- Email: [email protected]
Understanding attributes affecting meal choice decisions in a bundling context
ARTICLE IN PRESS
International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
Understanding attributes affecting meal choice decisions in a bundling context Eunha Myunga,, Audrey C. McCoolb, Andrew H. Feinsteinc a
Hospitality Administration School of Family, Consumer, and Nutrition Sciences, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois 60115, USA Food and Beverage Management Department, Box 456022, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6022, USA c Professor and Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives, Box 456014, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6014, USA
b
Abstract This study examined attributes that contribute to consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu. Drawing on typologies of consumer purchase behavior, factors potentially influencing consumers’ meal choice are identified and empirically tested. The results showed that consumers consider value for price as the most important consideration for their meal bundle choices. The results also indicated that familiar and healthy foods also contribute to the selection process. However, consumers tend to avoid the risk of choosing new menu items. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Consumer choice; Types of consumers; Prix fixe menu; Random utility theory; Rank-ordered logit model
1. Introduction Consumers often face the conflict of making a choice among various alternatives. The traditional economic view of consumer choice states that such a conflict plays no role in making a decision because a consumer chooses an option that maximizes his or her utility. The assumption underlying this view is that consumers always behave rationally, in the sense that their choices are deliberate and consistent, so that they can maximize the utility from their choices (Skouras et al., 2005). However, the psychological perspective of consumer choice is more complicated. For example, seeing an ad, the timing of the purchase, and hearing about a brand from a friend may all influence a consumer to treat a particular brand differently than before (Posavac et al., 2002). Corresponding author. Hospitality Administration, School of Family, Consumer, and Nutrition Sciences, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL 60115, USA. Tel.: +1 815 753 1190; fax: +1 815 753 1321. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Myung), [email protected] (A.C. McCool), [email protected] (A.H. Feinstein).
0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.014
Consumers make different choices when they face the same alternatives because the relative value that they place on each alternative varies among individuals (Train, 1993). No matter whether their choices are based on utility maximization, psychological influences, or other factors, consumers have reasons for selecting a particular option that provides the best value to them. Shafir et al. (1993) suggest that a consumer’s reason-based choice identifies various reasons that are purported to enter into and influence decisions as well as explain choice in terms of the balance of reasons for and against the various alternatives. The question, then, is ‘‘how do different consumers make different choices that provide the best value to them?’’ Although many factors influence choices, consumers are thought to approach the market with certain decision making styles. For example, consumers may be quality seekers, brand loyal customers, or price comparison customers (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). Myung et al. (2006, working paper) addressed consumer choice based on price comparison in a bundling context. Using a prix fixe menu as a testing tool, the study focused only on testing the pricing effect on consumers’ bundle choice decisions while controlling other factors. However,
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
120
several other factors that might also influence consumer meal choice decisions were not considered in their study. Previous research (e.g., Auty, 1992; Kivela et al., 1999) on consumer behavior in the restaurant context also identified a number of factors that consumers consider to be important in their restaurant and meal choice in various types of restaurants. Although the studies noted above have investigated the behavior of restaurant consumers, it is important to note that little is known about factors that affect consumer meal choice decision in a bundling context. For example, consider a prixe fixe menu. A prix fixe menu is a set meal at a fixed price. Although there is usually no choice, today more and more prix fixe menu restaurants provide customers with a bundle choice that is composed of one appetizer, one entre´e, and a dessert from various items for a single price. Therefore, finding reasons that address how and why consumers choose particular meals when offered a bundle choice (e.g., prix fixe menu) allowing them to select their bundle items would add new insight which would enhance the understanding of consumer meal choice decisions. This study seeks to address the above issue by examining attributes that contribute to consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu.
Berman and Evans (2003) categorized five types of customers based on consumers’ shopping behaviors in the retail context. These types are: economic consumers, status-oriented consumers, assortment-oriented consumers, personalizing consumers, and convenience-oriented consumers. Economic consumers’ major concern is prices. They are interested in getting the best value for their money. Therefore they are characterized by a careful approach to purchasing, giving heightened attention to price (Westbrook and Black, 1985). In contrast, status-oriented consumers are more interested in a symbolic benefit, such as the prestige of a brand or the service received, than in price. Therefore, they are willing to pay a high price for symbolic benefits. Assortment-oriented consumers are looking for experiential purchases and are seeking variety. Personalizing consumers prefer to shop at stores where they are known. Thus, they seek personal relationships with the employees of a store. Finally, convenienceoriented consumers are concerned with functional benefits, such as location and hours of operations.
2. Review of the literature
Previous studies have identified a number of attributes that consumers consider to be important when selecting restaurants. These studies have investigated consumer restaurant choice variables based on their demographic profiles and types of restaurants. Examples of such studies include: (1) consumer demographic profiles (Kivela, 1997); (2) factors creating consumer loyalty in restaurants (Clark and Wood, 1998); (3) restaurant selection behavior (Lewis, 1981; Auty, 1992); (4) meal purchase behavior (Kivela et al., 1999); and (5) restaurant critics’ perception of restaurant selection behavior (Schroeder, 1985). Auty (1992) studied consumer purchasing behavior in restaurants, and developed a restaurant choice model in order to segment customers. The study identified consumer’s perceptions of restaurant and examined main choice variables in the restaurant decision process. By analyzing consumers’ rankings of preference for restaurant choice variables, the study found that food type was the most important choice variable. The next two most important factors included food quality and value for money. Lewis (1981) also conducted a similar study that tested the most important restaurant choice variables. The study found that consumers considered food quality the most important variable, followed by atmosphere, price, and variety of menu. Kivela et al. (1999) developed a research measurement regarding customers’ dining satisfaction and return patronage based on different restaurant categories, including fine dinning restaurants, theme or ambience restaurants, family restaurants, and fast-food restaurants. Using a series of three semi-structured face-to-face interviews with various types of customers, the study identified important restaurant choice attributes for each restaurant category.
2.1. Types of consumers Baumgartner (2002) proposed a typology of consumer purchase behavior based on personality and provided insight into understanding consumer choice. The author developed a typology of consumers, and then categorized them into eight distinct forms of buying behaviors. These forms are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Typology of consumer purchase behaviora Buying behavior form
Rational used by consumers making purchases
Extended purchase decision making Symbolic purchase behavior Repetitive purchase behavior Hedonic purchase behavior Exploratory purchase behavior Promotional purchase Impulsive purchase behavior Casual purchase behavior
Products purchased based on objective, logical criteria and for functional reasons Buy a certain brand or product which meets with social approval Make a routine purchase because of loyalty to seller Purchases product because consumer likes it Buy things because of curiosity or because seeking variety Buy products because they are on sale Buy product just on impulse Buy something without thinking much about it
a Source: Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 286–292. Beggs, S., Cardell, S., and Hausman, J. (1981). Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics, 16, 1–19.
2.2. Consumer choice in the restaurant context
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
The study found that variables such as de´cor, type and style of food, variety of foods, and foods not eaten at home were considered important in fine dining restaurants. For the family dining category, convenience, variety of menu items, and special promotion were reported as key attributes. Finally, freshness of food, quality of food, and good portion size were identified as key attributes in the fast-food restaurant category. The study then sorted the possible restaurant choice attributes into the categories of food, service, atmosphere, and convenience. The food category showed that consumers consider presentation of food, menu item variety, nutritious food, and food tastiness, freshness, and temperature when making decisions about their future dining choices. Clark and Wood (1998) also identified important restaurant choice variables. Their variables included price of food and drink, speed of service, quality of food, friendlessness of staff, and range of food choice. Schroeder (1985) utilized a unique way to identify variables by asking restaurant critics what they thought was important to consumers in their restaurant evaluations. Similar to the other studies, the variables identified by the restaurant critics as important considerations for consumers were quality of food, quality of service, ambiance, pricing, menu variety, nutrition, and quantity of food. Table 2 summarizes the restaurant choice variables identified in previous studies.
Table 2 Important restaurant selection variables Author(s)
Restaurant type
Attributes
Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran
Theme/ambience restaurants
Menu item variety Nutritious food Freshness of food Tastiness of food
Clark and Wood (1998)
Unavailable
Price Speed of service Range of food choice Quality of food
Auty (1992)
Ethnic restaurant and fast food Value for money restaurant Speed of service Recommendation Food quality
Schroeder (1985)
Unavailable
Price Menu item variety Nutrition Quality of food/ service
Lewis (1981)
Gourmet and atmosphere
Food quality Price Variety of menu
121
Although most studies of consumer choice in the restaurant context examined the restaurant selection variables, some variables used in those studies can be applicable to meal choices in a restaurant context, (e.g., variables such as price, nutrition, menu variety, and quantity of food such as portion size). 3. Methodology 3.1. Identification of meal choice attributes and consumer typologies for a prix fixe menu For this study, Baumgartner’s (2002) typology of consumer purchase behavior and Berman and Evans’ (2003) customer types were utilized to determine important meal choice attributes. Based on the literature relevant to consumer restaurant selection, a set of variables that might affect consumer meal choice decisions was identified. Then, in order to identify the applicability of these variables to potential consumer meal choice decisions in a prix fixe menu, this variable set was tested by conducting individual in-depth interviews with five graduate students who were enrolled in a foodservice research seminar class in a state university in the southwest. Two of these students were managers of fine dining restaurants, one was a manager of a quick-service restaurant, another was an owner of a computer consulting firm, while the fifth one was a fulltime student with several years of restaurant operations experience. Based on these interviews, four important meal choice attributes impacting consumer choices for a prix fixe menu were derived (see Table 3) These meal choice attributes were then integrated into Baumgartner’s (2002) and Berman and Evans’ typologies, and paired with four types of meal choice behavior. (See Table 3). The pairings were as follows: 1. Extended purchase decision making: nutritious food/ healthy food: Healthy food. 2. Repetitive purchase behavior: product familiarity, lessen the risk, inertia: Familiar food. 3. Exploratory purchase behavior (assortment-oriented consumers): Variety seeking. 4. Economic consumers: Value for the price. 3.2. Development of the research instrument Initially conjoint analysis was used as the basis for understanding consumer preferences for meal choice decisions in a prix fixe menu. The study respondents were given four pre-selected meal choice combinations (bundles) and asked to rank these given meal choice options in order of preference. Then the rank-ordered logit model was used to estimate consumer preferences for meal choices. In the second part of the study, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of given meal choice attributes when choosing a meal for their prix fixe menu. An actual menu from a restaurant that offered a prix fixe menu was used to
ARTICLE IN PRESS 122
E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
Table 3 Summary of meal choice attributes Consumer types
Attributes
Extended purchase decision Healthy food making (purchase products based on objective, logical criteria, and for functional reasons) Nutritional characteristics Freshness of food
Table 4 Menu items and price levels used in the studya Examples of attribute indicators I choose healthy food items
I choose items that are in season I choose items after considering my food allergies I choose items based on the nutrient composition
Menu items
Price levels used for menu items
Appetizer Hugo’s Texas BBQ shrimp House salad
$10.50 $6.50
$15.50 $11.50
Entre´e Parmesan tossed angel hair pasta Grilled pork chop Pepper seared sea scallop Grilled veal tenderloin
$21.95 $25.95 $27.95 $31.95
$26.95 $30.95 $31.95 $36.95
Dessert Chocolate flourless cake Homemade ice cream
$6.95 $5.95
$11.95 $10.95
a
Repetitive purchase behavior Familiar food I choose items that I am (make a routine purchase familiar with because they are loyal to them) Product I choose my favorite items familiarity I don’t try new items Variety Exploratory purchase behavior (buy things because seeking of curiosity or seeking to variety) Economic customers (concern with getting the best value for money)
Value for price
I like to try different food items
I choose the most expensive items from each category Before I choose items, I compare their prices I think I receive more value for my money by choosing expensive items.
generate menu items for use in this study. Item selection considered menu item attributes, or characteristics, in order to achieve variety in menu item choice options. In order to examine the influence of price on meal choices, two price levels were set for each meal item, and then these levels were randomized among the menu options. Table 4 shows the menu items and price levels used in the study. Since the total number of choice profiles possible from all combinations of these menu items and prices would be too many for the study respondents to rank (i.e., 128 possible profiles: 42 8), an orthogonal fractional factorial design was used to exclude unrealistic profiles. The SPSS Conjoint software version 12.0 generated 32 profiles to rank. These 32 options were then randomly assigned to smaller sets of four ranking orders which created 24 different versions of choice sets. All versions of the choice sets were randomly distributed to the study respondents. 3.3. Data collection Self-administered survey data were collected from a convenience sample of the general population visiting a major tourist destination. The surveys were distributed and
Prix fixe price (i.e., bundle price) was fixed at $39.95.
collected from randomly selected individuals who were spending leisure time or waiting for the next show during July and August, 2005, in front of the ‘‘Fountain Show’’ at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. Therefore, when the researcher approached the respondents, most of them agreed to complete the survey while waiting for the next show. Overall, the response rate was about 90%. A total of 412 survey questionnaires were collected; 11 of the questionnaires were excluded from the data analysis because these respondents did not provide complete responses. The final 401 surveys were used for data analysis. On the first page of the survey questionnaire, the respondents were provided information about a prix fixe menu and instructions for completing the survey form. On the second page, the respondents were asked to rank four different meal choice combinations in order of preferences for the conjoint ranking analysis. Here, a rank of one indicated the bundle most likely to be chosen, continuing with two, and three, and finally four being the least likely to be chosen. On the third page, the respondents were asked to rate important attributes impacting their meal choice decisions for a prix fixe menu on a even-point Likert-type scale ranging from one ¼ least important to seven ¼ most important. The fourth page of the survey contained demographic information questions such as age, gender, marital status, income, education, and the dining frequency of respondents. 3.4. The statistical model The values that consumers attached to particular meal options were estimated using the rank-ordered logit model. The rationale for the use of this model is that because ranks are ordinal and the ranks given by each respondent are not independent, neither the ordinary least squares (OLS), ordered probit, nor ordered logit specification provide consistent parameter estimates (Holland and Wessells, 1998; Mark et al., 2004; Roheim and Donath, 2003). To address this problem, this paper applies the rank-ordered
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
logit model, which allows both the ordinal nature of the data and the lack of independency between observations for each respondent (Roheim et al., 2005). Analysis of data on ordinal ranking is based on the random utility model (Manski, 1977). In any study, it is impossible for a researcher to identify and include all the factors that might have significant effects on consumer decisions. Since the error term is thought to vary randomly, these excluded factors are bundled into the random component; therefore, the total utility is also random (Ida and Sato, 2004). In random utility theory, the utility that respondent i derives from profile j is equal to: U ij ¼ V ij þ ij where V ij is the deterministic component of utility arising from the attributes of profile j and ij is an unobservable random (error term) component. If the respondent gives a profile the rank of one, as the most preferred, followed by profiles ranked two and three, and continuing until the profile J as the least preferred is reached, then this rank order can be presented as U 1 4U 2 4U 3 4; . . . ; 4U J . McFadden (1974) found that, if errors ðij Þ are independent and identically distributed with a type I extreme-value distribution, the choice probability can be estimated using the conditional logit model: Pij ¼ expðV ij Þ
M X
expðV ij Þ
for j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; M.
j¼1
The rank-ordered logit model (Beggs et al., 1981) extends the conditional logit model to the utilization of rankordered dependent data. The rank-ordered logit model exploits all rank information by assuming that each rank is made as part of a sequential random utility selection process. It assumes that respondents choose the one alternative that provides the highest level of utility first and rank it first, then choose the alternative believed most attractive from the remaining M 1 alternatives and rank it second, and so on. Therefore, if consumer i’s ranking of J choice is expressed as Riðr1 ; r2 ; . . . ; rJ Þ, then, the probability of the rank order is Prob½Uðr1 Þ4Uðr2 Þ4 4UðrJ Þ ¼
J1 Y
" expðbXirh Þ=
h¼1
J X
# expðbXirm Þ ,
m¼h
where Xirh is the vector of attributes of the alternative ranked h by a customer i in the ordering. The parameters of b are estimated by using the maximum likelihood. 4. Results 4.1. Demographic profile of respondents The respondents included 165 males (41.1%) and 236 females (58.9%). About half of the respondents were between 24 and 40 years old ðn ¼ 203; 50:5%Þ and slightly
123
more than half were married ðn ¼ 216; 54%Þ. The majority of the respondents were educated (n ¼ 274, 68% attended or graduated from college or graduate college) and were Caucasian ðn ¼ 303; 75:6%Þ. About 30% of the respondents reported an annual income between $30,000–$59,999, 24% of them were between $60,000–$89,999, and 27% of them were more than $90,000. Nearly 37% ðn ¼ 147Þ of respondents dined out once or less than once a week, and 35% ðn ¼ 139Þ of the respondents dined out twice a week. 4.2. Results from the rank-ordered logit model The utility of each menu item was estimated to identify which item, if any, in each of the three menu categories was preferred over the other option(s) in that category. Table 5 displays the results of rank-ordered logit model. For appetizers, SHRIMP (a dummy variable coded as 1 if an appetizer is SHRIMP; 0 otherwise) was statistically significant and had a positive sign, which indicated that the consumers’ preference for SHRIMP was significantly different from SALAD. That is, consumers were more likely to choose SHRIMP over SALAD. All meal entre´e coefficients were statistically significant. The positive values of the coefficients implied that, on average, VEAL, PASTA, and PORK were preferred to SCALLOPS (the default value). VEAL had the relatively higher utility over PASTA, PORK, and SCALLOPS. These values mean that consumers would choose VEAL over PORK, PASTA, and SCALLOPS, other things being equal. The utility for PORK was larger than that of PASTA and SCALLOPS, indicating that PORK was favored over PASTA and SCALLOPS; and PASTA was preferred to SCALLOPS. Therefore, the order of preference for the entre´e choice was VEAL, PORK, PASTA, and finally SCALLOPS. 4.3. Attributes influencing consumer meal choice decisions In order to understand the attributes contributing to consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of attributes that influenced their choices, when they considered and ranked the given choice options. The attributes were rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale where Table 5 Results of rank-ordered logit modela Variable
Coefficient
SE
z
p4z
SHRIMP PASTA PORK VEAL ICE CREAM
.10*b .28**b .41** .57** .01
.04 .05 .06 .06 .05
2.11 4.20 6.35 8.94 0.09
.03 .00 .00 .00 .93
Number of observations: 3168, Prob4chi2 : 0:000, and Log-Likelihood: 2466:99. b* po:05, **po:0001. a
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
124
one ¼ least important and seven ¼ most important. The results indicated that consumers considered value for price as the most important attribute for their meal choice decisions. On average, respondents selected relatively expensive meal items to be included in their prix fixe menus. A familiar meal item (familiar food) was the second most important attribute impacting consumers’ meal choice considerations, followed by healthy food. The least important attribute was variety seeking. Since a familiar meal item was an important attribute for consumers and variety seeking was not as important, the findings indicated that consumers were more likely to avoid the risk of choosing new items—perhaps items that they may not like—and were more likely to choose food items that were familiar to them. The findings are consistent with the results of the rank-ordered logit model discussed in Section 4.2 above. Table 6 presents the mean values of these attributes. 4.4. The impact of gender and age on attribute importance Age and gender variables were included in the analysis to gain a better understanding of the meal choice decisions of these segments. The results indicated that consumers in all of the age groups other than the oldest group (age 59 years old or more) considered price as the most important factor contributing to their meal choice decisions for a prix fixe menu. The oldest age group placed greater importance on the healthy food attribute than they did on value for price, a result suggesting that as people get older, they pay more attention to healthy food (see Table 7). Men were more price sensitive than women, and were more likely to try new food items (are more variety seeking consumers) than were women. Women were more likely to
Table 6 The attributes important to meal choice decisions for prix fixe menus Variables
Mean
Value for price Familiar food Healthy food Variety seeking
5.21 4.88 4.85 4.04
Specified other factors include preferences, speed, taste, recommendation, and quality.
Table 7 Mean value of attributes impacting meal choice by age Age
Healthy food
Value for price
Familiar food
Variety seeking
18–23 24–40 41–58 59 or over
4.66 4.88 5.10 6.3
5.24 5.16 5.24 6.1
4.96 4.98 4.47 4.8
3.82 4.08 4.04 4.4
Table 8 Mean value of attributes impacting meal choices by gender Gender Healthy food Value for price Familiar food Variety seeking Male 4.75 Female 5.03
5.50 5.10
4.68 5.00
4.32 3.83
select healthy food then men and were more likely to select familiar food. Table 8 indicates the mean value of meal choice attributes by gender. 5. Discussion, conclusion, and implications By understanding factors that influence consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu, the findings of the study addressed some relevant, practical implications for restaurants which would aid restaurateurs in understanding the values that consumers attach to their meal choice decisions. The findings should also help restaurateurs recognize the variances in the attributes valued by different classes of consumers. The study found that when given the choice of shrimp barbeque (a relatively expensive item compared to the alternative salad) and salad as appetizers, consumers were more likely to choose the shrimp barbeque than the salad. The results of entre´e selection preferences also indicated that, on average, people preferred the most expensive entre´e item (veal) as their first choice, supporting the notion that people attach greater importance to value for price (Myung et al., 2006, working paper) than to other attributes. The relative preference for entre´e items was in the order of veal, pork, pasta, and scallops. The study found that, on average, people attached greater importance to value for price when choosing a meal for their prix fixe menus. The findings indicate that consumers are likely to select more expensive menu items than less expensive ones to be included in their meal bundle. Since higher perceptions of value significantly influence choice decisions (Monroe, 1990), restaurateurs should emphasize price as an important marketing strategy to influence consumers’ formation of value. For example, if a restaurant wants to have a high sales volume for an item that provides a desirable profit margin and that item is included as a prix fixe menu bundle option, the price of that item, if purchased as an a la carte item can be set at a high level, relative to the other menu bundle options; thus encouraging consumers to select that item as a component of their prix fixe bundle. The study also found that consumers were more likely to choose menu items that are familiar to them. Since food serves many social and psychological functions while also satisfying people’s hunger needs, people often tend to eat food that is conventional and familiar to them. In his study, Ghitelman (1994) found that business travelers and convention participants preferred familiar food over elaborate cuisine during business meetings. Therefore,
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
restaurateurs can use this information in designing a menu. For example, they might highlight the names of meals or descriptive language (Wansink et al., 2001) associated with food that is generally familiar to their target market. Similarly, a large number of people considered healthfulness of food as an important attribute impacting their menu choices. This result reflects the current trend toward consumers’ interest in a healthy life style that would enhance their physical well being. Thus it is possible that emphasizing the meal items linked to a nutritional benefit (e.g., light, low, and fresh) and certain preparation methods (e.g., trans-fat free oil, fat free dressing, or grilled) might enhance consumers’ menu item selection decisions for a prix fixe menu. When considering the study results, it should also be noted that the older age group varied from the average respondent in that this age group placed higher value on the healthy food attribute than on the value for price attribute. Thus, a restaurant targeting an older population for their clientele should consider that their customers are likely to be looking for healthy food items in their prix fixe menu options, and are likely to be more willing to pay a higher cost for their menu options compared to other consumers. The study has some limitations. First, only a limited number of menu items and meal choice attributes were included in the study. Varied ranges of menu items and other environmental factors such as the consumer’s mood and the timing of the purchase may also influence consumer menu choices. Therefore, further research might include other types of foods and environmental factors. Another limitation is that the study used a convenience sample composed primarily of tourists at a tourist destination, a sample which may not represent the consumer population as a whole. Finally, the results of this study are restricted to a prix fixe menu. Therefore the results may not be generalized to other types of menus. Despite the study limitations, it is believed that the findings of the study provide some important information that restaurateurs can use to better understand how and why customers choose particular menu items to create their prix fixe meals, as well as what product attributes are valued by their customers. This knowledge can assist restaurateurs in developing more efficient marketing strategies to attract and maintain customers. References Auty, S., 1992. Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The Service Industries Journal 12 (3), 324–339. Baumgartner, H., 2002. Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research 29, 286–292. Beggs, S., Cardell, S., Hausman, J., 1981. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 16, 1–19. Berman, B., Evans, J.R., 2003. Pricing in retailing. Retail Management: A Strategic Approach. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
125
Clark, M.A., Wood, R.C., 1998. Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry: a preliminary exploration of the issues. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10 (4), 139–144. Ghitelman, D., 1994. No place like home. Meetings & Conventions 29 (13), 151. Holland, D., Wessells, C.R., 1998. Predicting consumer preferences for fresh salmon: the influence of safety inspection and production method attributes. Agricultural and Resources Economics Review 27 (4), 1–14. Ida, T., Sato, M., 2004. Conjoint analysis of consumer preferences for broadband services in Japan. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from hhttp:// www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ida/3Kenkyuukatudou/3Workingpaper/WPfile/ 2004/Ida-Sato(E).pdfi. Kivela, J.J., 1997. Restaurant marketing: selection and segmentation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9 (3), 116–123. Kivela, J.J., Reece, J., Inbakaran, R., 1999. Consumer research in the restaurant environment: part 2: research design and analytical method. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 (6), 269–286. Lewis, R., 1981. Restaurant advertising: appeals and consumers’ intentions. Journal of Advertising Research 21 (5), 69–74. Manski, C.F., 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8 (3), 229–254. Mark, D.R., Lusk, J.L., Daniel, M.S., 2004. Recruiting agricultural economics graduate students: student demand for program attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (1), 175–184. McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–142. Monroe, K.B., 1990. Economics of price determination. Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Myung, E., Feinstein A.H., McCool, A.C., 2006. Using a discrete choice model to identify consumer meal preference within a prix fixe menu. Working paper. Posavac, S.S., Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Ho, E.A., 2002. The effect of the selective consideration of alternatives on consumer choice and attitude-decision consistency. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (3), 203–213. Roheim, C.A., Donath, H., 2003. The battle of taste buds and environmental convictions: which one wins. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from hhttp://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/documents/ Roheim.pdfi. Roheim, C.A., Johnston, R.J., Greer, J., Donath, H., 2005. Consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: results of a connecticut survey. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from hhttp://www.fmpc.uconn.edu/ research/other/Connecticut%20Final%20Ecolabel%20Report%2012% 2020%2004.pdfi. Schroeder, J.J., 1985. Restaurant critics respond: we’re doing our job. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 25 (4), 57–63. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A., 1993. Reason-based choice. Reasoning & Decision Making Cognition 49 (1–2), 11–30. Skouras, T., Avlonitis, G.J., Indounas, K.A., 2005. Economics and marketing on pricing: how and why do they differ? Journal of Product & Brand Management 14 (6), 362–374. Sproles, G.B., Kendall, E.L., 1986. A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 20 (2), 267–279. Train, K., 1993. Theory and econometrics of qualitative choice models. Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Wansink, B., Painter, J., Van Ittersum, K., 2001. Descriptive menu labels’ effect on sales. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42 (6), 68–72. Westbrook, R.A., Black, C.W., 1985. A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of Retailing 61 (1), 78–103.
International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
Understanding attributes affecting meal choice decisions in a bundling context Eunha Myunga,, Audrey C. McCoolb, Andrew H. Feinsteinc a
Hospitality Administration School of Family, Consumer, and Nutrition Sciences, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois 60115, USA Food and Beverage Management Department, Box 456022, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6022, USA c Professor and Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives, Box 456014, William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration, University of Nevada Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-6014, USA
b
Abstract This study examined attributes that contribute to consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu. Drawing on typologies of consumer purchase behavior, factors potentially influencing consumers’ meal choice are identified and empirically tested. The results showed that consumers consider value for price as the most important consideration for their meal bundle choices. The results also indicated that familiar and healthy foods also contribute to the selection process. However, consumers tend to avoid the risk of choosing new menu items. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Consumer choice; Types of consumers; Prix fixe menu; Random utility theory; Rank-ordered logit model
1. Introduction Consumers often face the conflict of making a choice among various alternatives. The traditional economic view of consumer choice states that such a conflict plays no role in making a decision because a consumer chooses an option that maximizes his or her utility. The assumption underlying this view is that consumers always behave rationally, in the sense that their choices are deliberate and consistent, so that they can maximize the utility from their choices (Skouras et al., 2005). However, the psychological perspective of consumer choice is more complicated. For example, seeing an ad, the timing of the purchase, and hearing about a brand from a friend may all influence a consumer to treat a particular brand differently than before (Posavac et al., 2002). Corresponding author. Hospitality Administration, School of Family, Consumer, and Nutrition Sciences, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL 60115, USA. Tel.: +1 815 753 1190; fax: +1 815 753 1321. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Myung), [email protected] (A.C. McCool), [email protected] (A.H. Feinstein).
0278-4319/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.07.014
Consumers make different choices when they face the same alternatives because the relative value that they place on each alternative varies among individuals (Train, 1993). No matter whether their choices are based on utility maximization, psychological influences, or other factors, consumers have reasons for selecting a particular option that provides the best value to them. Shafir et al. (1993) suggest that a consumer’s reason-based choice identifies various reasons that are purported to enter into and influence decisions as well as explain choice in terms of the balance of reasons for and against the various alternatives. The question, then, is ‘‘how do different consumers make different choices that provide the best value to them?’’ Although many factors influence choices, consumers are thought to approach the market with certain decision making styles. For example, consumers may be quality seekers, brand loyal customers, or price comparison customers (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). Myung et al. (2006, working paper) addressed consumer choice based on price comparison in a bundling context. Using a prix fixe menu as a testing tool, the study focused only on testing the pricing effect on consumers’ bundle choice decisions while controlling other factors. However,
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
120
several other factors that might also influence consumer meal choice decisions were not considered in their study. Previous research (e.g., Auty, 1992; Kivela et al., 1999) on consumer behavior in the restaurant context also identified a number of factors that consumers consider to be important in their restaurant and meal choice in various types of restaurants. Although the studies noted above have investigated the behavior of restaurant consumers, it is important to note that little is known about factors that affect consumer meal choice decision in a bundling context. For example, consider a prixe fixe menu. A prix fixe menu is a set meal at a fixed price. Although there is usually no choice, today more and more prix fixe menu restaurants provide customers with a bundle choice that is composed of one appetizer, one entre´e, and a dessert from various items for a single price. Therefore, finding reasons that address how and why consumers choose particular meals when offered a bundle choice (e.g., prix fixe menu) allowing them to select their bundle items would add new insight which would enhance the understanding of consumer meal choice decisions. This study seeks to address the above issue by examining attributes that contribute to consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu.
Berman and Evans (2003) categorized five types of customers based on consumers’ shopping behaviors in the retail context. These types are: economic consumers, status-oriented consumers, assortment-oriented consumers, personalizing consumers, and convenience-oriented consumers. Economic consumers’ major concern is prices. They are interested in getting the best value for their money. Therefore they are characterized by a careful approach to purchasing, giving heightened attention to price (Westbrook and Black, 1985). In contrast, status-oriented consumers are more interested in a symbolic benefit, such as the prestige of a brand or the service received, than in price. Therefore, they are willing to pay a high price for symbolic benefits. Assortment-oriented consumers are looking for experiential purchases and are seeking variety. Personalizing consumers prefer to shop at stores where they are known. Thus, they seek personal relationships with the employees of a store. Finally, convenienceoriented consumers are concerned with functional benefits, such as location and hours of operations.
2. Review of the literature
Previous studies have identified a number of attributes that consumers consider to be important when selecting restaurants. These studies have investigated consumer restaurant choice variables based on their demographic profiles and types of restaurants. Examples of such studies include: (1) consumer demographic profiles (Kivela, 1997); (2) factors creating consumer loyalty in restaurants (Clark and Wood, 1998); (3) restaurant selection behavior (Lewis, 1981; Auty, 1992); (4) meal purchase behavior (Kivela et al., 1999); and (5) restaurant critics’ perception of restaurant selection behavior (Schroeder, 1985). Auty (1992) studied consumer purchasing behavior in restaurants, and developed a restaurant choice model in order to segment customers. The study identified consumer’s perceptions of restaurant and examined main choice variables in the restaurant decision process. By analyzing consumers’ rankings of preference for restaurant choice variables, the study found that food type was the most important choice variable. The next two most important factors included food quality and value for money. Lewis (1981) also conducted a similar study that tested the most important restaurant choice variables. The study found that consumers considered food quality the most important variable, followed by atmosphere, price, and variety of menu. Kivela et al. (1999) developed a research measurement regarding customers’ dining satisfaction and return patronage based on different restaurant categories, including fine dinning restaurants, theme or ambience restaurants, family restaurants, and fast-food restaurants. Using a series of three semi-structured face-to-face interviews with various types of customers, the study identified important restaurant choice attributes for each restaurant category.
2.1. Types of consumers Baumgartner (2002) proposed a typology of consumer purchase behavior based on personality and provided insight into understanding consumer choice. The author developed a typology of consumers, and then categorized them into eight distinct forms of buying behaviors. These forms are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Typology of consumer purchase behaviora Buying behavior form
Rational used by consumers making purchases
Extended purchase decision making Symbolic purchase behavior Repetitive purchase behavior Hedonic purchase behavior Exploratory purchase behavior Promotional purchase Impulsive purchase behavior Casual purchase behavior
Products purchased based on objective, logical criteria and for functional reasons Buy a certain brand or product which meets with social approval Make a routine purchase because of loyalty to seller Purchases product because consumer likes it Buy things because of curiosity or because seeking variety Buy products because they are on sale Buy product just on impulse Buy something without thinking much about it
a Source: Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 286–292. Beggs, S., Cardell, S., and Hausman, J. (1981). Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics, 16, 1–19.
2.2. Consumer choice in the restaurant context
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
The study found that variables such as de´cor, type and style of food, variety of foods, and foods not eaten at home were considered important in fine dining restaurants. For the family dining category, convenience, variety of menu items, and special promotion were reported as key attributes. Finally, freshness of food, quality of food, and good portion size were identified as key attributes in the fast-food restaurant category. The study then sorted the possible restaurant choice attributes into the categories of food, service, atmosphere, and convenience. The food category showed that consumers consider presentation of food, menu item variety, nutritious food, and food tastiness, freshness, and temperature when making decisions about their future dining choices. Clark and Wood (1998) also identified important restaurant choice variables. Their variables included price of food and drink, speed of service, quality of food, friendlessness of staff, and range of food choice. Schroeder (1985) utilized a unique way to identify variables by asking restaurant critics what they thought was important to consumers in their restaurant evaluations. Similar to the other studies, the variables identified by the restaurant critics as important considerations for consumers were quality of food, quality of service, ambiance, pricing, menu variety, nutrition, and quantity of food. Table 2 summarizes the restaurant choice variables identified in previous studies.
Table 2 Important restaurant selection variables Author(s)
Restaurant type
Attributes
Kivela, Reece, and Inbakaran
Theme/ambience restaurants
Menu item variety Nutritious food Freshness of food Tastiness of food
Clark and Wood (1998)
Unavailable
Price Speed of service Range of food choice Quality of food
Auty (1992)
Ethnic restaurant and fast food Value for money restaurant Speed of service Recommendation Food quality
Schroeder (1985)
Unavailable
Price Menu item variety Nutrition Quality of food/ service
Lewis (1981)
Gourmet and atmosphere
Food quality Price Variety of menu
121
Although most studies of consumer choice in the restaurant context examined the restaurant selection variables, some variables used in those studies can be applicable to meal choices in a restaurant context, (e.g., variables such as price, nutrition, menu variety, and quantity of food such as portion size). 3. Methodology 3.1. Identification of meal choice attributes and consumer typologies for a prix fixe menu For this study, Baumgartner’s (2002) typology of consumer purchase behavior and Berman and Evans’ (2003) customer types were utilized to determine important meal choice attributes. Based on the literature relevant to consumer restaurant selection, a set of variables that might affect consumer meal choice decisions was identified. Then, in order to identify the applicability of these variables to potential consumer meal choice decisions in a prix fixe menu, this variable set was tested by conducting individual in-depth interviews with five graduate students who were enrolled in a foodservice research seminar class in a state university in the southwest. Two of these students were managers of fine dining restaurants, one was a manager of a quick-service restaurant, another was an owner of a computer consulting firm, while the fifth one was a fulltime student with several years of restaurant operations experience. Based on these interviews, four important meal choice attributes impacting consumer choices for a prix fixe menu were derived (see Table 3) These meal choice attributes were then integrated into Baumgartner’s (2002) and Berman and Evans’ typologies, and paired with four types of meal choice behavior. (See Table 3). The pairings were as follows: 1. Extended purchase decision making: nutritious food/ healthy food: Healthy food. 2. Repetitive purchase behavior: product familiarity, lessen the risk, inertia: Familiar food. 3. Exploratory purchase behavior (assortment-oriented consumers): Variety seeking. 4. Economic consumers: Value for the price. 3.2. Development of the research instrument Initially conjoint analysis was used as the basis for understanding consumer preferences for meal choice decisions in a prix fixe menu. The study respondents were given four pre-selected meal choice combinations (bundles) and asked to rank these given meal choice options in order of preference. Then the rank-ordered logit model was used to estimate consumer preferences for meal choices. In the second part of the study, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of given meal choice attributes when choosing a meal for their prix fixe menu. An actual menu from a restaurant that offered a prix fixe menu was used to
ARTICLE IN PRESS 122
E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
Table 3 Summary of meal choice attributes Consumer types
Attributes
Extended purchase decision Healthy food making (purchase products based on objective, logical criteria, and for functional reasons) Nutritional characteristics Freshness of food
Table 4 Menu items and price levels used in the studya Examples of attribute indicators I choose healthy food items
I choose items that are in season I choose items after considering my food allergies I choose items based on the nutrient composition
Menu items
Price levels used for menu items
Appetizer Hugo’s Texas BBQ shrimp House salad
$10.50 $6.50
$15.50 $11.50
Entre´e Parmesan tossed angel hair pasta Grilled pork chop Pepper seared sea scallop Grilled veal tenderloin
$21.95 $25.95 $27.95 $31.95
$26.95 $30.95 $31.95 $36.95
Dessert Chocolate flourless cake Homemade ice cream
$6.95 $5.95
$11.95 $10.95
a
Repetitive purchase behavior Familiar food I choose items that I am (make a routine purchase familiar with because they are loyal to them) Product I choose my favorite items familiarity I don’t try new items Variety Exploratory purchase behavior (buy things because seeking of curiosity or seeking to variety) Economic customers (concern with getting the best value for money)
Value for price
I like to try different food items
I choose the most expensive items from each category Before I choose items, I compare their prices I think I receive more value for my money by choosing expensive items.
generate menu items for use in this study. Item selection considered menu item attributes, or characteristics, in order to achieve variety in menu item choice options. In order to examine the influence of price on meal choices, two price levels were set for each meal item, and then these levels were randomized among the menu options. Table 4 shows the menu items and price levels used in the study. Since the total number of choice profiles possible from all combinations of these menu items and prices would be too many for the study respondents to rank (i.e., 128 possible profiles: 42 8), an orthogonal fractional factorial design was used to exclude unrealistic profiles. The SPSS Conjoint software version 12.0 generated 32 profiles to rank. These 32 options were then randomly assigned to smaller sets of four ranking orders which created 24 different versions of choice sets. All versions of the choice sets were randomly distributed to the study respondents. 3.3. Data collection Self-administered survey data were collected from a convenience sample of the general population visiting a major tourist destination. The surveys were distributed and
Prix fixe price (i.e., bundle price) was fixed at $39.95.
collected from randomly selected individuals who were spending leisure time or waiting for the next show during July and August, 2005, in front of the ‘‘Fountain Show’’ at the Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. Therefore, when the researcher approached the respondents, most of them agreed to complete the survey while waiting for the next show. Overall, the response rate was about 90%. A total of 412 survey questionnaires were collected; 11 of the questionnaires were excluded from the data analysis because these respondents did not provide complete responses. The final 401 surveys were used for data analysis. On the first page of the survey questionnaire, the respondents were provided information about a prix fixe menu and instructions for completing the survey form. On the second page, the respondents were asked to rank four different meal choice combinations in order of preferences for the conjoint ranking analysis. Here, a rank of one indicated the bundle most likely to be chosen, continuing with two, and three, and finally four being the least likely to be chosen. On the third page, the respondents were asked to rate important attributes impacting their meal choice decisions for a prix fixe menu on a even-point Likert-type scale ranging from one ¼ least important to seven ¼ most important. The fourth page of the survey contained demographic information questions such as age, gender, marital status, income, education, and the dining frequency of respondents. 3.4. The statistical model The values that consumers attached to particular meal options were estimated using the rank-ordered logit model. The rationale for the use of this model is that because ranks are ordinal and the ranks given by each respondent are not independent, neither the ordinary least squares (OLS), ordered probit, nor ordered logit specification provide consistent parameter estimates (Holland and Wessells, 1998; Mark et al., 2004; Roheim and Donath, 2003). To address this problem, this paper applies the rank-ordered
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
logit model, which allows both the ordinal nature of the data and the lack of independency between observations for each respondent (Roheim et al., 2005). Analysis of data on ordinal ranking is based on the random utility model (Manski, 1977). In any study, it is impossible for a researcher to identify and include all the factors that might have significant effects on consumer decisions. Since the error term is thought to vary randomly, these excluded factors are bundled into the random component; therefore, the total utility is also random (Ida and Sato, 2004). In random utility theory, the utility that respondent i derives from profile j is equal to: U ij ¼ V ij þ ij where V ij is the deterministic component of utility arising from the attributes of profile j and ij is an unobservable random (error term) component. If the respondent gives a profile the rank of one, as the most preferred, followed by profiles ranked two and three, and continuing until the profile J as the least preferred is reached, then this rank order can be presented as U 1 4U 2 4U 3 4; . . . ; 4U J . McFadden (1974) found that, if errors ðij Þ are independent and identically distributed with a type I extreme-value distribution, the choice probability can be estimated using the conditional logit model: Pij ¼ expðV ij Þ
M X
expðV ij Þ
for j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; M.
j¼1
The rank-ordered logit model (Beggs et al., 1981) extends the conditional logit model to the utilization of rankordered dependent data. The rank-ordered logit model exploits all rank information by assuming that each rank is made as part of a sequential random utility selection process. It assumes that respondents choose the one alternative that provides the highest level of utility first and rank it first, then choose the alternative believed most attractive from the remaining M 1 alternatives and rank it second, and so on. Therefore, if consumer i’s ranking of J choice is expressed as Riðr1 ; r2 ; . . . ; rJ Þ, then, the probability of the rank order is Prob½Uðr1 Þ4Uðr2 Þ4 4UðrJ Þ ¼
J1 Y
" expðbXirh Þ=
h¼1
J X
# expðbXirm Þ ,
m¼h
where Xirh is the vector of attributes of the alternative ranked h by a customer i in the ordering. The parameters of b are estimated by using the maximum likelihood. 4. Results 4.1. Demographic profile of respondents The respondents included 165 males (41.1%) and 236 females (58.9%). About half of the respondents were between 24 and 40 years old ðn ¼ 203; 50:5%Þ and slightly
123
more than half were married ðn ¼ 216; 54%Þ. The majority of the respondents were educated (n ¼ 274, 68% attended or graduated from college or graduate college) and were Caucasian ðn ¼ 303; 75:6%Þ. About 30% of the respondents reported an annual income between $30,000–$59,999, 24% of them were between $60,000–$89,999, and 27% of them were more than $90,000. Nearly 37% ðn ¼ 147Þ of respondents dined out once or less than once a week, and 35% ðn ¼ 139Þ of the respondents dined out twice a week. 4.2. Results from the rank-ordered logit model The utility of each menu item was estimated to identify which item, if any, in each of the three menu categories was preferred over the other option(s) in that category. Table 5 displays the results of rank-ordered logit model. For appetizers, SHRIMP (a dummy variable coded as 1 if an appetizer is SHRIMP; 0 otherwise) was statistically significant and had a positive sign, which indicated that the consumers’ preference for SHRIMP was significantly different from SALAD. That is, consumers were more likely to choose SHRIMP over SALAD. All meal entre´e coefficients were statistically significant. The positive values of the coefficients implied that, on average, VEAL, PASTA, and PORK were preferred to SCALLOPS (the default value). VEAL had the relatively higher utility over PASTA, PORK, and SCALLOPS. These values mean that consumers would choose VEAL over PORK, PASTA, and SCALLOPS, other things being equal. The utility for PORK was larger than that of PASTA and SCALLOPS, indicating that PORK was favored over PASTA and SCALLOPS; and PASTA was preferred to SCALLOPS. Therefore, the order of preference for the entre´e choice was VEAL, PORK, PASTA, and finally SCALLOPS. 4.3. Attributes influencing consumer meal choice decisions In order to understand the attributes contributing to consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu, the respondents were asked to rate the importance of attributes that influenced their choices, when they considered and ranked the given choice options. The attributes were rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale where Table 5 Results of rank-ordered logit modela Variable
Coefficient
SE
z
p4z
SHRIMP PASTA PORK VEAL ICE CREAM
.10*b .28**b .41** .57** .01
.04 .05 .06 .06 .05
2.11 4.20 6.35 8.94 0.09
.03 .00 .00 .00 .93
Number of observations: 3168, Prob4chi2 : 0:000, and Log-Likelihood: 2466:99. b* po:05, **po:0001. a
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
124
one ¼ least important and seven ¼ most important. The results indicated that consumers considered value for price as the most important attribute for their meal choice decisions. On average, respondents selected relatively expensive meal items to be included in their prix fixe menus. A familiar meal item (familiar food) was the second most important attribute impacting consumers’ meal choice considerations, followed by healthy food. The least important attribute was variety seeking. Since a familiar meal item was an important attribute for consumers and variety seeking was not as important, the findings indicated that consumers were more likely to avoid the risk of choosing new items—perhaps items that they may not like—and were more likely to choose food items that were familiar to them. The findings are consistent with the results of the rank-ordered logit model discussed in Section 4.2 above. Table 6 presents the mean values of these attributes. 4.4. The impact of gender and age on attribute importance Age and gender variables were included in the analysis to gain a better understanding of the meal choice decisions of these segments. The results indicated that consumers in all of the age groups other than the oldest group (age 59 years old or more) considered price as the most important factor contributing to their meal choice decisions for a prix fixe menu. The oldest age group placed greater importance on the healthy food attribute than they did on value for price, a result suggesting that as people get older, they pay more attention to healthy food (see Table 7). Men were more price sensitive than women, and were more likely to try new food items (are more variety seeking consumers) than were women. Women were more likely to
Table 6 The attributes important to meal choice decisions for prix fixe menus Variables
Mean
Value for price Familiar food Healthy food Variety seeking
5.21 4.88 4.85 4.04
Specified other factors include preferences, speed, taste, recommendation, and quality.
Table 7 Mean value of attributes impacting meal choice by age Age
Healthy food
Value for price
Familiar food
Variety seeking
18–23 24–40 41–58 59 or over
4.66 4.88 5.10 6.3
5.24 5.16 5.24 6.1
4.96 4.98 4.47 4.8
3.82 4.08 4.04 4.4
Table 8 Mean value of attributes impacting meal choices by gender Gender Healthy food Value for price Familiar food Variety seeking Male 4.75 Female 5.03
5.50 5.10
4.68 5.00
4.32 3.83
select healthy food then men and were more likely to select familiar food. Table 8 indicates the mean value of meal choice attributes by gender. 5. Discussion, conclusion, and implications By understanding factors that influence consumer meal choice decisions within a prix fixe menu, the findings of the study addressed some relevant, practical implications for restaurants which would aid restaurateurs in understanding the values that consumers attach to their meal choice decisions. The findings should also help restaurateurs recognize the variances in the attributes valued by different classes of consumers. The study found that when given the choice of shrimp barbeque (a relatively expensive item compared to the alternative salad) and salad as appetizers, consumers were more likely to choose the shrimp barbeque than the salad. The results of entre´e selection preferences also indicated that, on average, people preferred the most expensive entre´e item (veal) as their first choice, supporting the notion that people attach greater importance to value for price (Myung et al., 2006, working paper) than to other attributes. The relative preference for entre´e items was in the order of veal, pork, pasta, and scallops. The study found that, on average, people attached greater importance to value for price when choosing a meal for their prix fixe menus. The findings indicate that consumers are likely to select more expensive menu items than less expensive ones to be included in their meal bundle. Since higher perceptions of value significantly influence choice decisions (Monroe, 1990), restaurateurs should emphasize price as an important marketing strategy to influence consumers’ formation of value. For example, if a restaurant wants to have a high sales volume for an item that provides a desirable profit margin and that item is included as a prix fixe menu bundle option, the price of that item, if purchased as an a la carte item can be set at a high level, relative to the other menu bundle options; thus encouraging consumers to select that item as a component of their prix fixe bundle. The study also found that consumers were more likely to choose menu items that are familiar to them. Since food serves many social and psychological functions while also satisfying people’s hunger needs, people often tend to eat food that is conventional and familiar to them. In his study, Ghitelman (1994) found that business travelers and convention participants preferred familiar food over elaborate cuisine during business meetings. Therefore,
ARTICLE IN PRESS E. Myung et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 27 (2008) 119–125
restaurateurs can use this information in designing a menu. For example, they might highlight the names of meals or descriptive language (Wansink et al., 2001) associated with food that is generally familiar to their target market. Similarly, a large number of people considered healthfulness of food as an important attribute impacting their menu choices. This result reflects the current trend toward consumers’ interest in a healthy life style that would enhance their physical well being. Thus it is possible that emphasizing the meal items linked to a nutritional benefit (e.g., light, low, and fresh) and certain preparation methods (e.g., trans-fat free oil, fat free dressing, or grilled) might enhance consumers’ menu item selection decisions for a prix fixe menu. When considering the study results, it should also be noted that the older age group varied from the average respondent in that this age group placed higher value on the healthy food attribute than on the value for price attribute. Thus, a restaurant targeting an older population for their clientele should consider that their customers are likely to be looking for healthy food items in their prix fixe menu options, and are likely to be more willing to pay a higher cost for their menu options compared to other consumers. The study has some limitations. First, only a limited number of menu items and meal choice attributes were included in the study. Varied ranges of menu items and other environmental factors such as the consumer’s mood and the timing of the purchase may also influence consumer menu choices. Therefore, further research might include other types of foods and environmental factors. Another limitation is that the study used a convenience sample composed primarily of tourists at a tourist destination, a sample which may not represent the consumer population as a whole. Finally, the results of this study are restricted to a prix fixe menu. Therefore the results may not be generalized to other types of menus. Despite the study limitations, it is believed that the findings of the study provide some important information that restaurateurs can use to better understand how and why customers choose particular menu items to create their prix fixe meals, as well as what product attributes are valued by their customers. This knowledge can assist restaurateurs in developing more efficient marketing strategies to attract and maintain customers. References Auty, S., 1992. Consumer choice and segmentation in the restaurant industry. The Service Industries Journal 12 (3), 324–339. Baumgartner, H., 2002. Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research 29, 286–292. Beggs, S., Cardell, S., Hausman, J., 1981. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 16, 1–19. Berman, B., Evans, J.R., 2003. Pricing in retailing. Retail Management: A Strategic Approach. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
125
Clark, M.A., Wood, R.C., 1998. Consumer loyalty in the restaurant industry: a preliminary exploration of the issues. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 10 (4), 139–144. Ghitelman, D., 1994. No place like home. Meetings & Conventions 29 (13), 151. Holland, D., Wessells, C.R., 1998. Predicting consumer preferences for fresh salmon: the influence of safety inspection and production method attributes. Agricultural and Resources Economics Review 27 (4), 1–14. Ida, T., Sato, M., 2004. Conjoint analysis of consumer preferences for broadband services in Japan. Retrieved March 15, 2005 from hhttp:// www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/ida/3Kenkyuukatudou/3Workingpaper/WPfile/ 2004/Ida-Sato(E).pdfi. Kivela, J.J., 1997. Restaurant marketing: selection and segmentation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 9 (3), 116–123. Kivela, J.J., Reece, J., Inbakaran, R., 1999. Consumer research in the restaurant environment: part 2: research design and analytical method. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 (6), 269–286. Lewis, R., 1981. Restaurant advertising: appeals and consumers’ intentions. Journal of Advertising Research 21 (5), 69–74. Manski, C.F., 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8 (3), 229–254. Mark, D.R., Lusk, J.L., Daniel, M.S., 2004. Recruiting agricultural economics graduate students: student demand for program attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86 (1), 175–184. McFadden, D., 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarembka, P. (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 105–142. Monroe, K.B., 1990. Economics of price determination. Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Myung, E., Feinstein A.H., McCool, A.C., 2006. Using a discrete choice model to identify consumer meal preference within a prix fixe menu. Working paper. Posavac, S.S., Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Ho, E.A., 2002. The effect of the selective consideration of alternatives on consumer choice and attitude-decision consistency. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12 (3), 203–213. Roheim, C.A., Donath, H., 2003. The battle of taste buds and environmental convictions: which one wins. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from hhttp://www.farmfoundation.org/projects/documents/ Roheim.pdfi. Roheim, C.A., Johnston, R.J., Greer, J., Donath, H., 2005. Consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: results of a connecticut survey. Retrieved November 20, 2006, from hhttp://www.fmpc.uconn.edu/ research/other/Connecticut%20Final%20Ecolabel%20Report%2012% 2020%2004.pdfi. Schroeder, J.J., 1985. Restaurant critics respond: we’re doing our job. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 25 (4), 57–63. Shafir, E., Simonson, I., Tversky, A., 1993. Reason-based choice. Reasoning & Decision Making Cognition 49 (1–2), 11–30. Skouras, T., Avlonitis, G.J., Indounas, K.A., 2005. Economics and marketing on pricing: how and why do they differ? Journal of Product & Brand Management 14 (6), 362–374. Sproles, G.B., Kendall, E.L., 1986. A methodology for profiling consumers’ decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 20 (2), 267–279. Train, K., 1993. Theory and econometrics of qualitative choice models. Qualitative Choice Analysis: Theory, Econometrics, and an Application to Automobile Demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Wansink, B., Painter, J., Van Ittersum, K., 2001. Descriptive menu labels’ effect on sales. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42 (6), 68–72. Westbrook, R.A., Black, C.W., 1985. A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of Retailing 61 (1), 78–103.