18010040

Consumer Analytics
Burger Hub
 18010040
C.A
Burger Hub

Burger Hub is a local eatery in Lahore which serves almost 20 unique beef and chicken burgers,
along with a large selection of toppings, sauces, sides and salads. It is owned and operated by
Mr. Kashif Ali Arif who decided to open it at M.M Alam Road, one of the key locations where
people come out to eat. It is not surprising that choosing to open here meant severe competition
from both local and international chains within the same vicinity. These main competitors
included the likes of McDonald, KFC, Hardees and Fat Burger. The main objective of
conducting this survey was to get an idea on where the restaurant is currently positioned and
what can be the way forward.

Based on a priori information, Mr. Kashif determined 8 main attributes that consumers keep in
mind when going to a restaurant. These were Taste of Food, Quality of Food, Presentation of
Food, Variety of Menu, Restaurant's Ambiance, Convenience of Location, Serving Size,
Discount Deals, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

1. The initial step involved the use of Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) which helps in
identifying the perceptions and preferences of respondents by means of a visual display. The
results of this analysis are shown in Exhibit A. The data used in identifying the perception of
the consumers was of a direct nature in which similarity judgments were used to gauge the
mind of the consumer. In the perceptual map it can be seen that all 5 players are being
perceived to be high on different attributes and with none being close to one another. For
example lets take the X-axis to be Variety and Y-axis to be Taste. Hardees is perceived
to be good on taste but not at having variety on its menu. Similarly KFC is not good in variety
of menu and its taste is also not very well liked. In case of Burger Hub the dimensions can be
Taste and Value for Money in which it is perceived to be high on both dimensions. The
issue here is that one cannot properly label the dimensions and if they do, the results over here
are not reliable based on goodness of fit R2 and stress test of badness of fit. In the stress test, if
the value is greater than 20%, the model is not reliable and for R2 the value should be greater
than 60%. The current model fails both these tests which puts it reliability in question. The
next step over here would be to use a priori information and based on that interpret these
dimensions to identify the current positioning and where to move next.

2. A more accurate approach would be to form a perceptual map based on the attributes that
consumers look towards. The discriminant analysis shows that there are 4 key dimensions that

Page 1 of 6
 18010040
C.A
Burger Hub

are having a significance in the mind of the consumer. Based on the significance of the
attributes under each dimension, they have been name the following:

F1: Quick Access to Restaurant

F2: Fine Diner

F3: Economical Diner

F4: Discount Seeker

Following this, perceptual maps are plotted in Exhibit B of these dimensions against each other
and also the brands positioning in the mind of the consumer. In Access Vs Fine Diner Burger
Hub is not perceived to be convenient or of good ambiance and variety. Hardees is not seen as
convenient but is considered to have good ambiance and variety. McDonalds has positioned
more on the convenience side as opposed to presentation and variety. In Access vs. Economical,
Burger Hub is perceived to be economical but not convenient. KFC on the other hand is
considered to relatively convenient and economical in the mind of the customer. Hardees is
neither convenient nor economical which makes sense as they invest more in the product and so
charge a premium over it. Lastly, in Access vs. Discount Seeker, burger hub is relatively
perceived to be offering discount whereas McDonald is both convenient and offering discounts.
KFC and Hardees are also perceived to be less on giving discounts.

In summary, Burger Hub is positioned more towards being economical and offering promotion
and discounts. One key issue is that is not considered to be very accessible and convenient which
maybe as it only operates from one branch and therefore does not have the same reach as that of
its competitors. It is being targeted more towards the middle class consumer who looks for value
for money and promotion and discounts which is good if that is what the company wants to be
perceived as. In future if that is the type of consumer that Burger Hub wants to target, it would
be logical that it opens up more branches in order to make it more convenient for the consumer
and also use more social media channels to inform the consumer of its discount and promotions.

Page 2 of 6
 18010040
C.A
Burger Hub

Exhibit A:

Page 3 of 6
 18010040
C.A
Burger Hub

Exhibit B:
F1 VS F3
.800

Value for Money

.600
BH
.400

KFC
.200

.000
Serving Size
-1.500 -1.000 -.500 .000 .500 1.000 1.500
Hard
-.200
Convenience of
McD
Location
-.400

-.600
Restaurant's
FB Ambiance
-.800

-1.000

F1 VS F2
1.200

1.000
Hard
.800

.600 Taste of Food

.400 Convenience Mcd

Quality of Food
.200 Variety of Menu
.000
-1.500 -1.000 -.500 .000 .500 1.000 1.500
BH -.200
Serving Size Presentation of Food
-.400

FB -.600 KFC
-.800

Page 4 of 6
 18010040
C.A
Burger Hub

F1 VS F4
.800

Discount Deals
.600
McD
.400
BH
.200
fb
Convenience of
.000
Location
-1.500 -1.000 -.500 .000 .500 1.000 1.500
Hard -.200

-.400 KFC
Serving Size
-.600

Eigenvalues

Canonical
Function Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Correlation

1 .825a 56.2 56.2 .672

2 .304a 20.7 76.9 .483
3 .231a 15.8 92.7 .434
4 .107a 7.3 100.0 .311

a. First 4 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis.

Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

Function

1 2 3 4

Taste of Food -.086 .618 .503 -.488

Quality of Food -.055 .333 -.102 .630
Presentation of Food -.271 -.247 .164 .327
Variety of Menu .141 .174 -.135 .091
Restaurant's Ambiance -.240 -.033 -.636 -.208

Page 5 of 6
 18010040
C.A
Burger Hub

Convenience of Location .950 .189 -.181 -.142

Serving Size -.518 -.111 -.017 -.473
Discount Deals .061 -.264 .407 .645
Quality of Service -.054 .406 -.409 .272
Value for Money .183 -.043 .626 -.299

Structure Matrix

Function

1 2 3 4

Convenience of Location .695* .414 -.179 -.010

Serving Size -.342* .337 .064 -.145
Taste of Food -.154 .831* .347 -.124
Quality of Food -.219 .720* .037 .413
Quality of Service -.128 .657* -.195 .315
Variety of Menu -.061 .480* -.077 .325
Presentation of Food -.305 .424* -.092 .383
Restaurant's Ambiance -.263 .424 -.445* .084
Value for Money -.070 .411 .424* .025
Discount Deals .099 .032 .427 .610*

Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and

standardized canonical discriminant functions
Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within function.
*. Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant
function

Functions at Group Centroids

Function

Brand 1 2 3 4

McDonald's 1.206 .183 -.180 .411

Hardees -.387 .933 -.134 -.285
Fat Burger -.995 -.570 -.765 .056
Burger Hub -.890 -.109 .724 .246
KFC .826 -.534 .232 -.443

Unstandardized canonical discriminant functions evaluated at

group means

Page 6 of 6