Anda di halaman 1dari 34

FOOD

ESTABLISHMENT IN
SAN ROQUE,
MARIKINA CITY

CHAPTER
1

Introduction
O Food tourism is one of the fastest growing areas in

tourism industry nowadays. People, who leave their


home for travelling, have to eat out of home. Restaurants
serve a significant and vital role in tourism. Not only they
provide tourists with food, but also they create their
experiences. In fact, restaurants are not merely designed
for eating purpose. Foodservice which plays a supportive
role, is key parts of tourism industry. Flawless
performance of restaurants requires deep understanding
of customers' demands, needs and expectations.

Study Purpose
O The purpose of the study is to know the tourism

impact of food establishment in San Roque,


Marikina City. First and foremost it will be favorable
to the Marikina government in pursuing the Food
businesses in Marikina City. It will help the city
government to gain tax revenue that can help the
city to progress. It also help in terms of convenience
of the masses in finding the nearest food chain that
are now located in San Roque, Marikina City.
Increased community pride about, and awareness
of, the areas food resources.

Study Methods
The researcher will be getting all the
information through the following:
O Interview
O Observation
O Survey Questionnaire
O Related Research

CHAPTER
2

Area Resources
OSan Roque offered the place where

you can build you restaurant, they


have their called business avenue
where there's a lot of food and service
establishments. Business avenue is
along Tuazon avenue that now's
Fernando avenue is San Roque
Marikina, before you get to
Marquinton Marikina City.

CHAPTER
3
Market Analysis

Product Strategy
TAPSI NI VIVIAN AT BULALUHAN
Tapsi ni Vivian at Bulaluhan was famous for their
delicious different kinds of silog and bulalo.
HAPAG SA MARIKINA
Hapag Sa Marikina was one of the oldest restaurants in
Marikina City. They are known as RestoBar that offer
live band at night. They are also offer different kind
of delicacies such as Filipino and Japanese Food.

MISSION AND
VISSION
TAPSI NI VIVIAN AT
BULALUHAN

"Serve good foods, serve the


needs of the customers, serve good
quality". - (Motto of Tapsi ni Vivian)

PACKAGES AND LOGO


The Logo is
inspired by the
owner Vivian . It
has a picture of
her and the year
wear the
restaurant
started.

The Logo of Hapag sa Marikina has a Bahay Kubo that represent the themed Filipino style of the restaurant.

PRICE STRATEGY
TAPSI NI VIVIAN AT BULALUHAN
O Liemposilog
O
O
O
O
O
O

120php
Barsilog
120php
Dangsilog 155php
Chicksilog 140php
Nilsilog 135php
Sisig
145php
Bulalo 320php
Tapsilog
90php
Tocilog 90php
Chichasilog 90php
Adsilog 90php
Dinisilog
90php
Longsilog
105php
Letsilog
105php

HAPAG SA MARIKINA
MARIKIT-NA DELIGHTS
APPETIZERS
VEGETABLES
SEAFOODS

O
O
O
O

O
O
O
O
O

NOODLES
SIZZLING
RICE
RICE TOPPINGS
BEEF

LOCATION STRATEGY
TAPSI NI VIVIAN
Address: 32 Mayor Gil Fernando Avenue, San Roque,
Marikina City

HAPAG SA MARIKINA
Address: 42 Gil Fernando Avenue, San Roque,
Marikina CitY

PROMOTIONAL STRATEGY

TAPSI NI VIVIAN AT BULALUHAN


O Featured in a TV Show Kapuso mo, Jessica

Soho and hailed as The Best TAPA in Town


among the restaurants that offers that kind
of food.
O They are using tarpaulin as their banner so

anyone could see the restaurant


O They do sponsorship on some of the TV

Shows.
O They cater different occasions.

HAPAG SA MARIKINA
O They have a live band at night as an entertainment

for the customers.


O They also invite some famous singers.
O They promote through radio announcements and

tarpaulins.
O They offer various packages, discounts and seasonal

promos.
O For service deliveries they distribute flyers.
O They give gift certificates for their loyal customers

where they can invite their friends.


O They do sponsorships.

CHAPTER
4

SOCIAL IMPACTS
Uniqueness of restaurants makes them
remarkable to the customer which helps them to
promote their products, advertising unique
product is just like promoting the culture of the
restaurant itself and the place where it is located.
With regards to the negative impacts of the
restaurants and resto-bar which complies with the
noise, chaos and overcrowded customer, the local
government assured that there is a standard
operating procedures and policies that restaurants
need to be followed.

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Marikina was known for being little Singapore
in the Philippines because of its cleanliness,
proper waste management is one of the
factors of it. The restaurants comply with the
policy of the local government when it comes
to the cleanliness and orderliness of the city.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The local government collects taxes from the
established restaurants where they can
contribute to the development of the
government of Marikina specifically to
barangay San Roque with the help of their
tax revenues.
The money invested into the local economy
by tourists circulates throughout their
economy several times over, providing an
ongoing economic impact that would
disappear entirely without tourism.

TAPSI NI VIVIAN AT BULALUHAN


Profile of Respondents
TABLE 1
AGE
AGE

RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

19 -29 years old

60%

30-40 years old above

40%

TABLE 2
ADDRESS
ADDRESS

RESPONDENTS

MARIKINA
NON - MARIKINA

9
6

60%
40%

GENDER
FEMALE
MALE

RESPONDENTS
8
7

PERCENTAGE
53.33%
46.67%

TABLE 3
GENDER

HAPAG SA MARIKINA
TABLE 1
AGE
AGE

RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

19 and 29 years old


above

26.67%

30-40 years old and


above

11

73.33%

TABLE 2
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
MARIKINA
NON - MARIKINA

RESPONDENTS
7
8

PERCENTAGE
46.67%
53.33%

TABLE 3
GENDER
GENDER

RESPONDENTS

PERCENTAGE

FEMALE

26.67%

MALE

11

73.33%

Tapsi Ni Vivian at
Bulaluhan
Taste of Food
5

20% 33%
47%
33.33% of respondents gave 5
stars for the Quality of food.
40% of respondents gave 4 stars
for the Quality of food.
26.67% of respondents gave 3
stars for the Quality of food.
0% of respondents gave 2 and 1
stars for the Quality of food.

Quality of food
5

27% 33%
40%
33.33% of respondents gave 5
stars for the Quality of food.
40% of respondents gave 4 stars
for the Quality of food.
26.67% of respondents gave 3
stars for the Quality of food.
0% of respondents gave 2 and 1
stars for the Quality of food.

Good value for money


Readability of the Menu
Variety of Menu Reservation
5

7%

27%
20%

53%

33%

3% 3%

13%
40%

60%
47%

94%

53.33% of

60% of respondents

40% of respondents gave

46.67% of

respondents gave 5

gave 5 stars for the

5 stars for the Variety of

respondents gave 5

stars for the Good

Readability of the menu.

the menu.

stars for the

value for money.

33.33% of respondents

46.67% of respondents

Reservation.

20% of respondents

gave 4 stars for the

gave 4 stars for the

40% of respondents

gave 4 stars for the

Readability of the menu.

Variety of the menu.

gave 4 stars for the

Good value for

26.67% of respondents

13.33% of respondents

Reservation.

money.

gave 3 stars for the

gave 3 stars for the

13.33% of

26.67% of

Readability of the menu.

Variety of the menu.

respondents gave 3

respondents gave 3

0% of respondents gave

0% of respondents gave 2

stars for the

stars for the Good

2 and 1 stars for the

and 1 stars for the Variety

Reservation.

value for money.

Readability of the menu.

of the menu.

0% of respondents

0% of respondents

gave 2 and 1 stars for

gave 2 and 1 stars for

the Reservation.

the Good value for


money.

Affordability Reasonability Pleasant Ambiance


Safety and Security
5

33%

27%

33%

40%

40%

27%

29% 21%
40%
50%

Affordability of food.
40% of respondents
gave 4 stars for the
Affordability of food.
33.33% of respondents
gave 3 stars for the
Affordability of food.
0% of respondents gave
2 and 1 stars for the
Affordability of food.

33%
27%

26.67% of respondents
gave 5 stars for the

40% of respondents
gave 5 stars for the
Reasonability of price.
26.67% of respondents
gave 4 stars for the
Reasonability of price.
33.33% of respondents
gave 3 stars for the
Reasonability of price.
0% of respondents
gave 2 and 1 stars for
the Reasonability of
price.

21% of respondents gave 5


stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of restaurant.
50% of respondents gave 4
stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of restaurant.
29% of respondents gave 3
stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of restaurant.
0% of respondents gave 2
and 1 stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of restaurant.

30% of respondents gave 5


stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of the
restaurant.
27% of respondents gave 4
stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of the restaurant.
40% of respondents gave 3
stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of the
restaurant.
0% of respondents gave 2
and 1 stars for the Pleasant
Ambiance of the restaurant.

Cleanliness Overall viewAccuracy/Efficiency


Attitude of Staffs
5

13%
60%

27%

40%

20%
40%

33%

13%

33%

33%

53%

33%

13.33% of respondents gave 5


stars for the Cleanliness of the
restaurant.
26.67% of respondents gave 4
stars for the Cleanliness of the
restaurant.
60% of respondents gave 3
stars for the Cleanliness of the
restaurant.
0% of respondents gave 2 and
1 stars for the Cleanliness of
the restaurant.

20% of respondents gave

33.33% of respondents gave 5

5 stars for the Overall

stars for the Accuracy and

view of the restaurant.

Efficiency of staff service.

40% of respondents gave

33.33% of respondents gave 4

4 stars for the Overall

stars for the Accuracy and

view of the restaurant.

Efficiency of staff service.

40% of respondents gave

33.33% of respondents gave 3

3 stars for the Overall

stars for the Accuracy and

view of the restaurant.

Efficiency of staff service.

0% of respondents gave 2

0% of respondents gave 2 and 1

and 1 stars for the Overall

stars for the Accuracy and

view of the restaurant.

Efficiency of staff service.

33.33% of respondents gave


5 stars for the Attitude of
Staffs
53.33% of respondents gave
4 stars for the Attitude of
Staffs
13.33% of respondents gave
3 stars for the Attitude of
Staffs
0% of respondents gave 2
and 1 stars for the Attitude of
Staffs

Knowledge & Skills


5

3
7%

33%

60%

Accessibility
5

33%

33%

33%
33.33% of respondents gave 5 stars for the
Knowledge and Skills of the staffs.
60% of respondents gave 4 stars for the

33.33% of respondents gave 5 stars for the

Knowledge and Skills of the staffs.

Accessibility of the restaurant.

6.67% of respondents gave 3 stars for the

33.33% of respondents gave 4 stars for the

Knowledge and Skills of the staffs.

Accessibility of the restaurant.

0% of respondents gave 2 and 1 stars for the

33.33% of respondents gave 3 stars for the

Knowledge and Skills of the staffs.

Accessibility of the restaurant.


0% of respondents gave 2 and 1 stars for the
Accessibility of the restaurant.

HAPAG SA MARIKINA
Taste of food
Quality of food Variety of Menu Readability of Menu
5

7%

7%
47%

47%

33%

7%
60%

53%

47%
47%

47%

46.67% of

60% of respondents

46.67% of respondents

46.67% of respondents

respondents gave 5

gave 5 stars for the

gave 5 stars for the

gave 5 stars for the

stars for the Taste of

Quality of food.

Variety of the menu.

Readability of the menu.

food.

33.33% of respondents

53.33% of respondents

46.67% of respondents

46.67% of

gave 4 stars for the

gave 4 stars for the

gave 4 stars for the

respondents gave 4

Quality of food.

Variety of the menu.

Readability of the menu.

stars for the Taste of

6.67% of respondents

0% of respondents gave 3

6.67% of respondents gave

food.

gave 3 stars for the

stars for the Variety of the

3 stars for the Readability

6.67% of respondents

Quality of food.

menu.

of the menu.

gave 3 stars for the

0% of respondents gave

0% of respondents gave 2

0% of respondents gave 2

Taste of food.

2 and 1 stars for the

and 1 stars for the Variety

and 1 stars for the

0% of respondents

Quality of food.

of the menu.

Readability of the menu.

gave 2 and 1 stars for


the Taste of food.

Affordability
Good value for money
5

Reasonability

47%
33%

Reservation
5

27%

20%

20%

40%

40%

3
7%

53%
20%

40%

53%

46.67%% of respondents

53.33% of respondents

40% of respondents

40% of respondents

gave 5 stars for the Good

gave 5 stars for the

gave 5 stars for the

gave 5 stars for the

value for money.

affordability of the menu.

Reasonability of price.

Reservation.

33.33% of respondents

20% of respondents gave

20% of respondents

53.33% of respondents

gave 4 stars for the Good

4 stars for the

gave 4 stars for the

gave 4 stars for the

value for money.

affordability of the menu.

Reasonability of price.

Reservation.

20% of respondents gave 3

26.67% of respondents

40% of respondents

6.67% of respondents

stars for the Good value for

gave 3 stars for the

gave 3 stars for the

gave 3 stars for the

money.

affordability of the menu.

Reasonability of price.

Reservation.

0% of respondents gave 2

0% of respondents gave

0% of respondents gave

0% of respondents

and 1 stars for the Good

2 and 1 stars for the

2 and 1 stars for the

gave 2 and 1 stars for

value for money.

affordability of the menu.

Reasonability of price.

the Reservation.

Cleanliness
Pleasant AmbianceSafety & SecurityOverall view
5

7%
40%

20%
53%

5
5

40% 53%

53.33% of respondents gave

40% of respondents gave

53.33% of respondents

5 stars for the Cleanliness of

5 stars for the Pleasant

gave 5 stars for the

the restaurant.

Ambiance of restaurant.

Safety and security of

40% of respondents gave 4

40% of respondents gave

restaurant.

stars for the Cleanliness of

4 stars for the Pleasant

40% of respondents

the restaurant.

Ambiance of restaurant.

gave 4 stars for the

6.67% of respondents gave 3

20% of respondents gave

Safety and security of

stars for the Cleanliness of

3 stars for the Pleasant

restaurant.

the restaurant.

Ambiance of restaurant.

6.67% of respondents

0% of respondents gave 2

0% of respondents gave

gave 3 stars for the

and 1 stars for the

2 and 1 stars for the

Safety and security of

Cleanliness of the restaurant.

Pleasant Ambiance of

restaurant.

restaurant.

0% of respondents
gave 2 and 1 stars for
the Safety and security
of restaurant.

7%

40%

40%

20%
20% 60%
60% of respondents
gave 5 stars for the
Overall view for the
restaurant.
20% of respondents
gave 4 stars for the
Overall view for the
restaurant.
20% of respondents
gave 3 stars for the
Overall view for the
restaurant.
0% of respondents
gave 2 and 1 stars for
the Overall view for
the restaurant.

Accessibility
5

Accuracy/Efficiency
Attitude of Staff
Knowledge & Skills
5

13%

7%

13%

14%

79%

33%

40%

7%
13%
7% 47%
27%

14%
7% 43%
36%

73.33% of respondents gave

33.33% of respondents

46.67% of respondents

43% of respondents

5 stars for the Accessibility of

gave 5 stars for the

gave 5 stars for the

gave 5 stars for the

the restaurant.

Accuracy and Efficiency

Attitude of staffs.

Knowledge and skills.

13.33% of respondents gave

of staff service.

26.67% of respondents

36% of respondents

4 stars for the Accessibility of

40% of respondents gave

gave 4 stars for the

gave 4 stars for the

the restaurant.

4 stars for the Accuracy

Attitude of staffs.

Knowledge and skills.

6.67% of respondents gave 3

and Efficiency of staff

6.67% of respondents

7% of respondents gave

stars for the Accessibility of

service.

gave 3 stars for the

3 stars for the

the restaurant.

13.33% of respondents

Attitude of staffs.

Knowledge and skills.

6.6% of respondents gave 2

gave 3 stars for the

13.33% of respondents

14% of respondents

stars for the Accessibility of

Accuracy and Efficiency

gave 2 stars for the

gave 2 stars for the

the restaurant.

of staff service.

Attitude of staffs.

Knowledge and skills.

0% of respondents gave 1

13.33% of respondents

13.33% of respondents

0% of respondents gave

star for the Accessibility of

gave 2 stars for the

gave 1 star for the

1 star for the Knowledge

the restaurant.

Accuracy and Efficiency

Attitude of staffs.

and skills.

of staff service.
0% of respondents gave
1 star for the Accuracy

THANK YOU PO.


GOD BLESS.
SANA PUMASA