CUSTOMER PERCEIVED VALUE OF FAST FOOD INDUSTRIES

Introduction

In today environment fast food is one of the best options for working adult to choose as their meal.
After a year, fast food industries are booming around the globe and it’s not only an option for society,
but it’s a choice of consumer to consume fast food due to its taste and convenience concept. From a
business point of view, fast food industries is very competitive and its need to win their competitor by
providing best value to their customer (Doyle, 1998). The customer perception of product base on what
will delivered and what will receive is a customer perceive value (Zeitmal, 1998). According to
Gale(1994), an opinion of product or service compare to competitors is a customer value. The value is
customer perceive preference on the expectation of consumers (Woodruff, 1997). In this topic, we will
identify the customer perceived value of fast food brand Texas Chicken using Monroe (1991) Model.
Main components to identify the customer perceive value is the benefit of the product or service versus
the scarified element to consume by consumer (Sanchez et. al., 2006). Table below shows benefit and
scarified element in fast food industries.

Customer perceived value of Fast food industries

Customer Perceive Benefit Customer Perceive Scarified

Economic Benefit Price Scarified
 Consumer can enjoy the best taste of the  Cost of purchasing higher
product  Fixed price
 Wide selection of food range such as chicken,  Cost of travelling to the outlet
burgers
 Affordable price
 Promotion provided
Convenience Benefit Time Scarified
 Easy to find outlet and located strategic  Travelling time to outlet
location  Finding Parking
 Accurate and standard operating time  Queuing while ordering
 Standard interior design, furniture and service
style
 Less time waiting for food serve
 Cleanliness and hygiene control
Relationship Benefit Risk
 Customer loyalty program  Unplanned purchase by loyalty program
 Promotion  Promotion is not as per expectation

Social Benefit Effort Scarified

 Self-esteem purchasing higher quality of food  Distance to the outlet
and service  Find parking
 Consuming a US brand name franchise food and  A lot of crowed and customers
product
Quality Benefit Inconvenience
 Same taste and food quality in every purchase  Staff sometimes busy
 Using good raw material  No personal attachment and assistance
 Halal Certification  No food suggestion from the staff
 Food combination and selection to offer  Packaging is too simple
 Quality control by head quarters  Limited choice of food range offer
 Good service from the staff  Specific food concept
 International standard of recognition brand  Limited outlet and store
name ensure quality and reliability (Gerrad. F,
2003)
Table 1 : Monroe (1991)

The economic customer perceives benefit of purchasing always related to monetary scarified in their
purchase. Fast food industries, customers are looking for the best taste of the product, wide selection of
food range such as chicken, burgers within the affordable price and have a lot of promotion provided. In
order to enjoy such perceive benefit, customer has to scarified on cost of purchasing which is higher
compared to normal outlet, fixed price of product offered and have to incurred cost of travelling to the
outlet. Even have to pay higher price, customer buying behavior has change and prefer to buy product
which is value for money (Ross and Harradine, 2010).

The franchise fast food restaurant chain such as Texas Chicken and KFC normally will provide the most
convenience atmosphere to attract their customer. According to Seiders el. al. (2007) customers are
looking for better service and convenience as exchange of their scarification of perceive value. Customer
are looking for easy to find outlet and located strategic location, standard operating time, and interior
design, furniture and service style. Convenience benefits which cleanliness and hygiene of the outlet is
highly controlled is a perceive value in service industries (St. Paul, 2013). For customer to get to the
convenience place and atmosphere, they have to scarify some of their travelling time to get to the
outlet which is not available everywhere.

Perceptual benefit on consuming product related with social class and social status (Gimpel, 2011) is a
customer perceives social benefit. In Malaysia, perception of consuming a US brand name franchise food
and product may establish self-esteem of purchasing higher quality of food and services. Relation
benefit is customer passion to stay connect with the aspect of special treatment and personal
recognition, time saving while obtaining the service or product (Holmlund, 2001).

International standard of recognition brand name ensure quality and reliability (Gerrard and
Cunningham, 2003) Customer are evaluating quality benefit of the product and service before decides in
their purchasing decision (Solomon, 1999). Quality benefit leads to satisfaction level and value attributes
to positive influence on product perception (Cronin, Brady & Hult, 2000). Reasonable price perceives will
enhance satisfaction with food quality (Ryu & Han, 2010). Customer is expecting the good taste and
quality raw material, good food combination and variety selection of food offered, good service quality
control, and in Malaysia context halal certification is a must for Muslims customer.
Compare Texas Chicken value proposition with its leading direct competitor, Kentucky Fried Chicken

Base on customer perceived value of fast food restaurant that has been identified using Monroe model,
we will use Piercy’s customer value model to identified and compare value proposition of Texas Chicken
and Kentucky Fried Chicken in Malaysia base on their corporate website and broachers. Value
proposition is an organization’s promise to customer on delivering combinations of values (Treacy &
Wiersema, 1993). Another explanation describe value proposition is a marketing promise on the benefit
customer will get from the service and product on specific elements which is better than their
competitors (Youngdahl & Kellogg, 1997). Table below shows comparison value proposition between Texas
Chicken and KFC use Piercy’s customer value model.

Value Proposition Texas Chicken Vs. KFC

Value Proposition Value Proposition

Market Mission and Value
 Mission: Will be major market player in the region.  Mission: “To sell food in a fast, friendly environment that
 Value: To ensure high standards of product quality and to appeals to the price conscious, healthy minded customers”
bring the great taste of Texas Chicken to as many (Hannah et al. 2014)
Malaysians as possible.  Value: To ensure the quality of food, treat people with
 Leadership: To be prominent restaurant for the Texas courtesy, ensure cleanliness, serving localized menu.
Chicken brand, and intend to further expand in the  Leadership: Constantly working to better serve our
outreach and engagement of Malaysian consumers. customers with great moments, excellent services and
Finger Lickin’ Good food.
Competitive Positioning
 International and recognize brand specialize in fried chicken  Global Market leader in chicken base fast food restaurant
quick service restaurant industries.  International and recognize brand KFC has more than 600
 Honored The Brand Laureate Best Choice Brand Awards outlets in Malaysia, 18,875 outlets worldwide in 118
2016/2017 for brand excellence in Food & Beverage countries. Global Revenue per annum USD 23billion (2013)
 Texas Chicken has more than 1,700 outlets worldwide in 27  Honored Putra Brand Awards: The People's Choice Award,
countries. Gold, Restaurants & Fast Food Brand; Malaysia's Strongest
 Total sales per annum USD1.2billion Brands Award Best of 2016,
Marketing Asset
 Recognize brand and numbers of outlet.  Marketing assets is KFC has a well-known brand globally
 Standard product quality acceptable by international presence with 50% market share from developed countries
market. such as Malaysia.
 Long establishment and various product range offered  Standard outlet concept, theme and product range
 Research and development to develop strategies, creative acceptable by international market.
campaigns and relevant product offerings that will resonate  Longest franchiser establishment and norm to the
with customer base. community.
 Tasty taste with the motto ‘finger licking good’
Competitive Differentiation
 Sustainable and fast growing  Longest sustainable and a lot of outlet.
 Emphasize on product development, restaurant expansion,  Emphasize on service development, giving customer great
and giving customer with high standards service and moment, locally taste menu.
products  Targeting all type customer income range by providing the
 Targeting less price-sensitive customer base by providing affordable price of product.
the premium items and attention given in preparation of  Unique and attractive taste of fried chicken and patent the
food, and is positioned as the value leader in the Chicken ingredient.
Quick Service Restaurant category.
Table 2 : Value Proposition Texas Chicken Vs. KFC
Texas Chicken is founded in San Antonio, Texas in 1952 as a quick service restaurant and franchise to
over 27 countries in the world (Texas Chicken, 2017). The brand specializes in Chicken prepared food
product. Texas Chicken mainly focuses in providing high quality food and beverage experiences to the
consumers in Malaysia. Texas Chicken also committed to unveil innovations in product, service, and
experience in F&B industries. Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is a leading competitor to Texas Chicken in
Malaysia. KFC is the market leader for quick service restaurant in Malaysia and captured 44% of market
share in Malaysia (KFC Holding, 2007). KFC sells fried chicken, product similar to Texas Chicken core
item, and also other side menu such as burgers, nugget, carbonate drinks, fries and wedges. Currently
KFC have more than 600 outlets over Malaysia after establishing more than 40 years compare to Texas
Chicken which only have 46 outlets in Malaysia. A Comparison of Texas chicken value proposition and
its leading direct competitor’s value proposition is discussed in below paragraph.

Texas Chicken aims to be a major market player in the Asian region including Indonesia, Brunei,
Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam (Texas Chicken, 2017). The value proposition is to ensure high
standards of product quality and taste of their customer by serving a fresh and high quality chicken at
more higher price while KFC is aim to sell food in a fast, friendly environment that appeals to the price
conscious, healthy minded customers (KFC Holding, 2007). Texas Chicken will put care attention in food
preparation to position them as the value leader in the quick service restaurant for fried chicken
category but KFC value proposition is more to ensure the quality of food, treat people with courtesy, ensure
cleanliness, serving localized menu. Taxes Chicken has management commitment to be prominent
restaurant and intend to further expand in the outreach and engagement of Malaysian consumers while
KFC is committed to constantly improving service level to their customers to have great moments,
excellent services and maintaining their good taste food.

In term of competitive positioning, Texas Chicken brand is an internationally recognize brand which
specialize in fried chicken and subsequent product in quick service restaurant industries and similarly to
KFC, but not as a global market leader and internationally recognize brand. KFC has low perceived
sacrifice compared to Texas Chicken because customers can easily acquire KFC products in various
locations. This helps in satisfying the customers both functionally and financially for taking the purchase
decision (Jewell and Saenger, 2014).

More than 1000 Texas Chicken outlets worldwide specifically display marketing asset of Texas Chicken
on their standard product quality and it is acceptable by International market plays an important roles
to gain trust from consumers. KFC has a well-known brand globally presence with 50% market share
internationally and long establishment brand is preference if consumers (Dinlersoz & Pereira, 2007) and
with the standard outlet concept, theme and product range acceptable by international market is the KFC
marketing asset which different from Texas Chicken for the customer to feel familiar in every outlet more
beneficial value proposition impact to KFC. Despite the differences, both Texas Chicken and KFC honored
award from various body in Malaysia such as Texas Chicken was honored The Brand Laureate Best
Choice Brand Awards 2016/2017 for brand excellence in Food & Beverage., and KFC was honored Putra
Brand Awards: The People's Choice Award, Gold, Restaurants & Fast Food Brand; Malaysia's Strongest
Brands Award Best of 2016.
Benchmarking Value Proposition of Texas Chicken and KFC

Texas Chicken and KFC is sharing same market and customer base, and offered similar product by
providing same service, quick service restaurant. Comparison of their value proposition can be
illustrated as below;

Value Proposition of Texas Chicken

Element Offer to Purchase Interpretation of Offer Texas Chicken

Price Competitive Selling at competitive price compare to KFC
and other Fried Chicken Fast Food Restaurant
in Malaysia
Features Original Selling Texas Chicken own fried chicken recipes
and side item
Quality Excellent/Average Using fresh raw material and focus in food
preparation
Support Standard/Minimal Basic fast food restaurant features and self-
service concept
Availability Selective Limited outlet and low availability in small
town
Reputation Respected Accepted in over 27 countries with after more
than 50 years in the industries
Value Proposition of Kentucky Fried Chicken

Element Offer to Purchase Interpretation of Offer Kentucky Fried Chicken

Price Competitive/Leader Selling at lower price compare to Texas
Chicken but higher than other Fried Chicken
Fast Food Restaurant in Malaysia
Features Original/Customize Selling own fried chicken recipes and side item
with customize suit local taste
Quality Excellent/Average Using good raw material, own broiler farm and
focus in healthy product to customer
Support Comprehensive/Standard Premium fast food restaurant features, treat
people with courtesy and ensure cleanliness
Availability Selective/Universal Over 600 outlet in Malaysia and availability in
small town, and strategic location
Reputation Prestigous/Respected World market leader in fried chicken fast food
restaurant and captured 44% market share in
Malaysia

Texas Chicken concentrates less price-sensitive customer but Malaysia have bigger lower income group.
The Texas Chicken only focuses in town area which has higher income customer to set up their outlet.
Base on the comparison on value proposition of these companies, it can be argued that Texas Chicken
marketing asset is weaker than KFC, as KFC market covers all range of income customer and all location
in Malaysia and Texas Chicken links to higher income in town area (Stelder, 2012). Without numbers of
outlet as much as KFC and low customer accessibility, Texas Chicken may not offer “Best Customer
Value”. KFC has more outlets and reduce cost for customer to acquire their product, so KFC has better
customer value compared to Texas Chicken. According to Schroder and McEachern (2005), when the
value is under the equilibrium line, its favor to customer, not the seller.

High Fair Value

Customer Perceived Price (Cost)

Worse Line
Customer
Value
Texas Chicken

Kentucky Fried Chicken

Better
Customer
Value

Low
Customer Perceived Performance High

In term of market vision and value, Texas Chicken aims to be a major market player in the Asian region
by ensure high standards of product quality and taste which may cost higher price while KFC is aim to
sell food in a fast, local menu, reasonable price, healthy minded customers. KFC have better impact
value proposition which emphasizes on healthy of their product and quality of service. Customize menu
by KFC strongly related to cultural background result to convenience to customer (Schroder and
McEachern, 2005).

Texas chicken has a continuity plan on research and development to develop strategies and campaigns
to resonate their customer base to emphasize their quality of their brand and product. For the
competitive differential, setting up 45 outlets in Malaysia within 5 years period is one of fast growing
brand in this quick service restaurant industry and the brand sustaining ability. Texas chicken emphasize
on product development, restaurant expansion, and giving customer with high standards service and
products. The unique of the pricing strategy is they are targeting to less price-sensitive customer base by
providing the premium items. Texas Chicken differentiates from its competitors in care and attention
given in preparation of food, and is positioned as the value leader in the Chicken Quick Service
Restaurant category. KFC emphasize on service development, giving customer great moment, locally
taste menu and targeting all type customer income range by providing the better price of product
emphasize more on money value accomplishing customer perceive value (Monroe, 1991).
3.0 Texas Chicken new value proposition

In this study we have learn gap between customer perceive value and value proposition of Texas
Chicken. The comparison of leading competitor’s value proposition could help Texas Chicken to improve
their value proposition to gain more customers and expedite their vision to be a reputable leader in this
industry. The new value proposition can be summarize as table below;

Value Proposition strategy is and experience new service quality and taste
with the affordable price.
 Not only target to city areas but also small town
Target Market  Increase accessibility
 For all level of income
 Fast ordering by using self-order machine
 Increase customer relation and experience
Service  Ensure convenience and unique
 Cleanliness assurance
 Standardize outlet
 Lower product price by offering new set combination
Price
 Promotion and happy hour meal campaign
 Let every range of income can try
 New slogan “Everyone can try”
Competition
 Increase numbers of outlet
 Increase social responsibility program
 New menu with local taste
Product  Emphasize on HALAL status
 Concern to provide healthy food
Table 3 : New Value Proposition Texas Chicken

KFC put more attention on customer dining experience and servicing and cleanliness, not only focus of
quality of product. Buying behavior of customer is extremely different, by increasing customer
experience, may result to repeat buying and high profit turnover (Capon and Hulbert, 2007). Texas
Chicken has to improve its value proposition by adding customer experience and cleanliness element.
Customer service can be in the form of how fast the ordering process or reducing queuing on ordering.
Advance technology approach such as self-service ordering and payment machine can be used to
replace order taking process by human. Customers buying behavior may not because of its affordability
but about its uniqueness (Landa, 2015).

It’s wise to look at the full economic view to ensure customer perceive value match to value proposition
when set the product price range. In Malaysia, 53.8% household income is below than RM6,275 monthly
(Department of Statistic Malaysia, 2017) which is in the level of price concern category. Texas Chicken
emphasizes in quality of product but not everyone can enjoy their quality product. It is due to Texas
Chicken target market is for small group of higher income. Texas Chicken can adopt Air Asia slogan
“everyone can fly” to “everyone can try” by offering better combination of product to get lower price for
same quality of product. Customer considered the price that they pay for buying product (Kotler, 1997).
Texas Chicken set meal and side menu price are highest in the market without any option for customer
to purchase lower price combination set offered. This concept is offering economic value and good
customer experience (Jones, 2008)

Taste of Texas Chicken generally is acceptable in many countries. As we know, customer perceive value
is the key of purchasing behavior in service industry (Jensen, 1996) and Malaysian which consists of
three major races, perceive taste is definitely different from original Taxes Chicken. KFC modify their
product menu and taste seasonally to suit local taste as their festive campaign. Other benefit of this
exercise is providing more experience and variety of Texas Chicken and spell out organization sensitivity
toward consumer festive. An emotion is a kind of product branding and motivation to action to purchase
(Barlow, et. al., 2000) and recently Islamic consumers querying about the crunch sauce, halal perception
is a must in Malaysian market. This value proposition will built loyal customer and develop new
customer to try new taste of Texas Chicken product.

Commitment to open more outlet all over Malaysia is the good option for Texas Chicken to attain more
customers and market shares, but to be the best is not only focus to city areas which consumers have
more buying power, but strategic location is importance to reduce cost of acquisition and accesibility
which influence the buying decision(Steadler, 2012). Implementing new value proposition will bring
competitive advantage to Texas Chicken. It will reduce customer perceive value gap, and able optimize
quality of product and service to match value criteria for different personalities (Monroe, 1991).

Plan to implement internally and externally

In implementation of new value proposition, Texas Chicken should have planned to facilitate internal
and external changes (Piercy, 1995). This is because internal and external marketing plan is inter-related
to succeed the transformation. Texas Chicken also needs to have proper time period in upgrading to
new value proposition.

Internal Implementation External Implementation

Top Management
Have to deliver the idea of new value proposition
to the staff and taking risk to provide new menu.
Financial support and budget for implementation
is an important element and must made decision
towards achievement of new value proposition.
Setting up new KPI element to emphasizing quality
service in Texas Chicken
Product
Develop new menu product to suit customer and
local need base on ethnicity. Maintaining product
quality and delivering to the customer. Always
advertising new product and campaign conducted
to ensure message delivered to customer

Middle Management Price

Have Ensure new value proposition is properly Price reduction to ensure it is affordable and value
understand by all the staff. Evaluate and propose for money to everyone (Keaveney, 1995). Arrange
to top management market price for the similar new combination it the set that offered, which
product and ensure optimizing raw material and may reduce the price tag with smaller portion of
reduces overhead cost incurred to cover price the set or lower range combination. Discount price
reduction. Setting up new inspection and quality for student with student card at happy hour time.
control on service provided and implementing Self
Ordering and Payment Machine. Commitment to
expedite and promote set up more outlet in
various location. Designing new marketing
material, campaign and method and to conduct
regular training on customer service to front liner
staff to gain advantage (Zeithaml et. al., 1996)
Lower Management Outlet
Lower management such as outlet manager, hiring Maintaining cleanliness with schedule cleaning
manager or supervisor have to have better process. Ensure comfort furniture and ambiance in
understanding on new value proposition by the outlet. Setting up outlet in easy to access
attending training provided, and conduct training location with more parking spaces and less traffic
for subordinated. Staff selection and closed congestion. Extra facilities such as mini playground
monitoring in front line is most important because for kids, Wi-Fi or family room.
it the contact part with customers. Develop team
cohesion in achieving Texas Chicken mission with
the subordinate. Increase customer service
knowledge to frontline staff (Rafiq and Ahmad,
1993)

The above implementation plan should be implemented accordingly and properly. To ensure the success
of implementation, activity coordination flow must go smoothly (Wilson, 2003), Texas Chicken should
follow the below Gantt chart.

Task Week Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Full Implementation 52
Recognize Business Action 26
Evaluate Cost Management 8
Evaluate Business Action 8
Preparation Internally 8
Employee Scorecard 4
Training 28
Launch New Business Action 8
Preparation Externally 12
Review New Business Action 8
Adoption New Business Action 8
Chart 1: Gantt Chart of Implementation Plan for New Proposition Value.
References:

Arora, R. (1996). A model of consumption emotions, attitude, and satisfaction for services. Journal of
Customer Service in Marketing and Management, 2(3), 31–43.

Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R., & Teel, J.E. (1989). Measurement of consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 473–481.

Cronin, J.J., Jr., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000) ‘Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and
Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service Environments’. Journal of Retailing,
76(2): 193–218

Dinlersoz E. M. & Pereira P., (2007), On the diffusion of electronic commerce. International Journal of
Industrial Organization, 25 (3), pp. 541-574

Gale, Bradley T. (1994). Managing Customer Value: Creating Quality and Service that Customers Can See.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Gerrard, P., and Cunningham, J.B. (2003). The diffusion of Internet banking among Singapore consumers.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 16-28.

Gimpel, G.(2011) “Value-driven Adoption and Consumption of Technology: Understanding Technology

Decision Making”. Denmark. Copenhagen Business School Handelshøjskolen.

Hannah, L. (2014). Climate Change Biology. Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-124-20218-4. 470 pp,101

Holmlund, M. and Kock, S. (2001) The Importance of Quality-Based Services when Establishing
Relationships in lndustrial Networks. Paper presented at the 9th I.M.P. Conference in Bath.

Jayaraman, P. (2014). Texas Chicken Malaysia to focus in Klang Valey. The Sun Daily. [Online] Available
from: http://www.thesundaily.my/news/980182 [Accessed 19th April 2018]. [website]

Jewell R. D. and saenger C. (2014) Associative and dissociative comparative advertising strategies in
broadening brand positioning. Journal of Business Research, 67 (7): 1559-66.

Jill Ross, Rod Harradine, (2010) "Value brands: cheap or trendy?: An investigation into young consumers
and supermarket clothing", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 Issue: 3, pp.350-366, https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021011061834

KFC Holding, (2017). Annual Report 2016, Kuala Lumpur, QSR Brand.

Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (1999), Principles of Marketing, 8th Edition, New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Monika J.A. Schröder, Morven G. McEachern, (2005) "Fast foods and ethical consumer value: a focus on
McDonald's and KFC", British Food Journal, Vol. 107 Issue: 4, pp.212-224

Monroe, K.B. (1991). Pricing – Making Profitable Decisions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY).

Mullen, M.R., (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal of

International Business Studies 26 (3), 573-596.
Peter Doyle, Veronica Wong, (1998) "Marketing and competitive performance: an empirical study",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Issue: 5/6, pp.514-535

Piercy, N. F., (2009). Market led strategic Change: Transforming the process of going to market, 4th
Edition, Oxford:E’sevier

Piercy, N.P., Cravens, D.W., & Lane, N. (2010). Marketing out of the recession: recovery is coming, but
things will never be the same again. The Marketing Review, 10, 3–23.

Ryu, K., & Jang, S. ( 2007). The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral intentions through
emotions: The case of upscale restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 31, 56-72.

Sanchez, J., Callarisa, L.J., Rodriguez, R.M. & Moliner, M.A. (2006). Perceived value of the purchase of a
tourism product. Tourism Management, 27, 4.

Sanchez-Fernandez, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M., & Holbrook, M.B. (2009). The conceptualization and
measurement of customer value in services. International Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 93–113.

Seiders, K., Berry, L.L., 1998. Service fairness: What it is and why it matters. Academy of Management
Executive, 12 (2), 8-21.

Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A.L., Grewal, D., 2007. SERVCON: development and validation of a
multidimensional service convenience scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35 (1), 144-
156.

Solomon, M.R. (1999) ‘The Value of Status and the Status of Value’, in M.B. Holbrook(ed.) Consumer
Value. A Framework for Analysis and Research, pp. 63–84. London: Routledge.

St. Paul. (2013). Clearing Up. Beg bugs and flacking are not the only things Ecolab are going for. The
Economist.

Stelder, T. M. (2012). Spatial monopoly of multi-establishment firms: An empirical study for

supermarkets in the Netherlands. Papers in Regional Science, 91(1), 181-192.

Tang, S. K. (2016). Texas Chicken bets on ‘shining star’ Asia to grab bigger slice of world market. Channel
News Asia. [Online] Available from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/texas-chicken-
bets-on--shining-star--asia-to-grab-bigger-slice-o-7800492 [Accessed 19th april 2018]. [website]

Treacy, M. & Wiersema, F. (1993). Customer Intimacy and other value disciplines. Harvard Business
Review, February, 84-93.

Woodruff, Robert B. (1997). “Customer Value: The Next Source of Competitive Advantage.”Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (2): 139–153.

Youngdahl, W., & Kellogg, D. (1997). The relationship between service customers’ quality assurance
behaviors, satisfaction, and effort: a cost of quality perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 15,
19–32.

Zeithaml, V.A. (1998) Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-End Model and
Synthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251446