306 Part 4 Data Preparation, Analysis, and Reporting the Results
MARKETING RESEARCH IN ACTION
Examining Restaurant Image Positions—Remington’s Steak House
About three years ago, John Smith opened Remington’s Steak House, a retail theme res-
taurant located in a large midwestern city. Smith’s vision was to position his restaurant
as a unique, theme-oriented specialty restaurant. The plan was for the restaurant to have
an excellent reputation for offering a wide assortment of high-quality yet competitively
priced entrees, excellent service, and knowledgeable employees who understand custom-
ers’ needs. The overriding goal was to place heavy emphasis on satisfying customers.
Smith used this vision to guide the development and implementation of his restaurant’s
positioning and marketing strategies. Although Smith knew how to deliver dining experience,
he did not know much about developing, implementing, and assessing marketing strategies.
Recently, Smith began asking himself some fundamental questions about his restau-
rant’s operations and the future of his business. Smith expressed these questions to an
account representative at a local marketing research firm and, as a result, decided to do
some research to better understand his customers’ attitudes and feelings. More specifically,
he wanted to gain some information and insights into the following set of questions:
1. What are the major factors customers use when selecting a restaurant, and what is the
relative importance of each of these factors?
2. What image do customers have of Remington’s and its two major competitors?
3. Is Remington’s providing quality and satisfaction to its customers?
4. Do any of Remington’s current marketing strategies need to be changed, and if so in
what ways?
To address Smith’s questions, the account representative recommended completing
an image survey using an Internet panel approach. Initial contact was made with potential
respondents using a random digit dialing telephone survey to screen for individuals who
were patrons of Remington’s as well as customers of competitors’ restaurants (including
their main competitors, Outback Steak House and Longhorn Steak House) within the mar-
ket area. Respondents must also have a minimum annual household income of $20,000,
and be familiar enough with one of the three restaurant competitors to accurately rate them.
If an individual was qualified for the study based on the screening questions, they were
directed to a website where they completed the survey.
Because this was the first time Smith had conducted any marketing research,
the consultant suggested an exploratory approach and recommended a small sample
size of 200. She said that if the results of the initial 200 surveys were helpful,
the sample size could be increased so that the findings would be more precise. The
questionnaire included questions about the importance of various reasons in choosing
a restaurant, perceptions of the images of the three restaurant competitors on the same
factors, and selected classification information on the respondents. When the researcher
reached the quota of 200 usable completed questionnaires, the sample included 86 respon-
dents who were most familiar with Outback, 65 who were most familiar with Longhorn,
and 49 who were most familiar with Remington’s. This last criterion was used to deter-
mine which of Remington’s restaurant competitors a respondent evaluated. A database
for the questions in this case is available in SPSS format at connect.mheducation.com.
The name of the database is Remingtons MRIA_essn.sav. A copy of the questionnaire is
in Exhibit 11.19.
www.MyEbookNiche.eCrater.com
Chapter 11 Basic Data Analysis for Quantitative Research 307
Exhibit 11.19 The Remington’s Steak House Questionnaire
Screening and Rapport Questions
Hello. My name is and I work for DSS Research. We are talking to individuals today/
tonight about dining out habits.
1. “Do you regularly dine at casual dining restaurants?” Yes No
2. “Have you eaten at other casual restaurants in the last six months?” Yes No
3. “Is your gross annual household income $20,000 or more?” Yes No
4. There are three casual steakhouse restaurants in you neighborhood—Outback, Longhorn,
and Remington’s. Which of these restaurants are you most familiar with?
a. Outback
b. Longhorn
c. Remington’s
d. None
If respondent answers “Yes” to the first three questions, and is familiar with one of the three
restaurants, then say:
We would like you to answer a few questions about your recent dining experiences at Outback/
Longhorn/Remington’s restaurant. The survey will only take a few minutes and it will be very
helpful in better serving restaurant customers in this area.
If the person says yes, give them instructions on how to access the website and complete the survey.
DINING OUT SURVEY
Please read all questions carefully. In the first section a number of reasons are listed that people
use in selecting a particular restaurant to dine at. Using a scale from 1 to 7, with 7 being “Very
Important” and 1 being “Not Important at All,” please indicate the extent to which a particular
selection reason is important or unimportant. Circle only one number for each selection reason.
Section 1: Importance Ratings
How important is/are in selecting a particular restaurant to dine at?
1. Large portions Not Important Very
At All Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Competent employees Not Important Very
At All Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Food quality Not Important Very
At All Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Speed of service Not Important Very
At All Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Atmosphere Not Important Very
At All Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Reasonable prices Not Important Very
At All Important
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(continued)
www.MyEbookNiche.eCrater.com
308 Part 4 Data Preparation, Analysis, and Reporting the Results
Exhibit 11.19 continued
Section 2: Perceptions Measures
Listed below is a set of characteristics that could be used to describe [Outback/Longhorn/
Remington’s]. Using a scale from 1 to 7, with 7 being “Strongly Agree” and 1 being “Strongly
Disagree,” to what extent do you agree or disagree that [Remington’s—Outback—
Longhorn’s]: (a particular restaurant’s name appeared on the screen based on the familiarity
question in the telephone screener)
7. has large portions Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. has competent employees Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. has excellent food quality Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. has quick service Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. has a good atmosphere Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
12. reasonable prices Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Section 3: Relationship Measures
Please indicate your view on each of the following questions:
13. How satisfied are you with ? Not Satisfied Very
At All Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. How likely are you to return to Definitely Will Definitely
in the future? Not Return Will Return
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. How likely are you to recommend Definitely Will Definitely Will
to a friend? Not Recommend Recommend
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. Frequency of Patronage 1 = Occasionally (Less than once a month)
How often do you eat at ? 2 = Frequently (1–3 times a month)
3 = Very Frequently (4 or more times a month)
Section 4: Classification Questions
Please circle the number that classifies you best.
17. Number of Children at Home 1 None
2 1–2
3 More than 2 children at home
www.MyEbookNiche.eCrater.com
Chapter 11 Basic Data Analysis for Quantitative Research 309
Exhibit 11.19 continued
18. Do you recall seeing any 0 No
advertisements in the last 1 Yes
60 days for Outback/Longhorn/
Remington’s?
19. Your gender 0 Male
1 Female
20. Your age in years 1 18–25
2 26–34
3 35–49
4 50–59
5 60 and Older
21. Your annual gross household income 1 $20,000–$35,000
2 $35,001–$50,000
3 $50,001–$75,000
4 $75,001–$100,000
5 More than $100,000
22. Competitors: Most familiar with _______? 1 Outback
2 Longhorn
3 Remington’s
Thank you very much for your help. Click on the submit button to exit the survey.
Exhibit 11.20 Average Importance Ratings for Restaurant Selection Factors
Researchers focused their initial analysis of the data on the importance ratings for
the restaurant selection factors. The importance ratings are variables X1–X6 in the Rem-
ington’s database. Exhibit 11.20 shows that food quality and speed of service are the two
most important factors. To create this exhibit, the click-through sequence is ANALYZE →
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS → FREQUENCIES. Highlight variables X1–X6 and move
them to the Variable(s) box. Then go to the Statistics box and check “Mean,” and then click
Continue, and OK. The least important factor is competent employees (mean = 3.12). This
does not mean employees are not important. It simply means they are less important com-
pared to the other factors included in the survey. In sum, respondents wanted good food,
fast service, and reasonable prices.
www.MyEbookNiche.eCrater.com
310 Part 4 Data Preparation, Analysis, and Reporting the Results
The next task was to examine the perceptions of the three restaurant competitors.
Using the restaurant image factors, the consultant conducted an ANOVA to see if there
were any differences in the perceptions of the three restaurants (Exhibits 11.21 and 11.22).
To create these exhibits, the click-through sequence is ANALYZE → COMPARE MEANS →
ONE-WAY ANOVA. Highlight variables X7–X12 and move them to the Dependent List
box, and then highlight variable X22 and move it to the Factor box. Next go to the Options
box, check “Descriptive,” and then click Continue, and OK.
We show the results in Exhibits 11.21 and 11.22. We provide an overview of the find-
ings from Exhibits 11.20 to 11.22 in Exhibit 11.23.
The findings of the survey were quite revealing. On the most important factor (food
quality), Remington’s rated the highest (mean = 6.86; see Exhibit 11.23), but Outback
Exhibit 11.21 One-Way ANOVA for Restaurant Competitors
Descriptives
N Mean
X7 -- Large Portions Outback 86 3.57
Longhorn 65 2.77
Remington’s 49 3.39
Total 200 3.27
X8 -- Competent Employees Outback 86 5.15
Longhorn 65 3.25
Remington’s 49 2.49
Total 200 3.88
X9 -- Food Quality Outback 86 6.42
Longhorn 65 5.12
Remington’s 49 6.86
Total 200 6.11
X10 -- Speed of Service Outback 86 4.35
Longhorn 65 3.02
Remington’s 49 2.27
Total 200 3.41
X11 -- Atmosphere Outback 86 6.09
Longhorn 65 4.35
Remington’s 49 6.59
Total 200 5.65
X12 -- Reasonable Prices Outback 86 5.50
Longhorn 65 5.00
Remington’s 49 5.49
Total 200 5.34
www.MyEbookNiche.eCrater.com
Chapter 11 Basic Data Analysis for Quantitative Research 311
Exhibit 11.22 One-Way ANOVA of Differences in Restaurant Perceptions
Exhibit 11.23 Summary of ANOVA Findings from Exhibits 11.20–11.22
Competitor Means
Attributes Rankings* Outback Longhorn Remington’s Sig.
X7—Large Portions 4 3.57 2.77 3.39 .000
X8—Competent Employees 6 5.15 3.25 2.49 .000
X9—Food Quality 1 6.42 5.12 6.86 .000
X10—Speed of Service 2 4.35 3.02 2.27 .000
X11—Atmosphere 5 6.09 4.35 6.59 .000
X12—Reasonable Prices 3 5.50 5.00 5.49 .000
N = 200 total 86 65 49 .000
*
Note: Rankings are based on mean importance ratings of attributes.
was a close second (mean = 6.42). Remington’s was also rated the highest on atmosphere
(mean = 6.59), but that factor was fifth most important. For speed of service (second
most important) and competent employees (least important), Remington’s was rated the
lowest of the three competitors.
www.MyEbookNiche.eCrater.com
312 Part 4 Data Preparation, Analysis, and Reporting the Results
Exhibit 11.24 Importance-Performance Chart for Remington’s Steak House
More Important
Quadrant B 7 Quadrant A
X9—Food Quality
X10—Speed of
Service
X12—Reasonable Prices
1 7
Poor X7—Large Excellent
Portions
X11—Atmosphere
X8—Competent
Employees
Quadrant C 3 Quadrant D
Less Important
An easy way to convey the results of an image analysis is to prepare an impor-
tance performance chart (IPC). To prepare this chart, calculate the mean values for
the importance and performance questions for each of the restaurants.Then use these
means to plot the position of each restaurant on a perceptual map. The IPC for Rem-
ington’s Steak House is shown in Exhibit 11.24. The chart shows that in terms of food
quality and prices, Remington’s is doing well. But there are several areas for improve-
ment, particularly in comparison to the competition. The competitive restaurants can
be plotted on a separate perceptual map. An IPC (perceptual map) has quadrants (A–D)
that are described as follows:
Quadrant A: Modifications are needed.
Quadrant B: Good job—no need to modify.
Quadrant C: Don’t worry—low priority.
Quadrant D: Rethink—a possible overkill.
Hands-On Exercise
1. What are other areas of improvement for Remington’s?
2. Run post-hoc ANOVA tests between the competitor groups. What additional problems
or challenges did this reveal?
3. What new marketing strategies would you suggest?
www.MyEbookNiche.eCrater.com
