8.3.1. CONTENTANALYSISFINDINGS
Concluding the findings of delight factors as researched by means of content analysis, one needs to observe the most popular variables (24) with the highest frequencies achieved for each variable. A summary of the delight variable results shows:
'Excellent food quality' is the most noticeable delight variable (71): research results show the consideration customers give the core product of food in evaluating restaurants is the most significant (Hanefors and Mossberg, 2003; Schoemaker, 1996).
‘Excellent service quality' was much less featured (24): research results show doing the basics right for restaurants is imperative, i.e. appropriate cost, cheerful greeting, and attentive service (Titz et al., 2004; Grupta et al., 2007; Menon and Dubé, 1999);
Service consistency is imperative because of the many intangibility variables that determine quality.
'Recommendation to others' (33): the propensity of diners to speak out about exceptional experiences; word-of-mouth endorsements from customers; they are frequently quoted as a powerful source of forming expectations.
‘Trust’ is an important value in relationships and is based upon the customers’ perceptions of previous experiences.
Preconceived emotional memory based on customers’ memories of previous dining experiences is a powerful force within their perception of product and service quality (Peppers and Rogers, 2004; Harridge-March, 2006).
‘Delicious food', 'attentive service' and 'excellent food taste' was next in order of responses (19, 16, and 15 respectively).
Certain deductions, and consequently conclusions, can be made as to the most popular variables with the highest frequencies of frustration:
'Not recommending to others' (34), which demonstrates the general altruistic nature of social media reviewers toward other participants.
'Poor food quality' (27): high frustration frequency, but not as prominent as with the corresponding delight factor.
195
'Overpriced/expensive'(26): a popular reaction to frustration experiences; customers often rationalise their purchase choices by validating and comparing their decisions to alternative possibilities; they reassure themselves about their purchases (Futrell, 1990).
'Uncompetitiveness' regarding other restaurants (22): customers frequently compare restaurant establishments for value.
'High expectations that were not met’ (15): as expectations grow the risk of disappointment about perceived value of the product involved will also proportionally increase (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003; Shoemaker et al., 2007; Grönroos, 2003; Solomon
et al., 1999).
‘Satisfaction’ links with ‘expectations’ (Yűksel and Rimmington, 1998). Additionally, customer expectations are founded on past buying experiences where beliefs play an important role in shaping customer behaviour (Zeithaml and Bitner, 2003; Shoemaker
et al., 2007; Kotler et al. 2003).
In conclusion, the main similarities/differences between delight and frustration variables as applied to customers dining experience are:
i. Customers regard extreme service quality variables as relatively unimportant in relation to the larger dining experience.
ii. Customers regard extreme food and beverage quality variables as crucial in the dining experience.
iii. Value for money becomes increasingly an issue as customers become frustrated, more so than if the dining experience is associated with delight.
iv. Frustration occurs more often when dining is associated with a perception that hygiene is lacking, or else from the prospect of waiting in long queues, or experiencing unpleasant noise levels. These factors were not a concern when experiencing delightful dining.
8.3.2. EMPIRICALFINDINGS
The analysis of the demographical findings of the respondents that were sampled for the empirical surveys yielded the following results:
196
The largest proportion of respondents (30%) was under the age of 30 years, followed by those in their forties (28%).
High education levels were present in the sample of respondents, with both post- graduate (45%) and graduate (37%) accounting for more than 80%.
Dining frequencies at restaurants were high; more than a quarter (26%) dined out once a week, but on the other hand a similar proportion (27%) dined out once a month, or less.
In general one may conclude that the sample respondents were to a large extent representative of the population of ‘regular restaurant fine diners’, being affluent, educated, and age- appropriate. They were also of some global relevance, although the majority were from South Africa (54%) and the Netherlands (24%).
The results of the empirical surveys’ frequency tables have concluded the following about the most important variables and their relationship within delight and frustration factors, as in Table 8.2:
Table 8.2: Relation between Frustration and Delight Factors
FRUSTRATION FACTORS DELIGHT FACTORS
Poor service quality
Service unfriendly/rude Exceptional good service quality
Poor food quality Stale food Food tasteless
Exceptional good food quality Delicious food
Exceptional good food taste No value for money
Value unreasonable/unfair Value for money
Lack of hygiene Not
related
Excellent ambience or atmosphere Restaurant being authentic or genuine Source: The Researcher’s Own Compilation
Table 8.2 illustrates the relationship between the variables of both factors, and it infers that the top three are strongly related. This in effect means that customers perceive service quality in similar intense reactions, either a pleasant or unpleasant surprise. The same can be concluded for food quality and value for money. However, the lack of hygiene proved to be a considerable frustration factor, which had no related delight factor identified. So too have delightful ‘situational factors’ not identified a corresponding frustration factor, as ambience and authenticity are uniquely positive dining experiences.
197
The statistical process of factor analysis resulted in a new set of frustration and delight factors. The new set of delight factors includes food quality and value, mood and aesthetics, hospitable service, recommendations and differentiation. The new set of frustration factors includes food quality and situation, service care, value/price, and service reliability.
Correlation analysis indicated noteworthy relationships between the new factors (variables):
Within frustration factors:
o When considering the core product (food), it correlates highly with the perceived lack of value.
o The lack of food quality correlates strongly with the lack of service reliability (i.e. considering bringing food on time, at the optimal temperature, having high expectations).
Within delight factors:
o Diners seem to prefer to differentiate their choice according to restaurants’ mood and aesthetics; the correlation being strong between variables.
o Mood and aesthetics seem to correlate well with good service, good food quality and value for money.
Within delight and frustration factors:
o Poor food quality and situation have a strong correlation (negative) with exceptional food quality and value, as well as with exceptional hospitable service.
o A similar strong correlation exists between poor service care and exceptional hospitable service.
From the multivariate analysis of variance the empirical results illustrated statistically significant differences relevant to the demographical locations of survey respondents:
i. Customers from different countries have different perceptions of dire food quality with accompanied dire dining situations.
ii. Customers from different countries have different perceptions of bad service reliability. iii. Male or female customers have different perceptions of superior food quality
accompanied by value for money.
198
8.3.3. SUMMARYOFCONCLUSIVEFINDINGS
Excellent food quality is most noticeable delight factor which has stayed consistent throughout the wide array of research results. This finding reveals the crucial consideration customers give the core product of food and beverages in evaluating restaurants and their dining experiences. Correspondingly, poor food quality is an important consideration, but does not feature quite as prominently. However, where poor food quality does feature, it is in its relationship with the lack of service reliability. This was one of the new factors that were brought into the product equation with the factor analysis. Service reliability includes potential customer irritations such as not bringing food on time, food being below the optimal temperature, or the customers having high expectations and then being let down.
Dining customers’ source of frustration was often perceived as the experience being overpriced or expensive. The dining customers often rationalised their purchase choices, by comparing their actual dining experiences with their expectations, which is termed the ‘confirmation paradigm’ (Longart, 2008). However, when they felt that there was no value for money, the frustration factor related highly to core products, food and beverages. The factor analysis has in many ways qualified that value needs to be associated with a certain aspect of service, product or feature. Without the factor qualifier, value seems to be devoid of experiential context.
In the content analysis’ results, the responses of the variable ‘lack of hygiene’ were relatively low. However, with the empirical surveys they stood out as an extreme ‘dislike’ which drew over 81% of respondents. This can be explained in that matters of hygiene do not frequently occur (a measure of content analysis), but when and if they do, this evokes extreme reactions (perceived dislikes – empirical survey).
The original factor of ‘excellent ambience or atmosphere’ has proved to be very similar to the new factor of ‘mood and aesthetics’. The latter was a favourite preference among survey respondents, although this was not the case in the frequencies of review content. Diners’ preferences and perceptions of the dining experience seem to be very different to what they actually experience and write about in reviews. Thus it can be concluded that mood and aesthetics are essential, especially when diners differentiate between their favourite restaurants.
Excellent service quality was much less featured in the overall research results than expected, but it did illustrate that managing the service basics for restaurants is imperative. The new
199
factor of hospitable service included welcoming, professional, attentive and friendly service, which received an equally high expected response rate.
Service consistency has proven to be imperative because of the many intangibility variables that customers would identify within the restaurant setting. Service consistency has manifested various augmented qualities of mood and aesthetics, value for money, and the perception that the restaurant is authentic or genuine.
Online reviews have highlighted the high tendency of diners to recommend (along with not recommending) a restaurant to other potential customers. Frequently diners articulated after their experiences that they would (not) recommend. This shows the undeniable propensity of diners to speak out about exceptional experiences, seeking word-of-mouth endorsements from customers. It is apparent that word-of-mouth endorsements are a powerful source of forming diners’ expectations, and this demonstrates the general altruistic nature of social media. Interestingly, recommendations did not feature with the empirical data analysis, most probably because extreme ‘likes’ or ‘dislikes’ were not associated with the perception of recommending. In conclusion, different nationalities would perceive bad food, quality and bad service reliability differently. In addition, men and women would perceive superior food quality, mood and aesthetics, and value for money in a different way.