consider such? Which
would you prefer ordering a value meal or ordering individual meals/menu? Why?
Occasions/Time of the day avail of value meals/food bundled promo. During what
instances would you avail of a value meal/food value promo? Why?
Companions when avail of value meals/food bundled promo
For whom order value meals/food bundled promo? During what occasion order value
meal/food bundled promo for them, i.e., dine-in or take out? Why order such for
them during such occasion?
V. Attitude and Perception Towards Value Meals/Food Bundled Promo (20 minutes)
Intro: You mention to order value meals or food bundled promo when availing the
services of fast food /quick service restaurant, I would like to understand
further your perception of value meals and food bundled promo.
How or where did you get to know about value meals/food bundled promo in fast food
/quick service restaurant you visit or patronize?
What is your perception of value meals/food bundled promo?
What if any do you like about it? What about the things that you dont like about it?
Are there benefits or advantages derived from ordering a value meal/food bundled
promo? If so, what do you think are the benefits or advantages? Any disadvantage?
Which fast food outlet/quick service restaurant that you have gone do you think offers the
best value meal or food bundled promo? Why did you say so? What is it in their value
meals that made you think it is best? What things do you look for or expect in a value
meal or food bundled promo for it to be acceptable to you?
VI. Receptivity to Promotions (10 minutes)
Are you aware of promotional advertisements or campaigns for value meals? If yes, what
promotional campaigns are you aware of?
Where do you usually find or see such promotional campaigns or advertisements? Have
you seen any clippings for discounts or promos on value meals in brochures or
magazines? Do you usually collect this promo discount coupons? If no, why not?
What promotional campaigns would be acceptable to you for such food offerings?
VII. Closing/Wrap up ( Estimated Time 100 minutes)
APPENDIX C
TV or DVD
Malling is almost a way of life to both target market groups. While both groups
never miss to go to the malls in a weeks time, a diverse malling habit is
displayed. Incidence of malling among those 15-25 years old is quite frequent,
i.e., an average of 3-4 times a week and if they do they spend longer hours, i.e.,
3 to even 15 hours each visit (longer during the weekends). When at the malls,
this age segment are likely to meet friends, do shopping, watch movies, dine-out,
play computer games, or simply just stroll or roam around to while away time.
To those 26 years and above, malling is more of a necessity rather than a need
unlike the younger ones. In fact, if they can help it they would like to veer away
from going to the malls. The older age segment go to the malls more likely
because its the nearest place to dine and the fast foods are there, they need to
shop for groceries, personal items for themselves or their kins, theyd like to bring
their grandchildren to amusement centers, they want to please their girlfriend
because she likes to shop in the mall or simply because the workplace is situated
in the malls. As such, they visit the mall less frequent, i.e., once a week or less
often.
How often do you go to the mall and what activities do you do in the mall?
Not really, unless I have to please my girlfriend, average twice a month.
Once a week primarily because kung sino ang kasama ko not because I
want to.
Once a month, kuripot ako eh.
Attending to my grandchildren, naglalaro sila sa amusement center while
I sit in one side reading. Twice a month.
On the average, once a week as a driver, napipilitan din magpunta ruon.
(26 -59 years old)
Further distinction as to malling habits pertains to the amount spent when inside
the mall. The younger age groups since under a budget are likely to spend
between Php 200 to 500 for their usual activities in the mall. On the other hand,
since the older age groups are likely to go out with the family or would go to the
malls because they are to shop for some items every time they visit the mall,
though under budget constraint, tend to spend even higher, more likely Php 500
to 1,500 per visit.
Eating out is seemingly inevitable to both groups as most of their time is spent
outside of their home. Amongst the younger age segment, it has become a
usual habit to eat out prior or after an activity in the mall. Likewise, they find such
occasions as a venue to be with their friends and peers or occasionally with their
families. Such is also the case amongst the older age segment except that its
more of an occasion to be with their families rather than their friends and peers.
While there are instances when dining out are done to celebrate special
occasions like birthdays, anniversaries or family reunions, it has become more of
a daily routine to both segment because of the necessity, hence, needs no
particular occasion to do so.
With the prevalence of several food outlets in the metropolis and since it has
become a habitual practice among the target market groups to eat out, it is not
surprising to note that they have tried a myriad of food outlets ranging from the
simple carinderia, to fine dining and more specially the countless fast foods
which likely includes, McDonalds, Jollibee, KFC, Wendys, Chowking, Pizza Hut
etc.
Variations however lie on the fact that fast foods are more frequently visited
compared to the other types of food outlets because its cheaper, offers faster
service and as one customer would say, its annoyingly everywhere .
B. Dynamics Towards Patronage of Fast foods
Both target market segments appear to have tried almost all types of fast food
outlets. More prominent however are burger joints, chicken and pizza houses.
To cite a few, such would include McDonalds, Jollibee, KFC, Pizza Hut,
Greenwich, Chowking, Burger King, Shakeys with the first three being most
regularly patronized.
Services availed of from a fast food outlet differs somehow. While the younger
age segment particularly those from middle income group would have availed of
both dine-in and take out services only, those from the upper income segment
have likely availed of all the services offered in the same manner as the older
age segment. Generally though, dine-in is the type of service regularly availed.
Availing of take out service seems more frequent among the younger age
segment compared to the older age segment (average twice a week vs. seldom).
When such is availed, it is more likely for themselves (more apparent among
younger age group) or for their kins (both segments). Amongst the younger age
segment, food take out likely happen when they are in a rush and they feel that
what they have taken is bitin , when they want to take some dessert while they
stroll or when one of their kins requested them to do so. Among the older age
segment, take out happens when there are leftovers and they want to bring such
to their pets or when they found the food offering in the outlet worth trying by
friends or other relatives.
Delivery service are not often availed of or not availed at all. Propensity to avail
the service is more notable among the older age group (average once every two
weeks or less often).
Both market segments somehow agree that it takes no special occasion when
availing the services of fast foods. In fact both segments confirm that theres no
specific time preference when to eat in a fast food, meaning this could be
anytime either breakfast, lunch, dinner or snack time in the afternoon.
Among the younger age group, companions when eating in a fast food are more
frequently friends, schoolmates, and occasionally family members. Meanwhile,
family members or relatives and officemates are usually the more common
companions of the older ones.
Decision making process when choosing for a fast food outlet to patronize varies
among the target market groups. While the younger age groups either choose
by voting amongst their companions, the older age segment thinks otherwise,
sometimes they let their companions decide which fast food to patronize or go
with the flow of whos buying for the food.
The magic word is whos buying e di dun ako.
Minsan ayoko na mag isip so I let who ever I am with to decide.
(26 -59 years old)
Amount spent per dining occasion in a fast food more or less range from as low
as Php 50 to 120 for one person and to about Php 250 to as high as 1,000 if with
companion (older age group).
The younger age segments appear less critical when choosing for a fast food
outlet to patronize compared to the older segment. Amongst the younger ones,
they choose the fast food to patronize on the basis of accessibility, quality of
food, i.e., taste, price offering/affordability and affinity nakasanayan. On the
other hand , the older age segment would likely include fast service, food
offering (combination meals or variety of food offerings), cleanliness of outlet and
reputation in their consideration as well.
C. Consumption /Purchase Patterns for Food Items/Value meals
Choice of food to order when visiting a fast food outlet varies during each eating
occasion. However, decisiveness seems more evident among the older age
segment as usually they have already thought of the food they would initially
order prior to going to the outlet. Whats surprising about this age group is the
fact that despite having a planned menu in mind to order, they take their time to
look at the menu board and check whats new in the fast food outlet as well for
possible additional order.
Me I have fishburger in mind before I enter. Yes , I have a plan but I
listen to the offer usually given at the counter
Me usually, alam ko na what to order but it has always been a habit to
look at the menu board to know whats new
Oo, may favorite na ako, but still look at the menu board baka may bago
(26-59 years)
The younger age segment on the other hand, decides on a case to case basis.
There are times when prior to getting to the outlet a menu in mind had been set
because of affinity or cravings for the food item, there are also times when they
just plan when at the store and look at the menu board first of what fits their
budget or whats new.
Sometimes na prior to going there meron na, may time naman na duon
na.
Titingin muna sa menu board
Hindi na kasi yon na ang lagi kong inoorder
Ganuon din, depende na lang kung may bagong food
Budget muna kung ano ang magmamatch sa budget ko.
(15-21 years old)
Varied considerations are taken into account when choosing for a food item to
order, it may be noted however that such consideration appear to be common to
both target segments. More likely, they would consider, the price, the taste,
value for money (whether they get their moneys worth in terms of quantity, price
and completeness of food offering), Mood ( whether hungry or would want to
take light meal or cravings for food item), ease of ordering, availability,
attractiveness of food visual advertisements, variety of choices, recommendation
of friends and promo offerings.
Generally, burgers, fries, pasta, chicken and the very popular value meal are
frequently ordered food items during each eating occasion in a fast food outlet.
Further, food ordering process though sometimes driven by recommendation is
more of a personal decision.
Irregardless of time, value meals as choice option during dine-in occasion in fast
food is more prevalent. While in some instances value meal is also a choice
option during take out occasion such is more apparent among the older age
segment and those from class C homes from the younger age segment who
would likely take out for their kins. Ordering ala-carte during take out seems
more apparent among the younger age segment from the Upper income class.
Further, value meal as a food choice option during dine-in occasion spreads
across socio-demographic profile of target market groups.
While it is apparent that value meal is generally ordered when visiting a fast food
outlet because of its affordability, the convenience, i.e., ease of ordering , the fast
and quick service, value for money, there are certain instances when such are
not availed of as follows:
When food desired to eat is not included in any of the value meals offered
When deciding companion feels that the children may not be able to eat
up all the food offering in the value meal
When value meal is perceived not to satisfy or fill up hunger
Considering that there are several value meals currently being offered, basis for
choosing a value meal to order are likewise subjected to the same criteria as
when they are choosing for a general food to order in a fast food.
Product sampling, freebies such as toys and other personalized items are more
welcomed as promotional items to further motivate product purchase. Likewise
to encourage target market groups to continue patronizing value meals, the
adopting a point system that would provide free gas or even free parking fee is
suggested, such suggestion being more apparent among the older age segment.
APPENDIX D
Respondent #
Good morning/afternoon/evening. I am [your name], an independent researcher
conducting a survey on fast food outlets in this area. Id like to ask you a few questions
that should take a maximum of only 15 minutes of your time.
Magandang umaga/tanghali/hapon/gabi po. Ako po ay si [your name], isang independent researcher na
may ginagawang survey tungkol sa mga fast food outlets sa lugar na ito. Maaari po ba kayong matanong
ng ilang katanungan na hindi po hihigit sa 15 minuto lamang?
A. SCREENING
1. When was the last time you visited a fast food outlet?
1
2
CONTINUE
TERMINATE
[RECORD ACTUAL]
Below 15
15-24
25-34
1
2
3
TERMINATE
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
35-44
45-60
Above 60
4
5
6
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
TERMINATE
Female
Caloocan
Las Pias
Makati
Malabon
Mandaluyong
Manila
Marikina
Muntinlupa
Navotas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CONTINUE
IF 100
MALL
QUOTA IS
STILL NOT
MET
Paraaque
Pasay
Pasig
Pateros
Quezon
San Juan
Taguig
Valenzuela
Outside Metro Mla
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CONTINUE
IF 100
MALL
QUOTA IS
STILL NOT
MET
TERMINAT
E
Everyday
2 6 times a week
Once a week
2 3 times a month
Once a month
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
[UNAIDED SINGLE
Jollibee
McDonalds
KFC
Burger King
Chowking
Goldilocks
Greenwich
Red Ribbon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Shakeys
Pizza Hut
Sbarro
Tokyo Tokyo
Maxims Tea House
Wendys
Other (Specify)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
3. What do you usually order when dining in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]
Ano po ang kadalasan ninyong ino-order kung kumakain kayo sa isang fast food outlet?
1
2
3
4. What did you order the last time you dined in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]
Ano po ang ino-order ninyo nung huli kayong kumain sa isang fast food outlet?
1
2
3
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
SKIP TO SECTION C
5. When you last ordered a value meal, from which fast food outlet was it? [UNAIDED]
Noong huli kayong um-order ng value meal, saang fast food outlet ninyo ito binili?
Jollibee
McDonalds
KFC
Burger King
Chowking
Goldilocks
Greenwich
Red Ribbon
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Shakeys
Pizza Hut
Sbarro
Tokyo Tokyo
Maxims Tea House
Wendys
Other (Specify)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
a. Affordably priced
b. Ease of ordering
c. Availability of menu item
d. Completeness of food
combinations
e. Taste
f. Big serving size
g. Affinity towards menu item
(nakasanayan)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2. I have here a list of factors that you may or may not consider important in choosing a
particular meal item from an entire selection of menu items. Please rate each factor
according to a 5-point importance scale where a rating of 5 means that the factor is
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT to you and 1 means that the factor is ONE OF
THE LEAST IMPORTANT to you. How important is [MENTION FACTOR] to
you in choosing a particular meal item from a menu selection? [PLEASE ROTATE
CARDS BEFORE HANDING RATING BOARD TO RESPONDENT.]
Meron po ako ditong listahan ng mga bagay na maaaring importante or hindi sa pagpili ninyo ng
pagkaing o-order-in mula sa karamihan ng mga pwedeng piliin sa menu. Paki-graduhan po ninyo ang
bawat isa sa pamamagitan ng 5-point scale na kung saan ang gradong 5 ay nangangahulugang ito
ay ISA SA PINAKA-IMPORTANTE sa inyo at ang grading 1 ay ISA SA HINDI IMPORTANTE.
Gaano po ka-importante ang [MENTION FACTOR] sa pagpili ninyo ng pagkaing o-order-in sa
menu?
Very important
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Factor
Affordably priced
Ease of ordering
Availability of menu item
Completeness of food
combinations
Taste
Big serving size
Affinity towards menu item
(nakasanayan)
Trial of new product offering
Attractiveness of visual ads
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Very important
Factor
j. Type of food in mind
k. Promotion
(discounts, give-aways)
l. Recommendation of others
m.Variety of menu choices
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
D. PURCHASE SITUATIONS
1. When choosing what to order from among several fast food menu items, which do
you think influence your choice the most?
What else?
Anything else?
[SHOWCARD - CONSIDER MULTIPLE ANSWERS.]
Kung pipili kayo mula sa karamihan ng pwedeng order-in sa isang fast food menu, anu-ano po sa mga
sumusunod na bagay ang masasabi ninyong higit na nakaka-impluwensya sa inyo? Ano pa po?
Meron pa po ba o wala na?
Flyers
Banners
Menu board
Promotion (discounts, give-aways)
Product sampling
None
Other (Specify)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. Who are you usually with when dining in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]
Sino po ang kadalasan ninyong kasama kung kayo ay kumakain sa isang fast food outlet?
Self / Alone
Family/Relatives
Friends
1
2
3
Officemates
Schoolmates
Other
4
5
6
3. What occasion do you usually attend when dining in a fast food outlet?
[SHOWCARD]
Ano pong okasyon ang kadalasan ninyong dinadaluhan kung kayo ay kumakain sa isang fast food
outlet?
Birthday
Anniversary
Christening
Date
1
2
3
4
Reunion
No occasion
Other
5
6
7
4. What time of day do you usually dine in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]
Ano pong oras kayo kadalasang kumakain sa fast food outlet?
Breakfast
Morning snack
Lunch
1
2
3
Afternoon snack
Dinner
Other
4
5
6
5. When ordering at a fast food outlet, for whom do you usually buy? [SHOWCARD]
Kung kayo po ay umo-order sa isang fast food outlet, para kanino po kayo kadalasang bumibili?
Self / Alone
Family/Relatives
Friends
1
2
3
Officemates
Schoolmates
Other
4
5
6
E. PSYCHOGRAPHIC PROFILE
I have here a list of statements that may or may not describe you. Please indicate
your agreement or disagreement to the following statements using a 5-point scale
where 5 means that you definitely agree and 1 means that you definitely disagree
to how each statement describes you. [PLEASE ROTATE CARDS BEFORE
HANDING RATING BOARD TO RESPONDENT.]
Meron po ako ditong ilang mga pangungusap na maaaring naglalarawan sa inyo o hindi. Sabihin po
ninyo kung gaano kayo sumasang-ayon o hindi sa mga sumusunod na pangungusap sa pamamagitan
ng 5-point scale na kung saan ang gradong 5 ay nangangahulugang talagang sumasang-ayon kayo
at ang gradong 1 ay talagang hindi kayo sumasang-ayon sa paglalarawan sa inyo ng bawat
pangungusap.
Agree a lot
Statement
1. When I see a new brand on the shelf, I often buy it just
to see what it'
s like.
2. Its worth paying extra for quality goods.
3. I would rather spend my free time at home than go out.
4. I am concerned about health but tend not to do much
about it.
5. I am particular about what I eat.
6. I often buy take-out meals to eat at home.
7. I really enjoy cooking.
8. I shop around a lot to take advantage of specials or
bargains.
9. I try to eat healthier food these days.
10. I like attending social occasions like weddings,
birthdays, parties, etc.
11. I like dining out.
12. I like spending my free time in malls.
13. I like to try out new food products.
14. I do volunteer work in my community or in school.
15. I enjoy surfing the internet.
16. I enjoy watching TV and home videos.
17. I follow the latest trends and fashions.
18. I like going to the movies.
19. I would like to spend my vacation traveling to far and
different places.
20. I like reading a lot.
21. I enjoy engaging in sports activities.
22. I like playing games online.
23. I enjoy being in the company of friends and/or family.
Disagree a lot
(5)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
F. DEMOGRAPHICS
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASS
AB
NOTE TO
Upper C
INTERVIEWER:
Broad C
D
E
Do not fill out.
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(SHOWCARD)
No formal education
Some elem
Completed elem
Some HS
Completed HS
Some vocational
Completed vocational
Some college
Completed college
Post graduate
Don'
t know/Refused
CIVIL STATUS
Single
Widow / Widower
Married
Separated / Divorced
Annulled
Common Law / Live-in
1
2
3
4
5
HH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
99
R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENT
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
99
APPENDIX E
RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE PRE-TESTING
Based on the pre-testing of questionnaire conducted on July 30, 2005 in Maxims
MH Del Pilar branch (outside the mall outlet), the following amendments were applied so
as to make the research instrument more reliable and accurate in measuring the variables:
1. Respondents gave more than one answer to the factor they consider important in
choosing a particular meal (C1). To allow multiple answers there was a note to the
questionnaire that says consider multiple answers. That was also the reason why
follow up questions of "What else" and "Anything else" was inserted.
2. Respondents identified a combination of answer to the question about physical
surrounding as an influence to what they order (D1). Again multiple answers was
considered. If they say that they order out of habit/experience, then that means that none
of the collaterals or promos (or what the researcher collectively term as "physical
surroundings") influence them in any way. Then the additional choice "None" was
inserted.
3. In the Screening portion, the researcher incorporated the 17 MMla areas in the
questionnaire so it wont be hard for the interviewer to flip through an additional page.
4. In the tagalong translation of the question pertaining to meal preference ( B1-B4 ) the
word bumisita was replaced with kumain to clarify the English thought of the
sentence.
5. Respondents gave two additional factors considered in meal choice.
incorporated in question C1 & C2 (convenience and variety to choices).
This was