A Study of Factors

A STUDY OF FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE CHOICE OF CONSUMERS

TOWARDS BUNDLED MEALS IN THE FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY

A Thesis Presented To

The Faculty of College of Business and Economics

De La Salle University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Marketing

By

Franchette Pascual-Poon

December 2005

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my family, who supported me in my academic endeavor

from start to finish. My friends and classmates in and out of the Masteral Program, who

helped me with projects, research, and for just being there for me. To the De La Salle

Faculty members and my professors, specially my thesis adviser Ms. Julie Tañada, who

imparted their wisdom and knowledge to give this paper direction. To Maxim’s Tea

House which helped me gain research material and data to hasten the pace of finishing

my paper. Last but not least, to God, to whom nothing is impossible. He is the reason

why I am so blessed, He has guided me always and He has guided me again to do my

best and accomplish this task all this I do in His name.

ABSTRACT

Limited menus, self-service, takeout orders and high turnover have long

characterized fast-food restaurants. Capturing or retaining market position is intuitively

tied to keeping up with the preference of the Filipino consumers in this study, particularly

those in Metro Manila.

The most recent trend in fast food restaurants has been toward value pricing.

While it was a novelty for a short time to McDonalds, value pricing has become a part of

almost every competitor herein referred to as “value meals” McDonalds is bringing

attention to its value menu by spending an estimated $10 million on a national advertising

campaign focused on its value meals. In the light of this situation in the food service

industry, the researcher determined that the factors affecting the choice of consumers

towards value meal is affordable price and taste. It described the profile of value meal

consumers in Metro Manila. Using Factor analysis the following clusters emerged:

experiencer, it/sports enthusiast, home centered individuals, entertainment oriented,

health conscious and those that spends their time wisely.

Findings indicated that bundled meal is preferred to ala carte menu in the fast

food outlets however there is no significant correlation between the demographics

(pertaining to age, gender, civil status and income only) except education as to the

likelihood of purchasing bundled meal.

Purchase occasion & consumption frequency showed no positive relationship to

the preference of bundled meals. Physical surrounding in the same manner was not

found to influence decision to purchase bundled meal although menu board and

promotions garnered sizeable mentions posting a majority in the tabulated survey.

Primary data was captured using focus group discussion and a structured

questionnaire was utilized through a face to face survey. The variables were analyzed

using non-parametric statistical tool Chi square, Kolmogoriv-Smirnov goodness of fit test

and contingency coefficient.

Results of this investigation are discussed to help provide specific indicators of

consumer behavior towards bundled food “value meals” which could serve as bases for

marketing strategy formulation by practitioners specifically for Maxim’s Tea House with

which the researcher has an affiliation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Acknowledgement------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ii

Abstract------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii

List of Tables------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ vii

List of Figures----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

List of Appendices------------------------------------------------------------------------------ xi

Chapters

I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND-------------------------------- 1

Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Situation Analysis------------------------------------------------------------ 4

Theoretical Framework------------------------------------------------------ 7

Operational Framework----------------------------------------------------- 9

Statement of the Problem---------------------------------------------------- 10

Objectives of the Study------------------------------------------------------- 10

Assumptions of the Study---------------------------------------------------- 12

Significance of the Study----------------------------------------------------- 12

Scope and Limitation---------------------------------------------------------- 14

Definition of Terms------------------------------------------------------------ 15

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE---------------------------------------- 18

Promotions----------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

Pricing---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

Choice Behavior---------------------------------------------------------------- 21

Bundling------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

Value Meals--------------------------------------------------------------------- 22

Conclusion----------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

III. METHODOLOGY----------------------------------------------------------------- 28

Research Design---------------------------------------------------------------- 28

Sampling Technique------------------------------------------------------------ 29

Data Collection Method-------------------------------------------------------- 35

Data Analysis Method---------------------------------------------------------- 38

IV PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS-----------------------------------47

Psychographic Profiling--------------------------------------------------------48

Dining in Fast Food Outlets----------------------------------------------------62

Meal Preference------------------------------------------------------------------65

Factors Considered in Meal Choice-------------------------------------------69

Purchase Situations--------------------------------------------------------------80

Socio-Demographic Profile----------------------------------------------------92

V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS-------------------------------101

Bibliography---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------108

Appendices-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------112

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Population of NCR cities/municipalities----------------------------------------------30

2 Sample Size Breakdown by Population Quotas--------------------------------------34

3 Variables, Hypotheses, Objectives and Statistical Treatment---------------------- 41

4 Highly Rated Activities and Interests Describing Fast Food Consumers---------50

5 Agreement – Disagreement to Lifestyle Statements--------------------------------- 51

6 Communalities---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 54

7 Total Variance Explained--------------------------------------------------------------- 56

8 Component Matrix----------------------------------------------------------------------- 57

9 Rotated Component Matrix------------------------------------------------------------- 58

10 Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet by Gender and Age Groups--------- 62

11 Fast Food Outlet Dined In Most Often------------------------------------------------ 64

12 Type of Meal Usually Ordered when Dining in a Fast Food Outlet--------------- 65

13 Chi Square One-Sample Test Statistics----------------------------------------------- 66

14 Type of Meal Ordered the Last Time Dined in a Fast Food Outlet---------------- 66

15 Fast Food Outlet Dined In the Last Time Ordered a Value Meal------------------ 67

16 Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet vs.What is Usually Ordered--------- 68

17 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics----------------------------------------------- 69

18 Factors Considered Important when Choosing a Particular Menu Item---------- 69

19 Chi Square Test Statistics: Factors Considered Important in Meal Choice------ 71

20 Importance Ratings of Factors Considered in Menu Item Selection-------------- 73

21 Kolmogorov-Smirnov One-sample Test: Importance Ratings of Meal

Choice Factors---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 74

22 Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 1------------------------------------------ 75









31 Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 10---------------------------------------- 78




35 What Influences Meal Choice when in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------- 80

36 Contingency Test Statistics: What Influences Meal Choice when in a

Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet-------------------81

37 Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order

in a Fast Food Outlet--------------------------------------------------------------------- 82

38 Contingency Test Statistics: Usual Companion when in a Fast Food

Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------------- 83

39 Usual Companion in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast

Food Outlet (Observed Frequencies vs. Expected Frequencies)------------------- 84

40 Chi Sq Test for Independence & Contingency Coefficient Test for

Correlation:Usual Companion vs.What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet--- 85

41 Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order

in a Fast Food Outlet-------------------------------------------------------------------- 86

42 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Occasion Attended when

in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet--------------- 87

43 Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a

Fast Food Outlet (Observed Frequencies vs. Expected Frequencies)------------- 88

44 Chi Sq Test for Independence and Contingency Coefficient Test for

Correlation (Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs.Usual Order)----- 89

45 Time of Day Usually Dine in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order

in a Fast Food Outlet--------------------------------------------------------------------- 89

46 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Time of Day Usually Dine

in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet--------------- 90

47 For Whom Usually Buy when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually

Order in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------------------------------------------- 91

48 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: For Whom Usually Buy

when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet-------- 92

49 Age Group vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------- 93

50 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Age Group vs. What Usually


51 Gender vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------------ 93

52 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Gender vs. What Usually


53 Civil Status vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------- 95

54 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Civil Status vs. What Usually


55 Monthly Household Income vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet----- 96

56 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Monthly Household Income

vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet--------------------------------------- 96

57 Social Class vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet------------------------ 97

58 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Social Class vs. What Usually


59 Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet---------- 98

60 Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Educational Attainment

vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet--------------------------------------- 98

61 Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet:

Observed Frequencies vs. Expected Frequencies------------------------------------99

62 Chi Sq Test for Independence & Contingency Coefficient Test for Correlation

Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet----------100

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1 Sample Value Meal Discount------------------------------------------------------------5 2 Price Comparison of Value Meals vs. Ala Carte--------------------------------------6 3 Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness----------------7 4 Operational Framework-------------------------------------------------------------------9

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

1 Socio-Economic Classification of Philippine Homes-------------------------------112

2 FGD Guide------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 113

3 Summary of Findings FGD-------------------------------------------------------------115

4 Questionnaire-----------------------------------------------------------------------------126

5 Results of Questionnaire Pre-Testing------------------------------------------------- 132

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Packaging your products and services can be a powerful marketing technique to

move more products and services and add more value. By packaging I am not talking

about how you wrap up the package. I am talking about the “package offer” you present

to your customer, sometimes called a bundled offer. A great example of this strategy is

presented to you nearly every day at fast food restaurants. When you buy a “happy meal”

for your child, you are buying a package deal. Instead of purchasing a soft drink, fries,

and burger separately, it all comes together in one happy meal package (they even throw

in a toy!). Bundling is so common in the fast food industry that 98% of all sales are

package sales. (David Frey, Power of Bundling) By combining different items to create a

so-called bundle, companies have one of the most powerful weapons available for

repositioning themselves as a provider of premium products or services.

Bundling as a promotion is not only applicable to the food service industry. It is

common in many industries; this promotion emerged in economics theory in the 1970’s

as a strategy to maximum sales. A good example is Microsoft Corporation using

bundling to great success in the 1990’s. By bundling its Microsoft Word and Excel, it

outgrew and rendered its competitors like WordPerfect obsolete. In the Philippines,

PLDT has come up with its own bundling scheme. If you subscribe to PLDT DSL and

pay right away you get a free printer with the DSL connection. When utilized properly

and in timely fashion, bundling can provide increased revenues to suppliers and added

benefits to consumers. The practice of bundling in its many forms affects primarily

consumers and providers and can be a rewarding strategy. Bundling is so simple that

even neighborhood beauty salons have come up with their own bundling promotions.

You can see their promotions written in cartolina and taped at the side of the door “free

shampoo for every haircut”. Companies can increase sales by bundling various services;

a growing trend in the Philippines, but the strategy is not as simple as throwing a couple

of products together and slapping on a discounted price. (Prof. Agarwal, State University

of New York)

Like any other kind of promotions, bundling has its benefits to the company.

First, assembling multiple products or services to sell in a package not only increases

your overall sales but also gives you the ability to sell slow moving merchandise. Just

like in some groceries when you buy Colgate toothpaste sometimes they bundle it with

Palmolive soap, bundling a market leader to sell a slow moving soap which is not the

market leader. The second benefit is it automatically upsells your customers without

having to ask for it. This is true when fast food companies are promoting a new product.

They usually bundle the new product with an old time favorite. In a sense you buy the old

time favorite but you have to get the new product as well. Third, bundling lowers your

marketing costs because it allows you to move multiple types of products or services

through one advertisement. This is evident in the new ordering board of McDonald’s.

They post big pictures of their main products, which is the hamburger, and put only one

picture of Coke and French fries on the side. By doing this they have lowered their cost

in printing because they placed the value meal menu and a la carte menu on the same

ordering board. People get to choose whether to order the burger only or get the value

meal in just one ordering board. Lastly, it promotes a higher perceived value to your

customers. Bundling gives the customer a hedonic benefit. By choosing a value meal the

customer not only gets to save a little cash but also is satisfied in the fact that he got

additional food items as well.

There are many types of bundling, from pure bundling (wherein the product is

only available as a bundle) to mixed bundling (the product is priced separately and as a

bundle). Sales rebates is another form of bundling the vendor rebates money to buyers

who meet defined spending levels. In Premium bundling, the bundle is priced higher

than the prices of the items separately. The researcher would like to concentrate on the

bundling promotion that suits the thesis most, which is mixed bundling.

The researcher will concentrate in the fast food market value meals to further

understand the intricate workings of how the customer responds to value meals. What

makes a good bundle, what are the market segments that opt for bundling? The

researcher is affiliated with Maxim’s Tea House, a fast food company, and feels that this

is the best way to help the company come up with better promotions to help increase

sales.

Situational Analysis

It does not take an economist to see that Filipinos like to eat and will spend a

major part of their incomes on food. If the economy continues its steady climb (Family

Income & Expenditure Survey FIES 2003), the food and restaurant sector will continue to

bubble with more activity. The middle class will continue to expand and it will be very

good for business. For the fast food industry the most important factor would be the

middle class that has become stronger with economic growth in recent years. Mr. Yang

of McDonalds believes the entry of new fast food restaurant is likely to level off after

some time. There will be attrition and it is the efficient ones that will stay.

Fast food is presently attracting considerable consumer interest since it is among

the top fastest growing markets. The FCB grid developed by Richard Vaughn of the

Foote, Cone & Belding Advertising Agency classifies fast food with low-involvement

“feel” products along with soaps, soft drinks and snacks. Firms must determine the

marketing strategies that they need to adjust in order to adapt successfully in this dynamic

and fast changing market.

McDonalds Corporation popularized value meals. The McSaver's Value Meals

were launched around the time of the economic crunch in the late '80s or early ‘90s. It

was a response to consumers seeking more value for their money. The idea was of

bundling items to offer a complete meal (including side item and drink) at a discount (vs.

if all items bought at an ala carte price). The commercials aired then literally depicted a

father computing his savings on calculator at the restaurant. Other fast food chains

followed. Jollibee came up with Apat na Sikat Meals, Wendy’s with their Combo Meals.

Not only those in the burger type of business but evident in the Chinese fast food with

Chowking’s Almuchow; Maxim’s Sulit Sarap and Maximeals and in the pizza sector

Greenwich’s Value Treat. This type of food bundling strategy can also be seen in the

high-end restaurants and fine dining like the hotels which comes in different names such

as executive meal or specialty for the day etc. The effectiveness in meeting consumer

needs and wants directly influences marketers profitability. The better they understand

the factors underlying consumer behavior, the better able they are to develop effective

marketing strategies to meet consumer needs.

Figure 1. Sample Value Meal Discount

Maxim’s: Maximeal #1

McDonald’s: Big Mac Meal

Jollibee’s:

Kiddie Meal

Greenwich: Pasta Value Treat

Figure 2. Price Comparison of Value Meals versus Ala Carte

Value Meals

Ala Carte

McDonald’s Cheeseburger Meal Total

P 57.00

P 57.00

McDonald’s Cheeseburger Regular Soft Drink Regular French Fries Total

P 35.00 18.00 20.00

P 73.00

Greenwich Pizza Lasagna Chicken Plate Total

P 99.00 P 99.00

Greenwich Pizza Lasagna Supreme 1 pc. Chicken Regular Soft Drink Total

P 59.00 52.00 16.00 P 127.00

Maxim’s Tea House Maximeal # 1 Total

P 65.00 P 65.00

Maxim’s Tea House ¼ Pancit Canton order ¼ Lumpia order ¼ Buchi order 8 oz. Iced Tea Total

P 31.25 36.25 6.50 20.00 P 94.00

Source: January 2005

Theoretical Framework

Figure 3. Benefit Congruency Framework of sales promotion Effectiveness

The study’s guiding concept is based on benefit congruency framework (Pierre

Chandon, Brian Wansik & Gilles Laurent 2002), which argues that a sales promotion’s

effectiveness is determined by the congruency between its benefits and those of the

promoted product. In particular, the benefit congruency framework suggest monetary

and nonmonetary promotions provide different consumer benefits and that their

effectiveness may depend on the congruence or the match that these benefits have with

the product, consumer or purchase occasion. Through a series of measurement studies,

the authors find that monetary and nonmonetary promotions provide consumers with

different levels of three hedonic benefits (opportunities for value expression,

Consumer

Product Monetary Promotion Non-monetary Promotion

Utilitarian Benefits

Hedonic Benefits

Savings Entertainment Quality Value Expression Convenience Exploration

entertainment, & exploration) and three utilitarian benefits (savings, higher product

quality, & improved shopping convenience). The benefits are defined as follows: savings

benefits would refer to the monetary savings that the sales promotions provide. However

sales promotions may also enable consumers to upgrade to higher-quality products by

reducing the price of otherwise unaffordable products (quality benefit). Sales promotions

can also reduce consumer search and decision costs and therefore improve shopping

convenience (convenience benefit). Furthermore, sales promotions can enhance

consumers’ self-perception of being smart or good shoppers and provide an opportunity

to reaffirm their personal values (value expression benefit) Because they create an ever

changing shopping environment, sales promotion can also provide stimulation and help

fulfill consumers’ need for information and exploration (exploration benefit). Finally,

sales promotions are often simply fun to see or use (the entertainment benefit). According

to most models of consumer choice, consumers evaluate products on the basis of the

benefits they provide weighted by the importance of these benefits. The weighting of the

benefits varies across products, purchase occasions and individuals (Eagy and Chaiken

1993; Meyer & Kahn 1991).

The various importance of benefits sought implies in turn, that the effectiveness

of a sales promotion is higher when its benefits are congruent with those sought for the

purchase occasion. Simply stated, the benefit congruency principle proposes that sales

promotions are more effective in influencing brand choice when they provide the benefits

that have the largest weight in the evaluation of a purchase alternative.

Operational Framework

With the hypothesis that value meal is preferred in the fastfood restaurants in the

key cities of Metro Manila and there are factors affecting the choice or preference of

value meals, the schematic diagram below has been developed to show the operational

framework of the study. This frameworks integrates the independent variables, such as

the consumer characteristic profile based on demographics particularly age, gender,

income & civil status; Psychographics covering activity and interest only and behavioral

pertaining to purchase occasion and consumption frequency that maybe related to

preference of value meal to ala carte food item.

Figure 4. Operational Framework

Mediating Variables

Value Meal

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Factors for Choosing Value Meals

(Hedonic / Utilitarian Benefits )

• Demographics (age, sex, civil status income) • Psychographics (activity and interest) • Behavioral (purchase occasion & consumption frequency)

Statement of the Problem

The primary objective of this study is to gather reasons or factors in choosing

value meals. It will also explore and illustrate consumer behavior and preferences in

selecting value meals in the foodservice industry.

Objectives of the Study

Specifically, this study has the following objectives:

1. To find out the preference of the consumer between value meals and items bought

at an ala carte price.

2. To determine the factors why consumers choose value meals.

3. To identify the profile of a value meal consumer in the key cities of Metro Manila

3.1 Demographics ( age, sex, income and status)

3.2 Psychographics (activities and interests)

3.3 Behavioral (purchase occasion)

Below are the Hypotheses to be tested in the study:

H1: Consumers visiting a fast food restaurant are more likely to purchase all forms of

bundled product offers (value meal only, value meals and other menu items) over an

individual selection of items in the menu.

H2a: Affordable pricing is a significant factor influencing consumers in meal choice.

H2b: Ease of Ordering is a significant factor influencing consumers in meal choice.

H3: Consumers belonging to younger age brackets (15-25) are more likely to choose

bundled meals than their older (26-59) counterparts.

H4: Consumers from middle to lower income households are more likely to choose

bundled meals than those from upper income households.

H5: Meal Choice is largely influenced by promotions such as discounts and

giveaways.

H6: Consumers dining alone are more likely to choose bundled meals. Consumers

dining with family/friend are more likely to order a la carte menu items.

H7: Consumers dining in fast food outlets for no special occasion are more likely to

order bundled meals. Consumers celebrating special occasions are more likely to

order ala carte menu items.

H8: Consumers dining during major day segments (breakfast, lunch, dinner) will

more likely order bundled meals than consumers dining at odd hours.

H9: Consumers buying meals for themselves will more likely opt for bundled meals

than consumers who buy for others.

H10: Consumers who regularly (i.e. more frequent than once a month) dine in fast

food outlets are more likely to order bundled meals than consumers who are not

regular fast food outlet patrons.

Assumptions of the Study

1. The sample population drawn from major malls in the key cities of Metro Manila

is representative of the general trend since most fast food restaurants are located

inside the malls.

2. Choice and purchase likelihood rating measures consumer preference.

3. Fast food consumption is fairly homogenous relative to socio-economic criterion.

Such that quota or screening for respondents did not include specific

demographics on social classes rather it is classified largely based on their

incidence of falling into the category upon tabulation of results.

4. The pre-tested questionnaire identified and eliminated potential problems in the

administration of the actual survey.

Significance of the Study

Significance to Industry/Business. Manila is fast becoming a mecca of sorts for

food. Not too long ago Manila was the sort of city that foreign restaurant chains skipped

in favor of Hong Kong, Bangkok or Jakarta. The turnaround in the Philippine economy,

its growing middle class and its vibrant and competitive local entrepreneurship base have

changed all that. Those who have been in the food business for a long time say things are

heating up. With the proliferation of restaurants in the food industry, everybody both

foreign and local is vying for the disposal income of the Filipino. In the public speech

during the conference “The Art of Marketing Warfare” in October 2003 , Jollibee’s

Marketing VP made mention of five factors for their success : 1. excellent products 2.

friendly, efficient service i.e. service with a smile in line with the Bee happy campaign 3.

constant improvement with focus on store design 4. distinct and ownable brand identity

and 5. superior value for money. Bundling in the fastfood restaurant referred to in this

study as value meal is the fifth and essential factor for success. Once a promotion which

is construed with a given time frame, it is now a fixed part of the menu selection offered

by most fastfood restaurant. Only it comes in different names such as value treat,

executive meals, combo meals, sulit sarap meals, apat na sikat meals and many more.

Franchisees, entrepreneurs and investors should see much opportunity in offering the

right selection and combination of value meals.

Significance to Managers in the Fast Food Sector. Fast food market is a top

growing market providing economic values that depend on income growth levels and

respond to social changes (time saving). Studying how and when a bundling promotion

work, the framework will have implication on improving effectiveness of a bundling as a

promotional tool as they increase their presence in the marketing mix.

Significance to the Academe. This study may serve as a reference for students in

their future research work. Bundling is a marketing strategy not only applicable to the

food industry but to other areas of business as well such as the airline, telecom ,

accounting services and a host of businesses. As for the teachers, this study may be used

as a guide and as an example to clearly explain to their students the topic related to the

study.

Scope and Limitations

The study primarily probed the factors for choosing value meals and non-value

meal items. Secondly, it determined the profile of value meal and non-value meal

consumers as to demographics pertaining only to age, gender, income and civil status;

psychographic characteristics defined by lifestyle variables: activities and interests; and

behavioral pattern which focused on purchase situations and fast food consumption

frequency. The researcher has identified that purchase situations are characterized by

displays (physical surrounding), social surroundings (who are present when purchasing

value meal, the occasion), time (breakfast, lunch, between meals, dinner) and task

definition (purchasing for oneself or for the family, friends). Thirdly it explains the

correlation existing between the profile of the consumer and the reasons for preference to

value meal. Finally the researcher examines out preference between value meal and

items bought at an ala carte price in the key cities of Metro Manila.

The primary data gathered to fulfill the objectives of the study are focus group

discussion and a face to face survey (using questionnaire) of male and female

respondents belonging to the age group of 15 to 60 years old. Qualified respondents are

screened on their recency of food outlet patronage. That is, they must have eaten in a fast

food outlet or a casual dining restaurant in the past three months.

Due to the large scope of the food industry affecting the financial resources and

time constraint, the researcher limited the study to consumers in the fast food and casual

dining restaurants only.

The study employed the use of quota and purposive sampling, a non-probability

type of sampling since the researcher is affiliated with a fast food chain (Maxims Tea

House). This is the venue where qualified respondents may be intercepted for interview.

Survey will be collected from four key cities in Metro Manila where Maxims has an

outlet. Simple random method with the aid of table of random numbers was used to

determine the areas where the survey will be conducted. These are Makati (Glorietta

Mall), Mandaluyong ( SM Megamall), San Juan (Greenhills) and Quezon City (SM

NorthEdsa Mall). The malls in the Philippines host the most number of fasfood

restaurant outlets and the researcher has chosen the flagship malls in Manila where

people from different walks of life is represented. The area of coverage is limited due to

funding shortage to support a bigger-scale research.

Definition of Terms

Fastfood -- is a multi-billion dollar industry which is continuing to grow at a rapid pace

in the early 21st century in many countries as fewer people cook at home. Fast food is

often highly processed and prepared in an industrial fashion, i.e., with standard

ingredients and methodical cooking and production methods. It is served usually in

cartons or bags in a rapid manner in order to minimize costs. Fast food is usually finger

food that can be eaten quickly and without cutlery. Fast food often consists of fish and

chips, sandwiches, pitas, hamburgers, breaded chicken, french fries, chicken nuggets,

tacos, pizza etc.

Value Meal -- a type of mixed bundling strategy. A combination of food and drinks and

to some a mixture of food from appetizer to dessert at a discounted price when compared

to buying the items individually in a menu selection.

Bundled Meal –popularly termed value meal. As the term value meal is coined by

McDonalds. The generic term to refer to package or combination of food and drinks at a

discounted price.

Bundling – is a marketing strategy under promotions that cleverly combines different

items to create a so called bundle; putting together related products for sale at a single

price.

Mixed bundling – the bundled products and individual products are available for

purchase. McDonald’s fast food restaurant’s Value Meals are an excellent example of

this bundle. It is the most common form of bundling.

Consumers – one that consumes; someone who utilizes economic goods for the

satisfaction of human wants. In this study the consumers referred to are those belonging

to the age group of 15-60 years old, has eaten in a fastfood restaurant in the past three

months and a resident of Metro Manila.

Low involvement – purchases that are less important or risky, and are not worth the

consumer’s time and effort; the choice is characterized by limited decision-making.

Hedonic Values – satisfaction is based on pleasurable experiences and emotions that

result from using the product; the consumer makes an overall judgment based on the total

consumption experience. Benefits that are noninstrumental, experiential, and affective;

they are appreciated for their own sake, without further regard to their practical purposes.

Utilitarian Values – Primarily instrumental, functional, and cognitive. They provide

customer value by being a means to an end. Satisfaction is determined by the degree to

which the product meets expectations on functional attributes such as savings gained

when purchasing a value meal.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Promotions

Are monetary savings the only explanation for consumer response to a sales

promotion? If not how does the different consumer benefits of a sales promotion

influence its effectiveness? By doing a series of measurement studies, Pierre Chandon,

Brian Wansink and Gilles Laurent (2000) found out that monetary and nonmonetary

promotions provide consumers with different levels of three hedonic benefits namely

opportunities for value expression, entertainment, and exploration; and three utilitarian

benefits obtained savings, higher product quality, and improved shopping convenience.

To answer the second question, the authors develop a benefit congruency framework,

which argues that a sales promotion’s effectiveness is determined by the utilitarian or

hedonic nature of the benefits it delivers and the congruence these benefits have with the

promoted product. The research showed that for high equity brands, monetary

promotions are more effective for utilitarian products than for hedonic products. There is

ample empirical support for benefit congruency framework, in the literature on

persuasion (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). For example, Edwards (1990) finds that hedonic

information on the smell of a beverage is more persuasive than utilitarian information on

its storage requirements when the attitude toward the beverage is based on hedonic

benefits (taste) than when it is based on utilitarian benefits (nutrition). Theories of

attitude change can account for the effects of benefit congruency. Functional theories of

attitudes contend that persuasion is enhanced when a persuasive message emphasizes the

utilitarian or hedonic function that provides the motivational basis of the attitude to be

modified (Kat 1960). Similarly, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) argue that persuasions are

more effective when they address the salient beliefs underlying the attitude to be

changed, that is the beliefs that are the most important antecedents of an attitude. Finally,

the compatibility principle (Tversky, Sattath and Slovic 1988) suggests that consumers

weight more heavily the dimension of an object (say its utilitarian benefits) when it is

compatible with or similar to their goal (say choosing between two utilitarian alternatives

as opposed to choosing between two hedonic alternatives).

A primary motivation for offering price promotions is to stimulate sales of regular

price merchandise. In the study conducted by Francis J. Mulhern and Daniel T. Padgett

(1995) they matched actual purchases of individual shoppers with an in-store survey to

determine the relationship between regular price and promotion purchasing. The results

showed that there is a positive relationship between regular price and promotion

purchases, because among shoppers who identify the promotion as one of their reasons

for visiting the store, ¾ make regular price purchases as well. ¼ of the shoppers were

there to purchase the promotion only.

Pricing

Another study “Pricing a bundle of Products or Services: The Case of Nonprofits”

(1996) stated that pure bundling or mixed bundling is the choice of profit maximizing

firms. Mixed bundling still being the most preferred bundling strategy, mixed bundling

means the product can be priced separately and as a bundle. This is further proven by the

journal “Transaction Decoupling: How Price Bundling Affects the Decision to

Consume”, in this journal by Dilip Soman and John T. Gourville (2001) it states that

price bundling is widespread; manufacturers and retailers routinely offer multiple

products for a single, bundled price. These authors built on the sunk cost literature by

Thaler (1980) and predicted that price bundling leads to a disassociation or “decoupling”

of transaction costs and benefits, and decreasing a consumer’s likelihood of consuming a

paid-for service. The authors show that the decreased attention to sunk costs brought

about by price bundling can be either cognitively driven or motivationally driven.

Bradlow and Rao (2000) merged an established methodology the “Bayesian

Modeling” and an existing utility model Farquhar and Rao’s (1976) balance model. The

balance model explicitly considers how a decision maker categorizes various attributes

and uses them in evaluating a collection. They wanted to describe individual choices

among assortments of multiattributed items. This approach is ideally suited to

developing an understanding of the differences in choice processes of individual decision

makers. Such an application is particularly useful in the area of direct target marketing.

The study indicates that consumers are heterogeneous: Some customers are price

sensitive and unresponsive to the attributes, and others are sensitive to the features of the

product but do not necessarily want more of these features. This proves that some

consumers are price sensitive to bundles and others are more keen on what is included in

the bundle, just like in choosing the Maximeals the researcher would like to know

whether consumers are more interested in the price or what products are included in the

meal.

Choice Behavior

Trijp, Hoyer and Inman addressed two key issues that have received inadequate

attention in the choice behavior literature on variety seeking. First, they separated true

variety-seeking behavior from derived varied behavior. Second, they hypothesized

variety-seeking behavior to be a function of the individual difference characteristic of

need for variety and product category-level characteristics that interact to determine the

situations in which variety seeking is more likely to occur relative to repeat purchasing

and derived varied behavior. They tested their hypotheses in a field study which tested

both the intensity of brand switching and the underlying motives for their switching

behavior. The results showed that variety seeking behavior does not occur for all

products to the same extent and identify several product category-level determinants of

variety seeking behavior. It did not state which products have the most effect in variety

seeking behavior.

Bundling

Bundling is a pricing strategy which takes many forms, but its principal

characteristic is offering a package consisting of two or more goods and services, or a

combination of these, that makes the main product more attractive to consumers than

purchasing the goods separately. Sellers try to influence consumer preferences; demand

for the product should be price inelastic. Benefits in favor of bundling include demand

inducement or revenue enhancement, improvement in cost via better scales of economies

and faster movement of inventory. The market presents varied forms of demand

relationships among clearly identifiable consumer classes; one frequently encounters

mixed bundling, wherein the bundled products can be sold separately or jointly. Delfino

and Tanchuco (Manila Bulletin 8/30/2004)

Bundling unquestionably raises profits. The common marginal cost of the bundle

insures the profitability of bundling, as long as prices are chosen appropriately. Profits

are better with the modified bundling or mixed bundling than with none. Jannett Highfill

(International Advances in Economic Research 5/1/2001)

Value Meals

Value meals, they are the rage among students and the favorite of ordinary

salaried employees. The inexpensive and popular value meals are being offered by

fastfood chains, restaurants, cafeterias and lately, even by exclusive proprietary clubs. It

is the answer to the yearnings of weary housewives whose everyday budget for the kids

at school and the working husband is being stretched far too long. Value meals are a

combination of two or more foodstuff plus, a cola or juice drink. Value meals were first

introduced to shoppers in the late 1980s they were known as combo meals then, the

promotional idea immediately caught the fancy of diners. Suppliers like soft drink

companies, bakeries, plastic cups and foam packs also enjoyed big volume orders from

their traditional institutional clients due to value meals. (Manila Bulletin 9/1/2002)

Research show that consumers rate Value Meals as the second most important reason for

selecting a quick service restaurant, first reason is restaurant location, and consumers who

purchase value meals generally seize the opportunity to upsize. (Mediaweek 10/18/1993)

Offering value meals sandwich or entrée, chips or a side, plus a beverage and maybe even

dessert, is the most effective way to increase revenue in corporate dining facilities,

according to a recent study. Other than value meals operators say the best way to

improve is via offering coupons, posting limited-run menu items, implementing cashless

payment, delivery to offices, and call-in ordering for take-out. (Food Service Director

2002)

The Hamburger and sandwich segment of the fast food industry posted sales

increases of 5% and 7%, respectively, for the fiscal year ending August 1994, according

to a report by the NPD Group Inc. Major industry trends include continued reduction of

operational costs, offering value-priced combination meals, and emphasizing basic

burgers and other items. While the burger segment as a whole did well, the performance

figures from many companies were not so rosy. Competition, already cutthroat, has

intensified, with everyone now pitching super value prices. (Restaurant Business 1995)

Here is a look at how the Value Meals are doing in the fastfood market. What are

the reasons for its success, and how much of company sales are from value meals.

Burger King, moved to further boost value meal sales, launched 3 new value meals

catering to the consumers’ need for choices. Value Meals are significantly important

menu offerings as they represent approximately 40% of main menu purchases and 51%

of Burger King sales. Value Meals had been introduced to the stores since 1994 and is

the product offering the greatest cost savings to consumers while also offering a greater

profit margin for restaurants, according to Dana Frydman, senior director, product

marketing for Burger King Corp. (Mediaweek 10/18/1993)

McDonald’s contacted its ad roster shops to dole out an estimated $10 million on

a national promotional campaign related to its Value Meals. McDonald’s Value Meals

accounts for 45% of the total sales in the stores. (Brandweek 12/13/2001) The Big Mac

Value Meal alone in mid 1993 claimed that purchases of its Value Meals packages

accounted for 45% of all the system’s transactions. (America’s Top 2000 Brands 1993)

Simplicity is the new way for McDonald’s Corp., simplify its core business, expand

restaurant concepts and create retail opportunities, all the while improving customer

service and satisfaction. McDonald’s is ramping up on a consumer rewards program; it is

aimed at tracking customer behavior to improve customer frequency. Customers visiting

a McDonald’s outlet will gain points toward prizes from partners such as Walt Disney

Co. and Mattel. The company is considering using the program for boosting sales for

after school and on weekends. (Advertising Age 4/2/2001).

Wendy’s and Hardee’s started bundling specially priced meal combos. They have

committed themselves to specialty burgers and sandwiches, pitched more as “real food”.

At mid year 1993, Wendy’s showed 6% growth and Hardee’s sales increased 13% from

last year where the overall quick service restaurant segment grew comparatively at just

over 3%. (America’s Top 2000 Brands 1993) Wendy’s core strategy of value pricing

balanced with premium sandwich offers has proved a winner. Now they are accelerating

unit expansion, continuing improvement of existing operations and of their franchising

system. Hardee’s was among the last of the burger chains to succumb to the value menu

lure, its campaign “Choice Values” was launched last June. Its Choice Values response

features a two-tiered menu of 99cents sandwiches and $1.99 complete meals, including a

double cheeseburger one piece chicken and biscuit, and junior chicken filet, augmented

by small fries and small drinks.

Jack-in-the-Box also introduced value meal offerings in 1994, under the title

Supreme Value Combos. The company is stressing the combo meals’ convenience

aspect rather than strictly the price point.

By the ends of summer Pizza Hut has lined up a four stage entertainment marketing

initiative to take its marketing schedule through the end of the year with a cross

promotion with home video rental giant Blockbuster Entertainment, Disney video sell

through megapromo with Aladdin, a link-up with Time Warner’s Home Box Office,

offering a free month of the cable movie service with purchase, and a Christmas Kid Pack

promotion tied to Steven Spielberg’s more kid friendly We’re Back: A Dinosaur Story.

Pizza Hut, used its Blockbuster and HBO ties logically to promote home delivery of its

new Bigfoot mega-pizza, an effort to steal share from steadily rising Little Caesars,

whose basic point of different for years has been its “Pizza! Pizza!” two pies for the price

of one offer. (America’s Top 2000 Brands 1993)

Domino’s Pizza is introducing two new value meals “Pepperoni Mania Value

Meals” these Value Meals offer two combinations of pizzas, side orders and drinks.

Allan Ang, Dommal Food Services General Manager, said, “This is our way of saying

‘thanks’ to our loyal customers. We also hope to attract new customers.” The value meal

saves the customers 16 cents as compared with when they order the items separately.

(New Straits Times 10/12/2002)

Conclusion

The acceptance of value meals is spreading nationwide and popularity is drawing

a crowd appeal. These days it is common to see media advertisements and printed

handouts heralding various combinations of dishes and drinks, all in a irresistibly lower

price range. “It used to be a once of month event. But now we have these promotions

everyday because that is what diners and customers hunger for” exults Bob Cardoni

president of Cubao food stallholders association. (lifted from Manila Bulletin Editorial

September 1, 2002).

So, whether one is in the mood for a combo meal in Quiapo, Greenbelt Makati or

at Fort Bonifacio, the economies of scale of value meals are proving to be cost-effective

proposition to patrons as well as entrepreneurs. Marketers must emphasize the value or

benefit of what they are offering and therefore it is best to understand the underlying

factors affecting the choice of value meals in order to be relevant and competitive in

strategy.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

There are three generally recognized categories of research based on the nature of

information to be gathered, namely, exploratory, descriptive and causal (Naresh

Malhotra 2004; Lehmann, Gupta and Steckel 1998). This study employs the first two

categories.

There is, sadly, a noted absence of substantial studies in the local food service

industry specifically investigating the value meal phenomenon that can be publicly and

freely accessed. Fast food outlets like Jollibee and McDonald’s do have studies of this

sort but are largely for internal use only. These research efforts are generally

commissioned to third party research agencies that would automatically render such

studies as proprietary to these fast food client companies. While there may be syndicated

fast food industry studies conducted by research agencies, such may only be acquired via

purchase and with a high price tag attached. Thus, the exploratory approach lays the

groundwork intended to uncover initial data patterns or characteristics of variables

(Edralin 2000) that should serve as bases for further investigative efforts. These data

patterns may be translated to observed behavioral responses of the study’s target market

relative to value meal consumption, e.g., what drives them to choose a value meal

offering among all other menu items or what degree of importance is attributed to each of

these factors on the eventual meal choice.

This study moves the research initiative a notch higher by utilizing the descriptive

approach with the exploratory research results serving as valuable inputs. As the name

suggests, this phase intends to accurately describe the variables of interest as identified in

the study (Naresh Malhotra 2004), namely, purchase likelihood, factors considered in

choosing value meals, value meal consumer profile as defined by demographics,

psychographics and behavior. The status quo is presented through a survey and the

relationships among variables are established through correlation studies

(http://www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged-5980a/5980/newpage110.htm,

June 2005) --- both of which are undertaken in this study.

Sampling Technique

The target population as defined by the study included every male and female consumer

residing in Metro Manila with ages ranging from 15 to 60 years old. An additional

selection criterion was included based on recency of food outlet patronage stipulating that

all respondents must have dined in a fast food outlet or casual dining restaurant within the

past 3 months to qualify. The 3-month time frame ensures that respondents’ dining out

experiences is current enough for them to remember when prompted with specific

questions. Note that no further requirement was made as to a respondent’s economic

status (i.e., must belong to classes AB and C or only to classes C and D) as the study

assumed fast food consumption to be fairly homogeneous relative to said demographic

criterion. The study, however, will still have to classify respondents as belonging to a

particular economic status but largely based on their incidence of “falling into” these

classes. The classification guide is given in Appendix A.

Given the need to strike a balance between cost and efficiency considerations, this

study chose to generate non-probability samples via quota sampling. Quotas were set

based on population proportions defined by the selected age brackets and gender. Of the

total 17 cities and municipalities in Metro Manila, the number of cities/municipalities to

include in the survey was judgmentally determined to be 4 as sufficient to represent the

target population. The latest population data (2000) from the National Statistics Office

(http://www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease-

/2003/pr0312tx.html, June 2005) were used as basis for computing pertinent population

proportions as tabulated below.

Table 1. Population of NCR cities/municipalities

Distributed by Age Group and Gender

TOTAL COUNT PERCENT AGE GROUP

Male Female % Male Female

15-24 972,219 1,115,576 32% 31% 34%

25-34 919,353 953,877 29% 29% 29%

35-44 665,465 672,135 21% 21% 20%

45-60 569,424 579,515 18% 18% 17%

Total 3,126,461 3,321,103

% 48% 52% 100% 100% 100%

Thus, this study’s sampled base comprised an almost equal number of males and females,

48% vs. 52%, respectively. The 15-34 age bracket likewise constituted a majority at 61%

of the respondents. This trend was also evident when looking at gender breakdown per

age group where males aged 15-34 represented 60% of the total male quota vis-à-vis their

female counterparts at 63%.

Additionally, given the study‘s assumption that samples drawn from malls are

representative of the general trend on fast food consumption, a food chain, Maxim’s Tea

House, was chosen as the central location where the mall intercepts will be generated.

Maxim’s was chosen owing to the researcher’s affiliation with this food chain, thereby

relaxing the usual requirement of getting a permit to conduct a study within the food

outlets’ premises. But beyond mere convenience, selecting respondents who opted to dine

in a casual dining restaurant over a fast food outlet is expected to generate richer views

on and stronger reasons for finally deciding to order a bundled product offering. This

assumption is based on an observation that a casual dining restaurant’s menu offers

infinitely more food choices than those of a fast food outlet --- with the bundled items far

less in number and different in composition than all other menu items. On the other

hand, bundled food items from fast food outlets are not that much different over other

individual menu items such that the main course in a bundled offer is very much the same

item individually listed on the menu board. When a consumer is presented with

numerous food items to choose from with bundled meals representing a lesser slice of the

pie, it naturally follows that the probability of finally opting for ala carte items far

outweighs a bundled meal choice. Thus, for consumers to order bundled product

offerings in a food outlet that serves more ala carte items is definitely an event that may

not be attributed to just chance variation. This scenario will be explored more fully

among consumers coming from a casual dining restaurant (such as Maxim’s) than in a

fast food outlet (such as Jollibee or McDonald’s).

The sampling frame consisted of a listing of all Maxim’s branches within Metro

Manila. The four Maxim’s sites that were included in the survey were selected through

simple random sampling via a Table of Random Numbers resulting into outlets located in

the cities of Quezon City, Mandaluyong, Makati and San Juan as the study’s areas of

coverage. Thus, intercepts were conducted at a Maxim’s branch inside the following

malls:

1. SM City North Edsa ……………. Quezon City

2. SM Megamall …………………... Mandaluyong

3. Glorietta ………………………… Makati

4. Greenhills Shopping Center ……. San Juan

Given that major malls are melting pots of consumers from all over the

metropolis, the above locations should be able to generate a cross-section of value meal

patrons from which this study will be drawing insights.

Note, however, that this does not imply a residence restriction on sample

generation, i.e., a respondent will still qualify even if he/she resided outside these cities

but within Metro Manila as long as he/she falls within the age and gender quotas to be

met.

Estimation of the sample size took into account the following basic considerations

(Naresh Malhotra 2004; Lehmann, Gupta and Steckel 1998; Roberto 1987):

1. Confidence level (z) – This represents the error in the estimation process. This z

value is indicative of the confidence with respect to the accuracy of the estimate

of the variable of interest yielded by the sample data. That is, a generally

preferred 95% confidence level (with z = 1.96 which this study adopted) says that

this study can be wrong 5% of the time in accepting the estimated proportion from

the sample as the true proportion.

2. Margin of error (MOE) – This corresponds to the error of the estimate. The

generally tolerated MOE of 5% (as this study is willing to tolerate) says that an

estimated proportion as a measure of the variable of interest derived from the

sample data will approximate the true proportion within limits of +5%.

3. Variability – Data variability is a measure of the degree of homogeneity of the

population relative to the variable(s) under study. Measured in proportion, this

takes the form “p(1-p),” where p is the proportion this study is interested in.

However, since no prior variability estimate is available (e.g., standard deviation),

the study took a conservative stance and assumed that maximum variability

existed in value meal consumption among target consumers. Given that p is a

proportion, its values range between 0 and 1. Thus, assigning values to p within

this range and computing variability of p(1-p), the maximum point is reached

when p = .50. The study, thus, adopted a p of 0.50.

Using the sample size formula below with the foregoing considerations in mind

yields a sample size of approximately 400 respondents. This is further broken down

(Table 2) applying the population proportions from Table 1.

n = z2 [p(1-p)] = (1.96)2 (.50)(1-.50)

(MOE)2 (.05)2

n = 384 � 400 respondents

Table 2. Sample Size Breakdown by Population Quotas

PERCENT SAMPLE SIZE AGE GROUP

Male Female Male Female

15-24 31% 34% 60 69

25-34 29% 29% 57 59

35-44 21% 20% 41 42

45-60 18% 17% 35 36

Total 400 respondents ……….. 194 206

% 48% 52%

As a final note, the breakdown per city followed a proportionate distribution

where the 400 sample size was equally distributed among the selected Maxim’s branches

in Metro Manila. Thus, there were 100 respondents interviewed in each Maxim’s branch

located in the cities of Mandaluyong, Makati, San Juan and Quezon City.

Data Collection Method

Primary data gathering is the selected data collection method executed in two

phases involving both the exploratory and descriptive research approaches.

The initial phase was exploratory through the focus group discussion (FGD)

intended to elicit responses to be used as options for close-ended questions in the second

phase of the study. Two sessions were conducted with both panels representing the target

market based on age, gender, past 3-month product usage criterion and past 4-week fast

food visit. Panel membership was made up of about 8-10 respondents per group. The

first group consisted of the younger set of male and female respondents from AB and C

households whose ages ranged from 15 to 25 and the second group comprised their older

male and female counterparts belonging to the 26 to 59 age bracket similarly from classes

AB and C. The discussion guide (Appendix B) included questions that were asked

during the large-scale survey phase. The sessions were conducted on August 13, 2005.

The exploratory research report and transcriptions of the actual discussions are provided

in Appendix C.

The descriptive phase of the study was executed through a survey using face-to-face

interviews conducted inside selected Maxim’s Tea House outlets (given the researcher’s

affiliation with this food chain and the appropriateness of choosing a casual dining

restaurant over a fast food outlet as the central location for respondent generation as

previously discussed) located in Metro Manila malls earlier enumerated. Prospective

respondents were intercepted and invited to participate in the study. Those willing

enough to spare a few minutes of their time were interviewed either while waiting for

their orders (if the order takes long to be served) or right after dining (if the order is

served almost immediately). Fieldwork ran during August 31 – September 30, 2005.

The interviews were aided by a structured questionnaire consisting of the

following four major parts (Roberto 1987) which this study adhered to (Appendix D):

1. The introduction portion;

2. The screening portion;

3. The core portion; and

4. The classification portion.

The introduction was brief and direct as it disclosed to prospective respondents

that the interviewer is conducting a survey on fast food outlets in the area and that the

interview should not take more than 15 minutes.

The screening portion ensured that the predetermined respondent criterion based

on recency of food outlet patronage (must have dined in a fast food outlet or casual

dining restaurant within the past 3 months) and sample size quotas based on age, gender

and city proportions will be met with strict accuracy. Note that the term “city

proportions” here refers to the sample size broken down equally into 100 respondents

generated from each mall outlet enumerated earlier (not respective population

proportions).

The core portion represented by sectional subgroups B-E intended to measure the

identified variables of interest, i.e., Section B – Preference for specific menu items and

fast food outlets, Section C – Factors considered important in meal choice (initially asked

through a close-ended question and subsequently through the use of a rating scale

measuring attitude toward each meal decision factor), Section D – Purchase situations (as

measured by questions on influence of physical surroundings on actual purchase, usual

companion, occasion at time of purchase, usual time of day when visiting fast food

outlets, for whom usually buy) and Section E – Psychographic profile as measured by the

degree of agreement along a 5-point rating scale to statements describing activities and

interests. Showcards (visual aids handed to respondents that usually contain rating

scales, answers to close-ended questions, list of attributes) were used to facilitate the

interview process and to ensure that the respondent understood each question clearly.

The final portion, classification, collected demographic information per

respondent (e.g., socio-economic class, educational attainment, occupation, working

status, civil status, household income, and ownership of facilities in the home) as

additional profiling variables.

All questions were phrased in English with corresponding Filipino translations to

cater to all types of respondents with seeming preference for either language.

Questionnaire pretesting was likewise done following Roberto’s “rule of five” (1987),

i.e., pretesting with no more than five respondents (Appendix E for results). All

respondents from both the FGD and survey phases received tokens.

Data Analysis Method

The absence of formal studies on value meal consumption in the local fast food

industry suggests that the data drawn from this study’s sampled base of respondents

cannot be assumed to have originated from a population with a known distribution (e.g.,

normal or binomial). Thus, nonparametric (or “distribution-free”) techniques of

hypothesis testing were most appropriate for analyzing this type of data. The following

three tests were used in proving whether or not there existed relationships between

variables under study:

1. Chi square (�2) one-sample test

Use of this test is ideal for testing the “goodness-of-fit” between the observed

number of responses per category vis-à-vis an expected number based on the null

hypothesis (Siegel 1956). This is also appropriate when a nominal level of

measurement is achieved such that observations fall into discrete categories

enabling data enumeration (for instance, consumption and non-consumption of

value meals – Q#B3; factors considered in meal choice – Q#C1).

2. Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test

Similar to the chi square one-sample test, this test is also ideal for testing

“goodness-of-fit” between the observed distribution of sample values vs. values

under the null hypothesis. The difference between both tests is that the

Kolmogorov-Smirnov one-sample test takes into account rank ordering which,

therefore, requires an ordinal level of measurement at the very least (Siegel 1956).

This requirement is met as importance ranks based on a 5-point importance scale

were assigned by respondents to a specific meal decision factor (Q#C2).

3. Contingency coefficient C

This test is ideal for measuring the extent of relation between 2 sets of attributes

consisting of an unordered series of frequencies (Siegel 1956). The level of

measurement needs to be nominal for each variable of interest at the very least.

Specific to the study, these variable pairs are as follows:

a. Meal preference vs. Age groupings (Q#B3 and Q#A2)

b. Meal preference vs. Gender (Q#B3 and Gender Screening – Questionnaire

Section A)

c. Meal preference vs. Civil status (Q#B3 and Civil Status – Questionnaire

Section F)

d. Meal preference vs. Monthly household income (Q#B3 and Monthly

household income – Questionnaire Section F)

e. Meal preference vs. each of the following Purchase situations as

characterized by:

i. Physical surroundings (Q#B3 and Q#D1)

ii. Social surroundings (Q#B3 and Q#D2)

iii. Occasion (Q#B3 and Q#D3)

iv. Time segment (Q#B3 and Q#D4)

v. Task definition (Q#B3 and Q#D5)

f. Meal preference vs. Fast food consumption frequency (Q#B1 and Q#D5)

g. Meal preference vs. Psychographic variables (Q#B3 and Section E)

Factor analysis was also employed in profiling these respondents according to

their activities and interests. Respondents were handed 13 psychographic statements that

may or may not describe them and were asked to state their degree of agreement using a

5-point agree-disagree rating scale (Questionnaire Section E). As the objective of factor

analysis is to summarize or group together highly correlated variables (Lehmann, Gupta

and Steckel 1998), this analytical method should be able to reduce these 35 statements or

variables into a smaller number for simplification purposes and greater ease of

manageability with minimum information loss. Note, however, that this method does not

take the form of Ho vs. Ha that tries to infer the relation between meal preference and

respondents’ psychographic make-up. The correlation of interest here is discovering the

inherent relationship among the psychographic variables that will be used to profile value

meal and non-value meal consumers.

All other questions on the questionnaire that do not involve hypothesis testing

(Q#B2, Q#B4, Q#B5) were described through observed frequencies and corresponding

percentages.

Table 3. Variables, Hypotheses, Objectives and Statistical Treatment

Measurement

Variables Hypothesis Objectives

Statistical

Treatment

H1: Purchase

likelihood

H1: Consumers visiting fast

food outlets and casual dining

restaurants are more likely to

purchase all forms of bundled

product offers (value meals

only, value meals and other

menu items).

Obj1: To find out

the preference of

consumers between

value meals and

items bought at an

ala carte price

Chi square (�2)

one-sample test

� = 0.05

H2: Factors

considered in meal

choice

H2a1: Low price/Affordable

pricing is a significant factor

influencing consumers in meal

choice.

H2a2: Ease of ordering is a

significant factor influencing

consumers in meal choice.

Obj2: To

determine the

factors why

consumers choose

certain meal items

over all other menu

offerings

Chi square (�2)

one-sample test

� = 0.05


Measurement


Statistical

Treatment

H2b1: Consumers consider

low price/affordable pricing as

an important meal decision

factor.

H2b2: Consumers consider

ease of ordering as an

important meal decision factor.

Kolmogorov-

Smirnov one-

sample test

� = 0.05

H3: Correlation of

meal preference to

consumer’s

demographic and

behavioral profiles

and frequency of

fast food outlet

visit

H3a: Consumers belonging to

younger age brackets are more

likely to choose bundled meals

than their older counterparts.

H3b: Meal preference has no

significant correlation with

consumers’ gender.

H3c: Meal preference has no


Obj3: To identify

the profile of a

value meal

consumer in the key

cities of Metro

Manila

Contingency

coefficient C

� = .05


Measurement


Statistical

Treatment

consumers’ civil status.

H3d: Consumers from middle

to lower income households

are more likely to choose

bundled meals than those from

upper income households.

H3e: Meal preference has no


consumers’ educational

attainment.

H3f: Meal choice is largely

influenced by promotions such

as discounts and give-aways.

H3g: Consumers dining alone

are more likely to choose

bundled meals.


Measurement


Statistical

Treatment

Consumers dining with

family/friends are more likely

to order a la carte menu items.

H3h: Consumers dining in

fast food outlets for no special

reason are more likely to order

bundled meals.

Consumers celebrating special

occasions are more likely order

ala carte menu items.

H3i: Preference for bundled

meals has no correlation with

the time of day that consumers

usually dine in fast food

outlets.

Consumers dining during

major day segments (breakfast,

lunch, dinner) will more likely


Measurement


Statistical

Treatment

order bundled meals than

consumers dining at odd hours.

H3j: Consumers buying meals

for themselves will more likely

opt for bundled meals than

consumers who buy for others.

H3k: Consumers who

regularly (i.e., more frequent

than once a month) dine in fast

food outlets are more likely to

order bundled meals than

consumers who are not regular

fast food outlet patrons.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND DATA ANALYSIS

Generation of closed ended responses to questions on Section C of the survey

questionnaire is the main output of the exploratory research phase of this study. From

Appendix C the focus group discussion (FGD) yielded 13 considerations that fast food

consumers generally take into account when choosing what to order from a menu

selection. The following closed ended responses appear on Section C of the survey

questionnaire:

1. Affordably priced

2. Taste

3. Ease of ordering

4. Completeness of food combinations

5. Big serving size

6. Availability of menu item

7. Affinity towards menu item ("nakasanayan")

8. Trial of new product offering

9. Type of food in mind

10. Promotion (discounts, give-aways)

11. Variety of menu choices

12. Recommendation of others

13. Attractiveness of visual ads

Results of the survey are presented below in the form of frequency tables and

cross tabulations generated using SPSS 13. The hypothesis testing and factor analysis

outputs were likewise ran through the same statistical software and corresponding tables

similarly presented and discussed in support of the decision to accept a hypothesis or not.

Discussion of succeeding results is broken down into sections as presented on the survey

questionnaire. Where applicable, the rest of the FGD results will be incorporated into the

survey findings that follow.

Description of Respondents via Psychographic Profiling

The FGD results revealed the following lifestyle habits and practices that the

target market normally observed:

1. The identified consumer segments generally spend a considerable amount of time

outside their homes. They are only at home when no specific activity is planned.

Thus, the home is seen as a place for relaxation, for doing personal stuff and for

bonding with other household members.

2. Bonding, therefore, is an important aspect of their lives such that most of their

activities are normally done with someone else --- be they friends or family

members. There are seldom occasions when they engage in activities by

themselves.

3. Their leisure activities generally include TV viewing, radio listening, malling,

shopping, eating out and involvement in sports activities.

4. Health consciousness among the older market segment is more apparent. Thus,

engaging in regular sports activities and a cautious food intake relative to

resulting benefits or implications are quite evident.

5. Malling is prevalent among both the young and the older market segments. The

latter, however, sees malling more as a necessity than a want.

6. Dining out is likewise a habitual routine among both market segments. Given that

bonding is important to them, as well as the basic need to feed themselves, dining

out in fast food outlets has become a regular activity done outside the home.

Thus, the study tried to incorporate the above findings into the survey

questionnaire via the 23 lifestyle statements focusing on activities and interests that were

handed to respondents to be rated using a 5-point agree/disagree scale. Statements

garnering the highest top box and top 2 box ratings are tabulated below (Table 4) while

the distribution of ratings for all statements is found on Table 5.

Table 4. Highly Rated Activities and Interests Describing Fast Food Consumers

TOP BOX TOP 2 BOX LIFESTYLE STATEMENTS

Base = 400

I enjoy being in the company of friends and/or family. 71% 89%

It's worth paying extra for quality goods. 56% 86%

I enjoy watching TV and home videos. 40% 70%

I am particular about what I eat. 40% 71%

I like to try out new food products. 40% 75%

I try to eat healthier food these days. 39% 73%

I would like to spend my vacation traveling to far and different places. 37% 59%

I like dining out. 35% 62%

I would rather spend my free time at home than go out. 31% 59%

I am concerned about health but tend not to do much about it. 30% 64%

A majority of target consumers appears to value social interaction and

understands the price of quality. While they seem to enjoy quiet times at home, they

likewise aspire to travel. Health is a concern, as well as food.

Tab

le 5

. A

gree

men

t – D

isag

reem

ent t

o L

ifest

yle

Stat

emen

ts

5 4

3 2

1 L

IFE

STY

LE

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

No.

%

N

o.

%

No.

%

N

o.

%

No.

%

T

otal

1 W

hen

I see

a n

ew b

rand

on

the

shel

f, I o

ften

buy

it ju

st to

see

wha

t it's

lik

e.

73

18%

11

0 28

%

111

28%

60

15

%

46

12%

40

0

2 It

's w

orth

pay

ing

extr

a fo

r qua

lity

good

s.

223

56%

12

1 30

%

44

11%

6

2%

6 2%

40

0

3 I w

ould

rath

er s

pend

my

free

tim

e at

ho

me

than

go

out.

125

31%

11

1 28

%

92

23%

34

9%

38

10

%

400

4 I a

m c

once

rned

abo

ut h

ealth

but

tend

no

t to

do m

uch

abou

t it.

120

30%

13

6 34

%

89

22%

33

8%

22

6%

40

0

5 I a

m p

artic

ular

abo

ut w

hat I

eat

. 16

0 40

%

125

31%

82

21

%

21

5%

12

3%

400

6 I o

ften

buy

take

-out

mea

ls to

eat

at

hom

e.

76

19%

87

22

%

126

32%

71

18

%

40

10%

40

0

7 I r

eally

enj

oy c

ooki

ng.

111

28%

80

20

%

110

28%

49

12

%

50

13%

40

0

8 I s

hop

arou

nd a

lot t

o ta

ke a

dvan

tage

of

spe

cial

s or

bar

gain

s.

94

24%

10

1 25

%

104

26%

58

15

%

43

11%

40

0

9 I t

ry to

eat

hea

lthie

r foo

d th

ese

days

. 15

7 39

%

134

34%

78

20

%

19

5%

12

3%

400

Tab

le 5

. A

gree

men

t – D

isag

reem

ent t

o L

ifest

yle

Stat

emen

ts

5 4

3 2

1 L

IFE

STY

LE

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

No.

%

N

o.

%

No.

%

N

o.

%

No.

%

T

otal

10

I lik

e at

tend

ing

soci

al o

ccas

ions

like

w

eddi

ngs,

bir

thda

ys, p

artie

s, e

tc.

83

21%

11

0 28

%

103

26%

43

11

%

61

15%

40

0

11

I lik

e di

ning

out

. 13

9 35

%

108

27%

98

25

%

37

9%

18

5%

400

12

I lik

e sp

endi

ng m

y fr

ee ti

me

in

mal

ls.

86

22%

88

22

%

130

33%

59

15

%

37

9%

400

13

I lik

e to

try

out n

ew fo

od p

rodu

cts.

15

8 40

%

143

36%

74

19

%

20

5%

5 1%

40

0

14

I do

volu

ntee

r wor

k in

my

com

mun

ity o

r in

scho

ol.

58

15%

12

9 32

%

100

25%

56

14

%

57

14%

40

0

15

I enj

oy s

urfi

ng th

e in

tern

et.

96

24%

84

21

%

97

24%

61

15

%

62

16%

40

0

16

I enj

oy w

atch

ing

TV

and

hom

e vi

deos

. 16

1 40

%

120

30%

91

23

%

19

5%

9 2%

40

0

17

I fol

low

the

late

st tr

ends

and

fa

shio

ns.

73

18%

11

8 30

%

134

34%

40

10

%

35

9%

400

18

I lik

e go

ing

to th

e m

ovie

s.

101

25%

10

2 26

%

141

35%

35

9%

21

5%

40

0

Tab

le 5

. A

gree

men

t – D

isag

reem

ent t

o L

ifest

yle

Stat

emen

ts

5 4

3 2

1 L

IFE

STY

LE

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

No.

%

N

o.

%

No.

%

N

o.

%

No.

%

T

otal

19

I wou

ld li

ke to

spe

nd m

y va

catio

n tr

avel

ing

to fa

r and

dif

fere

nt p

lace

s.

149

37%

88

22

%

88

22%

54

14

%

21

5%

400

20

I lik

e re

adin

g a

lot.

95

24%

12

8 32

%

122

31%

38

10

%

17

4%

400

21

I enj

oy e

ngag

ing

in s

port

s ac

tiviti

es.

79

20%

11

5 29

%

103

26%

54

14

%

49

12%

40

0

22

I lik

e pl

ayin

g ga

mes

onl

ine.

48

12

%

58

15%

10

2 26

%

75

19%

11

7 29

%

400

23

I enj

oy b

eing

in th

e co

mpa

ny o

f fr

iend

s an

d/or

fam

ily.

285

71%

72

18

%

31

8%

6 2%

6

2%

400

Rat

ing

scal

e

5 –

Agr

ee a

lot

3 –

Nei

ther

agr

ee n

or d

isag

ree

2

– D

isag

ree

som

ewha

t

4 –

Agr

ee s

omew

hat

1 –

Dis

agre

e a

lot

In profiling the target market based on lifestyle patterns, factor analysis was

employed for a) data reduction, i.e., reducing the original 23 statements to a smaller

number of uncorrelated statements to describe the market’s activities and interests, and b)

detection of structure in the relationships among the lifestyle variables, i.e., variable

classification. Results are shown on Tables 6-9.

Table 6 enumerates communalities or variance approximations per statement that

are accounted for --- “initial” as explained by all factors and “extraction” as explained by

the factors that form part of the factor solution. Of particular interest in this table are the

extraction communalities. Note that lifestyle statements 1, 7 and 17 have relatively low

extraction communalities --- implying that only 44%, 48.5% and 49.5% of the respective

variances observed in those 3 variable statements may be accounted for by the factor

solution. Hence, an option to consider is dropping these lifestyle statements from the

analysis.

Table 6. Communalities Initial Extraction

Activities/Interests 1 1.000 0.441 Activities/Interests 2 1.000 0.562 Activities/Interests 3 1.000 0.640 Activities/Interests 4 1.000 0.601 Activities/Interests 5 1.000 0.597 Activities/Interests 6 1.000 0.532 Activities/Interests 7 1.000 0.485 Activities/Interests 8 1.000 0.584 Activities/Interests 9 1.000 0.724

Activities/Interests 10 1.000 0.626 Activities/Interests 11 1.000 0.550 Activities/Interests 12 1.000 0.658 Activities/Interests 13 1.000 0.765 Activities/Interests 14 1.000 0.548 Activities/Interests 15 1.000 0.636

Table 6. Communalities Initial Extraction

Activities/Interests 16 1.000 0.765 Activities/Interests 17 1.000 0.495 Activities/Interests 18 1.000 0.609 Activities/Interests 19 1.000 0.516 Activities/Interests 20 1.000 0.661 Activities/Interests 21 1.000 0.688 Activities/Interests 22 1.000 0.717 Activities/Interests 23 1.000 0.672

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

The next issue, therefore, is how many factors have been extracted in the factor

solution and how many to retain. One common rule observed is to retain variables with

eigenvalues greater than 1. An eigenvalue represents a measure of the variance in all

variables that can be explained by a factor. For instance, Factor 1 on Table 7 posts an

initial eigenvalue of 4.004. Intuitively, this means that Factor 1 contains information

equal to information from roughly 4.004 variables. Additionally, Factor 1 can also

explain about 17.408% of the observed variance in the variables.

Applying the eigenvalue > 1 rule, the table lists the extracted 8 components or

factors that can explain about 61.181% of the variance in all the variables (Extraction

Sums of Squared Loadings). While loss of information of approximately 38.819% is

evident, accounting for about 60%-80% of the variance is generally considered large

enough to capture most of the information in the original data. Maximizing and

redistributing the variance among the factors in the solution set is shown under Rotation

Sums of Squared Loadings without any apparent change in the total variance. This is

done to improve the interpretability of the factors.

Tab

le 7

. T

otal

Var

ianc

e E

xpla

ined

Initi

al E

igen

valu

es

Ext

ract

ion

Sum

s of

Squ

ared

Loa

ding

s R

otat

ion

Sum

s of

Squ

ared

Loa

ding

s C

ompo

nent

To

tal

% o

f V

aria

nce

Cum

ulat

ive

%

Tota

l %

of

Var

ianc

e C

umul

ativ

e %

To

tal

% o

f V

aria

nce

Cum

ulat

ive

%

1 4.

004

17.4

08

17.4

08

4.00

4 17

.408

17

.408

3.

425

14.8

90

14.8

90

2 2.

178

9.46

9 26

.877

2.

178

9.46

9 26

.877

1.

954

8.49

7 23

.386

3

1.63

7 7.

115

33.9

92

1.63

7 7.

115

33.9

92

1.61

7 7.

031

30.4

17

4 1.

559

6.77

8 40

.770

1.

559

6.77

8 40

.770

1.

492

6.48

7 36

.904

5

1.31

2 5.

702

46.4

73

1.31

2 5.

702

46.4

73

1.44

4 6.

277

43.1

81

6 1.

254

5.45

2 51

.925

1.

254

5.45

2 51

.925

1.

441

6.26

7 49

.448

7

1.10

8 4.

816

56.7

41

1.10

8 4.

816

56.7

41

1.43

5 6.

238

55.6

85

8 1.

021

4.44

0 61

.181

1.

021

4.44

0 61

.181

1.

264

5.49

6 61

.181

9

0.90

4 3.

929

65.1

10

10

0.79

6 3.

462

68.5

71

11

0.75

5 3.

284

71.8

55

12

0.74

9 3.

257

75.1

12

13

0.68

7 2.

987

78.0

99

14

0.67

2 2.

922

81.0

21

15

0.61

3 2.

666

83.6

87

16

0.57

6 2.

503

86.1

91

17

0.53

8 2.

341

88.5

32

18

0.51

4 2.

235

90.7

67

19

0.49

5 2.

152

92.9

18

20

0.45

3 1.

969

94.8

87

21

0.42

0 1.

828

96.7

15

22

0.39

4 1.

713

98.4

28

23

0.36

2 1.

572

100.

000

Ext

ract

ion

Met

hod:

Pri

ncip

al C

ompo

nent

Ana

lysi

s

Tab

le 8

. C

ompo

nent

Mat

rix

a

Com

pone

nt

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

0.

5027

0.

1097

(0

.366

2)

(0.0

328)

0.

0568

0.

1643

(0

.012

6)

0.10

43

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

2

0.10

23

0.09

87

0.51

52

0.30

45

0.11

27

0.20

97

(0.1

494)

(0

.323

5)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

3

(0.1

644)

0.

4998

(0

.121

6)

0.23

70

0.25

29

(0.3

800)

0.

2212

(0

.188

2)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

4

(0.0

262)

0.

5761

(0

.074

8)

0.02

74

0.49

04

(0.0

597)

0.

0678

(0

.116

4)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

5

0.04

35

0.41

10

0.13

05

0.49

23

(0.2

165)

0.

2232

0.

2399

(0

.110

0)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

6

0.35

71

0.27

63

(0.3

767)

0.

2604

0.

0439

(0

.321

9)

(0.0

598)

(0

.094

2)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

7

0.24

55

0.28

65

(0.3

652)

0.

2453

(0

.310

0)

(0.0

937)

(0

.209

9)

0.01

65

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

8

0.52

91

0.03

47

(0.4

940)

0.

0656

(0

.055

3)

(0.0

700)

0.

0996

0.

1919

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 9

0.

0538

0.

2487

0.

1310

0.

3918

(0

.427

9)

0.45

46

0.31

37

0.02

63

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

10

0.72

60

(0.1

322)

(0

.196

8)

0.02

64

(0.0

600)

0.

0412

0.

0359

(0

.187

3)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

11

0.61

65

(0.3

121)

(0

.037

7)

0.14

26

(0.0

193)

0.

1698

(0

.136

4)

(0.0

506)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

2 0.

6078

(0

.112

8)

(0.1

366)

(0

.031

9)

0.29

74

0.30

84

(0.0

661)

(0

.261

8)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

13

0.15

69

0.31

63

(0.0

479)

(0

.057

3)

0.43

69

0.45

11

(0.0

335)

0.

4896

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

4 0.

0435

0.

6231

0.

1585

(0

.049

7)

(0.1

216)

0.

0419

(0

.334

3)

0.04

10

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

15

0.61

30

0.10

11

0.28

97

(0.3

838)

0.

0794

(0

.079

8)

0.04

19

(0.0

637)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

6 0.

2749

(0

.188

6)

0.24

57

0.29

65

(0.0

581)

(0

.444

2)

0.37

12

0.40

83

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

17

0.63

66

(0.1

228)

(0

.041

0)

(0.0

924)

(0

.097

2)

0.09

07

0.18

61

0.10

96

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

18

0.58

10

(0.1

238)

0.

3034

0.

1426

0.

1889

(0

.235

9)

0.01

09

(0.2

292)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

9 0.

5992

(0

.218

3)

0.24

47

0.13

90

(0.0

492)

(0

.126

7)

(0.0

859)

(0

.066

2)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

20

0.23

58

0.30

79

0.11

11

0.02

00

(0.2

824)

(0

.193

8)

(0.6

001)

0.

1428

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 2

1 0.

4021

0.

3315

0.

3643

(0

.420

6)

(0.2

669)

(0

.086

8)

0.06

61

0.15

25

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

22

0.34

30

0.48

78

0.11

83

(0.4

727)

(0

.046

0)

(0.0

224)

0.

3385

(0

.082

4)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

23

0.22

20

(0.0

397)

0.

3463

0.

4101

0.

3895

(0

.032

8)

(0.1

424)

0.

4004

E

xtra

ctio

n M

etho

d: P

rinc

ipal

Com

pone

nt A

naly

sis

a 8 c

ompo

nent

s ex

trac

ted

Tab

le 9

. R

otat

ed C

ompo

nent

Mat

rix

a

Com

pone

nt

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

0.

5399

0.

0833

0.

0730

(0

.073

2)

0.04

05

0.10

70

(0.2

499)

0.

2377

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 2

0.

0483

(0

.002

8)

0.02

84

(0.0

007)

0.

2293

0.

0646

0.

7082

0.

0226

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 3

(0

.191

0)

(0.0

051)

0.

7649

0.

0698

0.

0877

0.

0114

(0

.018

3)

(0.0

759)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 4

(0

.066

2)

0.12

40

0.67

45

(0.1

385)

(0

.017

9)

0.01

14

0.10

58

0.30

92

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

5

(0.0

033)

(0

.003

1)

0.22

07

0.04

66

0.71

75

0.08

75

0.15

24

0.00

80

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

6

0.37

83

(0.0

748)

0.

4879

0.

1072

0.

0183

0.

3005

(0

.180

4)

(0.1

008)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 7

0.

2620

(0

.107

1)

0.16

69

(0.0

362)

0.

2208

0.

4975

(0

.263

9)

(0.0

994)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 8

0.

5643

0.

0196

0.

1246

0.

1350

0.

0439

0.

1157

(0

.458

6)

0.07

72

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

9

0.01

79

0.03

88

(0.1

188)

0.

0043

0.

8401

0.

0041

0.

0245

0.

0436

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

0 0.

7677

0.

1362

(0

.013

8)

0.03

77

0.03

11

0.02

98

(0.0

251)

(0

.116

8)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

11

0.67

27

(0.0

579)

(0

.243

5)

0.11

44

0.00

52

0.05

41

0.13

52

0.01

53

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

12

0.72

38

0.05

45

0.02

93

(0.1

883)

(0

.075

8)

(0.1

172)

0.

2102

0.

1775

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

3 0.

0856

0.

0952

0.

0563

(0

.040

3)

0.05

29

0.00

98

(0.0

595)

0.

8590

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

4 (0

.154

4)

0.27

34

0.16

48

(0.1

727)

0.

1483

0.

5634

0.

1313

0.

1882

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

5 0.

3814

0.

6378

(0

.017

8)

0.10

16

(0.1

831)

0.

0439

0.

1890

0.

0403

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

6 0.

0646

0.

0897

(0

.000

3)

0.84

89

0.07

70

(0.0

889)

(0

.103

2)

(0.0

847)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

7 0.

5631

0.

2958

(0

.169

7)

0.18

56

0.07

70

(0.0

558)

(0

.124

4)

0.05

12

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

18

0.47

60

0.18

20

0.12

67

0.34

93

(0.1

196)

(0

.005

4)

0.41

87

(0.1

479)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 1

9 0.

4978

0.

1296

(0

.139

9)

0.34

67

(0.0

405)

0.

1221

0.

2758

(0

.138

2)

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

20

0.04

06

0.11

73

(0.0

632)

0.

0569

(0

.069

2)

0.79

23

0.07

59

(0.0

014)

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 2

1 0.

0452

0.

7678

(0

.122

7)

0.12

15

0.04

59

0.25

20

0.00

31

0.02

49

Act

iviti

es/I

nter

ests

22

0.10

29

0.78

88

0.22

70

(0.1

145)

0.

0941

(0

.031

9)

(0.0

893)

0.

0424

A

ctiv

ities

/Int

eres

ts 2

3 0.

0847

(0

.162

9)

0.02

84

0.55

59

(0.0

359)

0.

1065

0.

3347

0.

4519

E

xtra

ctio

n M

etho

d: P

rinc

ipal

Com

pone

nt A

naly

sis

Rot

atio

n M

etho

d: V

arim

ax w

ith K

aise

r N

orm

aliz

atio

n a R

otat

ion

conv

erge

d in

20

itera

tions

The two preceding tables show the respective factor loadings for each variable

(lifestyle statement) on the unrotated components (Table 8) and the rotated components

(Table 9). As the central output for factor analysis, the factor loadings represent the

correlation coefficients between the factors and variables and form the bases for labeling

the factors in the solution set. Loadings of at least 0.6 are generally considered high vis-

à-vis 0.4 as considerably low. Between the unrotated component and rotated component

matrices, the latter matrix presents a more readable output as to which lifestyle statement

loads heavily on a factor (note highlighted cells).

The 8 factors in the solution set are as follows. Labels have likewise been

provided to classify the lifestyle statements for ease of interpretation. Note that the

labeling process is rather subjective and the labels that follow are those that seem to make

the most sense.

Factor 1: “Experiencer”

a. When I see a new brand on the shelf, I often buy it just to see what it's like.

b. I shop around a lot to take advantage of specials or bargains.

c. I like attending social occasions like weddings, birthdays, parties, etc.

d. I like dining out.

e. I like spending my free time in malls.

f. I follow the latest trends and fashions.

g. I like going to the movies.

h. I would like to spend my vacation traveling to far and different places.

Factor 2: “It/Sports Enthusiast”

a. I enjoy surfing the internet.

b. I enjoy engaging in sports activities.

c. I like playing games online.

Factor 3: “Home-centered”

a. I would rather spend my free time at home than go out.

b. I am concerned about health but tend not to do much about it.

c. I often buy take-out meals to eat at home.

Factor 4: “Entertainment-oriented”

a. I enjoy watching TV and home videos.

b. I enjoy being in the company of friends and/or family.

Factor 5: “Health conscious”

a. I am particular about what I eat.

b. I try to eat healthier food these days.

Factor 6: “Spends time wisely”

a. I really enjoy cooking.

b. I do volunteer work in my community or in school.

c. I like reading a lot.

Factor 7: “Quality-focused”

a. It's worth paying extra for quality goods.

Factor 8: “Risk-taker”

a. I like to try out new food products.

Value meal consumers may, thus, be described to fall into any of these 8

segments. They may be experiencers or those who love social activities and new

products, are fashion-oriented and like to travel. There are some who might be described

as adventure seekers who love both the outdoor (sports) and indoor (internet surfing,

online gaming) activities. Still another segment is fond of spending quiet times at home.

Entertainment for some is key as they prefer to be in the company of friends and relatives

or when by themselves, would prefer to watch movies or home videos. Health is one

concern, as well as wise use of their spare time as evidenced by hobbies or community

work. They may be rather discriminating when buying because they wouldn’t mind

spending more for quality. Another segment may be described as risk-takers when it

comes to food choice as they are not apprehensive about trying out new food products.

Further tests using these descriptors may be done in future studies to find out

which segments the target market seems to cluster most or if these lifestyle variables do

affect menu choice.

Dining in Fast Food Outlets

The FGD results revealed that eating out is a habitual practice given that the target

market spent most of their time outside their homes and that there is a prevalence of

several food outlets in the metropolis. Dining in was generally the more common service

availed of when in fast food outlets compared to either take-out or delivery. This was

validated when survey results pointed to a majority (66%) of responses among total

respondents clustering around the “once a week” to “2-6x a week” dining out

frequencies, with the “2-6x a week” frequency posting the most mentions from about 4-

in-10 of target consumers. The remaining fourth of respondents visited fast food outlets

at least once a week (Table 10).

A similar clustering of responses consistent across gender and age groups was

evident within the same dining out frequencies --- at least once a week to at most 6x

times a week (Table 10).

Table 10. Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet by Gender and Age Groups

Gender Age Groups Total FREQUENCY OF DINING

OUT Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-60 No. %

Everyday 5% 6% 5% 7% 2% 7% 22 6%

2-6 times a week 45% 38% 49% 42% 34% 34% 165 41%

Table 10. Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet by Gender and Age Groups

Gender Age Groups Total FREQUENCY OF DINING

OUT Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-60 No. %

Once a week 22% 28% 23% 22% 27% 33% 101 25%

2-3 times a month 18% 18% 15% 20% 27% 11% 72 18%

Once a month 6% 4% 1% 7% 8% 6% 20 5%

Less than once a month 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 6% 8 2%

Once every 2 months 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 3% 4 1%

Less than once every 2 months 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1 0%

Less than once every 3 months 2% 2% 3% 2% 1% 0% 7 2%

191 209 130 117 83 70 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 400 100%

Trial of almost all fast food outlets is apparent in the FGD results, with mentions

recorded for McDonald’s, Jollibee, KFC, Pizza Hut, Greenwich, Chowking, Burger King

and Shakey’s. Regular patronage, however, was reserved for the first three fast food

outlets (i.e., McDonald’s, Jollibee, KFC). This was validated in the survey results that

follow.

When asked which fast food outlet total respondents visited most often, Jollibee

garnered the most mentions at 32%. Regular patronage of the McDonald’s outlet came in

a close second from among a fourth of respondents, while KFC trailed behind with a 12%

share (Table 11). Note that this was likewise the trend observed across male and female

target consumers. Regular patronage across age groups, however, was markedly different

among the 15-24 bracket where shares between Jollibee and McDonald’s were almost the

similar, while those aged 45-60 patronized less of these two fast food outlets.

Table 11. Fast Food Outlet Dined In Most Often

Gender Age Groups Total FAST FOOD OUTLET Male Female 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-60 No. %

Jollibee 32% 32% 33% 34% 35% 23% 128 32% McDonald's 21% 25% 34% 21% 14% 19% 94 24%

KFC 11% 13% 9% 15% 12% 11% 48 12% Maxim's Tea House 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 43 11%

Chowking 8% 8% 7% 9% 8% 9% 32 8%

Pizza Hut 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 10 3%

Greenwich 3% 1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 8 2%

Tokyo Tokyo 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8 2%

Shakey's 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 7 2%

Goldilocks 2% 3% 3% 1% 1% 6% 4 1%

Sbarro 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 3 1%

Wendy's 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 4% 2 1%

Burger King 12% 10% 5% 14% 16% 11% 1 0%

Red Ribbon 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1 0%

Others 3% 2% 1% 3% 2% 7% 11 3%

191 209 130 117 83 70 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 400 100%

Meal Preference

The target market’s dining out experience was further examined to find out what

particular meal type they usually order when in fast food outlets. The FGD results noted

value meals as the more prevalent menu choice when in fast food outlets.

When surveyed, a majority confirmed this exploratory finding as 58% of the

target market indicated preference for value meals and other menu items (Table 12).

Additionally, approximately 3 out of every 10 of total respondents ordered value meals

only. Hence, a total 86% of target consumers were likely to order value meals (whether

individually or with other a la carte menu items) when dining out in fast food outlets.

Table 12. Type of Meal Usually Ordered when Dining in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED No. %

Value meal only 110 28%

Value meal and other items in the menu 233 58%

Individual menu items only 57 14%

Total 400 100%

When tested for significance (Table 13), results yielded acceptance of hypothesis

H1: Consumers visiting fast food outlets and casual dining restaurants are more likely to

purchase all forms of bundled product offers (value meals only, value meals and other

menu items) at � = .05. A la carte menu items are, therefore, the less popular food choice

among food outlet patrons.

Table 13. Chi Square One-Sample Test Statistics: What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Observed N Expected N Residual Value meal only 110 133.3 -23.3 Value meal and other items in the menu 233 133.3 99.7 Individual menu items only 57 133.3 -76.3

Total 400 Chi-Square(a) 122.285 Df 2 Asymp. Sig. .000

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 133.3.

As a further check for consistency, when respondents were asked what they

ordered the last time they were at a fast food outlet. And true enough, a collective

majority did mention value meals, as well as other menu items (Table 14).

Table 14. Type of Meal Ordered the Last Time Dined in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED No. %

Value meal only 130 32%

Value meal and other items in the menu 220 55%

Individual menu items only 50 12%

Total 400 100%

Those who indicated preference for value meals only or in combination with other

menu items were asked from which fast food outlet they ordered these meals the last time

they dined out. Similarly, the top two fast food outlets, Jollibee and McDonald’s,

previously frequented by the identified target market consistently emerged as the most

mentioned outlets they were at the last time they dined out --- implying a strong sense of

brand loyalty towards these fast food outlets (Table 15).

Note that Maxim’s Tea House managed to come in third surpassing KFC.

Maxim’s Tea House’s “outlet dined in most often” share was 11% (Table 11) vs. its share

of 14% as the “outlet dined in the last time ordered a value meal” (Table 15). This

seeming consistency may be attributed to all respondents being intercepted inside

Maxim’s and were probably regular patrons. This result may have been incidental in this

study; hence, repeating this under different data gathering parameters will probably not

yield similar results relative to Maxim’s patronage shares.

Table 15. Fast Food Outlet Dined In the Last Time Ordered a Value Meal

FAST FOOD OUTLET No. %

Jollibee 105 30% McDonald's 69 20% Maxim's Tea House 50 14% KFC 35 10% Chowking 28 8% Tokyo Tokyo 9 3% Greenwich 8 2% Burger King 7 2% Wendy's 7 2% Pizza Hut 6 2% Goldilocks 4 1% Shakey's 2 1% Sbarro 2 1% Others 18 5%

Total 350 100%

Another area of interest was establishing whether there existed any correlation

between frequency of dining out and purchase likelihood of a particular menu item. The

following cross tabulation (Table 16) showed that a majority of target consumers who

regularly (i.e., more frequent than once a month) dined out showed no particular leaning

towards a menu offering. The clustering of responses across all menu offerings was

consistently observed to fall within the “once a week” and “2-6x a week” dining out

frequencies.

Table 16. Frequency of Dining in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL

ORDERED DINING FREQUENCY

Value meal only

Value meal and other items in the

menu

Individual menu items

only Total

Everyday 10 8 4 22 2-6 times a week 43 98 24 165 Once a week 27 58 16 101 2-3 times a month 15 49 8 72 Once a month 9 10 1 20 Less than once a month 0 6 2 8 Once every 2 months 3 0 1 4 Less than once every 2 months 0 1 0 1 Less than once every 3 months 3 3 1 7

Total 110 233 57 400

Hence, testing for significance (Table 17) validated the preceding observation of

no difference between both variables given that the probability of occurrence associated

with the test statistic is definitely greater than � = .05. Thus, hypothesis H3k:

Consumers who regularly (i.e., more frequent than once a month) dine in food outlets are

more likely to order bundled meals than consumers who are not regular food outlet

patrons cannot be accepted at the predetermined � = .05. The likelihood of ordering

value meals is not dependent on the frequency of dining in food outlets.

Table 17. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Frequency of Dining in a Fast

Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig. Nominal by Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.230 0.134 N of Valid Cases …………………………………. 400

Factors Considered in Meal Choice

A predetermined list of considerations relevant to selecting a particular item from

among all other items on the menu was provided to respondents as they were asked to

identify which of these factors were important to them in their food choice. Multiple

answers were allowed per respondent. The following tabulation (Table 18) revealed

price and taste considerations as foremost in a majority of respondents’ minds when

deciding what particular meal to order at fast food outlets.

Table 18. Factors Considered Important when Choosing a Particular Menu Item

FACTORS No. %

Affordably priced 292 73% Taste 246 62% Ease of ordering 121 30% Completeness of food combinations 100 25% Big serving size 99 25% Availability of menu item 87 22% Affinity towards menu item ("nakasanayan") 66 17% Trial of new product offering 52 13%

Table 18. Factors Considered Important when Choosing a Particular Menu Item

FACTORS No. % Type of food in mind 50 13% Promotion (discounts, give-aways) 47 12% Variety of menu choices 41 10% Recommendation of others 38 10% Attractiveness of visual ads 32 8% Others 2 1%

Testing the above for significance (Table 19) substantiated hypothesis H2a1:

Low price/Affordable pricing is a significant factor influencing consumers in meal choice

at the predetermined � = .05. Price sensitivity is, therefore, an issue among consumers

when deciding what to order when dining in food outlets --- giving weight to the

prevalence of value meals as common food choices.

Hypothesis H2a2: Ease of ordering is a significant factor influencing consumers

in meal choice, however, cannot be accepted at � = .05. While it may be argued that

“ease of ordering” and “completeness of food combinations” likewise garnered sizeable

mentions, this study chose to limit the choice of factors to only those posting a majority

of “Yes” mentions. This is the logical decision given that the test statistics confirmed a

significance of response proportions to both “Yes” and “No” options across factors. That

is, the breakdown of responses for “ease of ordering” and all factors following it posted

significance for the “No” responses (not important). The target consumers, therefore, are

not greatly influenced by said factors in menu selection (value meals or otherwise) when

in fast food outlets.

Table 19. Chi Square Test Statistics: Factors Considered Important in Meal

Choice

Whether consider factor as important

or not FACTOR

Yes No

Chi-Square

a df Asymp.

Sig.

Affordably priced 292 108 84.64 1 0.000 Taste 246 154 62.41 1 0.000 Ease of ordering 121 279 127.69 1 0.000 Completeness of food combinations 100 300 100.00 1 0.000 Big serving size 99 301 21.16 1 0.000 Availability of menu item 87 313 102.01 1 0.000 Affinity towards menu item ("nakasanayan") 66 334 179.56 1 0.000

Trial of new product offering 52 348 219.04 1 0.000 Type of food in mind 50 350 282.24 1 0.000 Promotion (discounts, give-aways) 47 353 225.00 1 0.000 Variety of menu choices 41 359 234.09 1 0.000 Recommendation of others 38 362 262.44 1 0.000 Attractiveness of visual ads 32 368 252.81 1 0.000 Others 2 398 392.04 1 0.000

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 200.0. Having identified which factors were deemed important in menu item selection,

the next step involved determining the degree of importance that the target market

attached to each of these factors. Factor ratings of “5” and “4” should be able to provide

a fairly indicative measure of importance. However, top box ratings (“5”), ideally,

provide the best indication of the target market’s sentiments towards any particular

factor. Thus, considering top 2 box ratings (“5” & “4”) on importance receiving a

majority of mentions as exhibited on Table 20 would indiscriminately lead to the

conclusion that consumers are influenced by all identified factors relative to menu

selection. But limiting the choice to just top box ratings with scores higher than 50%

once more singled out “taste” and “affordably priced” as the principal determinants of

what consumers would usually order at a fast food outlet.

When tested for significance (Table 21), the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test confirmed

that the observed clustering of responses on certain importance ratings for each decision

factor was significantly different across the 5-point importance scale --- consistent across

all factors. But as earlier stated, the concentration of responses was observed to fall only

between ratings “5” and “4” across all decision factors --- implying that target consumers

were not too keen on determining the degree of importance that each factor exerted on

their menu selection process. However, it has earlier been argued on that this study will

discriminately select such factors with majority top box ratings on importance. Hence,

between hypotheses H2b1 and H2b2 enumerated on Table 19, the study accepts only

H2b1, i.e., low price/affordable pricing as an important factor that highly influence

consumers in their choice of menu items to order when dining in fast food outlets. Thus,

the consumers’ decision to order value meals when in food outlets is significantly

affected more by low price/affordable pricing than any other factor.

Tab

le 2

0. I

mpo

rtan

ce R

atin

gs o

f Fac

tors

Con

side

red

in M

enu

Item

Sel

ectio

n

5 4

3 2

1 FA

CT

OR

S N

o.

%

No.

%

N

o.

%

No.

%

N

o.

%

Tot

al

A

ffor

dabl

y pr

iced

32

5 81

%

40

10%

29

7%

4

1%

2 1%

40

0

Tast

e 33

8 85

%

44

11%

14

4%

4

1%

- 0%

40

0

Eas

e of

ord

erin

g 19

6 49

%

124

31%

65

16

%

12

3%

3 1%

40

0

C

ompl

eten

ess

of fo

od

com

bina

tions

19

5 49

%

128

32%

54

14

%

16

4%

7 2%

40

0

B

ig s

ervi

ng s

ize

178

45%

10

3 26

%

76

19%

30

8%

13

3%

40

0

Ava

ilabi

lity

of m

enu

item

19

0 48

%

124

31%

60

15

%

19

5%

7 2%

40

0

A

ffini

ty to

war

ds m

enu

item

("

naka

sana

yan"

) 13

2 33

%

116

29%

10

7 27

%

37

9%

8 2%

40

0

Tr

ial o

f new

pro

duct

offe

ring

92

23

%

128

32%

12

0 30

%

43

11%

17

4%

40

0

Type

of f

ood

in m

ind

138

35%

14

4 36

%

95

24%

18

5%

5

1%

400

P

rom

otio

n (d

isco

unts

, giv

e-aw

ays)

13

7 34

%

123

31%

94

24

%

27

7%

19

5%

400

V

arie

ty o

f men

u ch

oice

s 18

9 47

%

101

25%

79

20

%

27

7%

4 1%

40

0

Rec

omm

enda

tion

of o

ther

s 13

1 33

%

124

31%

10

1 25

%

30

8%

14

4%

400

A

ttrac

tiven

ess

of v

isua

l ads

14

3 36

%

108

27%

10

1 25

%

30

8%

18

5%

400

Impo

rtan

ce sc

ale

5 –

Ver

y im

port

ant

3 –

Nei

ther

impo

rtan

t nor

uni

mpo

rtan

t

2 –

Som

ewha

t uni

mpo

rtan

t

4 –

Som

ewha

t im

port

ant

1 –

Not

impo

rtan

t at a

ll

Tab

le 2

1. K

olm

ogor

ov-S

mir

nov

One

-sam

ple

Tes

t: I

mpo

rtan

ce R

atin

gs o

f Mea

l Cho

ice

Fact

ors c

Fact

or 1

Fa

ctor

2

Fact

or 3

Fa

ctor

4

Fact

or 5

Fa

ctor

6

N

40

0 40

0 40

0 40

0 40

0 40

0 U

nifo

rm P

aram

eter

s (a

,b)

Min

imum

1

1 1

1 1

1

Max

imum

5

5 5

5 5

5 M

ost E

xtre

me

Dif

fere

nces

A

bsol

ute

0.81

25

0.55

0.

535

0.55

75

0.84

5 0.

4525

Posi

tive

0.00

5 0.

0075

0.

0175

0.

0175

0.

01

0.03

25

N

egat

ive

-0.8

125

-0.5

5 -0

.535

-0

.557

5 -0

.845

-0

.452

5 K

olm

ogor

ov-S

mir

nov

Z

16

.25

11

10.7

11

.15

16.9

9.

05

Asy

mp.

Sig

. (2-

taile

d)

0.

000

0.00

0 0.

000

0.00

0 0.

000

0.00

0

Fa

ctor

7

Fact

or 8

Fa

ctor

9

Fact

or 1

0 Fa

ctor

11

Fact

or 1

2 Fa

ctor

13

N

40

0 40

0 40

0 40

0 40

0 40

0 40

0 U

nifo

rm P

aram

eter

s (a

,b)

Min

imum

1

1 1

1 1

1 1

M

axim

um

5 5

5 5

5 5

5 M

ost E

xtre

me

Dif

fere

nces

A

bsol

ute

0.38

75

0.35

0.

38

0.45

5 0.

4 0.

39

0.47

5

Posi

tive

0.02

0.

0425

0.

045

0.01

25

0.04

75

0.03

5 0.

01

N

egat

ive

-0.3

875

-0.3

5 -0

.38

-0.4

55

-0.4

-0

.39

-0.4

75

Kol

mog

orov

-Sm

irno

v Z

7.75

7

7.6

9.1

8 7.

8 9.

5 A

sym

p. S

ig. (

2-ta

iled)

0.00

0 0.

000

0.00

0 0.

000

0.00

0 0.

000

0.00

0 a T

est d

istr

ibut

ion

is U

nifo

rm.

b Cal

cula

ted

from

dat

a.

c The

suc

cess

ive

orde

ring

of f

acto

rs a

bove

follo

ws

the

orde

r pr

esen

ted

on th

e su

rvey

que

stio

nnai

re (Q

#C1

and

Q#C

2).

The succeeding cross tabulations (Tables 22-34) examine the degree of

importance that value meal and non-value meal consumers place on the previously

identified meal decision factors.

Note that there was not much difference observed in perceived importance among

both types of consumers across a majority of factors. That is, Factors 1-6 and 13 were

deemed “very important” in their choice of ordering either value or non-value meal items

when in fast food outlets (Tables 22-27 and 34). All other factors posted a mere plurality

of mentions spread across the “very important”, “somewhat important” and “neither

important nor unimportant” ratings assigned by consumers from each meal segment.

Table 22. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 1 vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

FACTOR 1 Affordably priced

Value meal only

Value meal and other items in

the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %

Very important 84 200 41 325 81% Somewhat important 15 18 7 40 10% Neither important nor unimportant 9 14 6 29 7%

Somewhat unimportant 2 0 2 4 1% Not important at all 0 1 1 2 1%

Total 110 233 57 400 100%


FACTOR 2 Ease of ordering

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %



Total 110 233 57 400 100% Table 24. Importance Rating of Meal Choice Factor 3 vs. What Usually Order in a

Fast Food Outlet

FACTOR 3 Availability of menu item

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %




Fast Food Outlet FACTOR 4 Completeness of food combinations

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %



Total 110 233 57 400 100%


FACTOR 5 Taste

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %




Fast Food Outlet

FACTOR 6 Big serving size

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %




Fast Food Outlet FACTOR 7 Affinity towards menu item (“nakasanayan”)

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %



Total 110 233 57 400 100%


FACTOR 8 Trial of new product offering

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %




Fast Food Outlet

FACTOR 9 Attractiveness of visual ads

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %




Fast Food Outlet

FACTOR 10 Type of food in mind

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %



Total 110 233 57 400 100%


FACTOR 11 Promotion (discounts, give-aways)

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %




Fast Food Outlet

FACTOR 12 Recommendation of others

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %




Fast Food Outlet

FACTOR 13 Variety of menu choices

Value meal only


the menu

Individual menu

items only Total %



Total 110 233 57 400 100%

Purchase Situations

The ensuing discussion will focus on establishing correlations between what

consumers usually order when in fast food outlets vis-à-vis purchase situations affecting

such meal choices. The study has previously identified these variable groups as physical

surroundings, social surroundings, occasion, time segment and task definition.

The study defined physical surroundings as visible marketing collaterals usually

found in any fast food outlet, as well as product sampling and other promotional events.

Respondents were asked to identify which among these in-store influencers affected their

choice of what to order. Multiple answers were allowed. The tabulated results (Table

35) show menu board leading with a majority (53%) of mentions from total respondents.

Breakdown of responses per type of meal ordered similarly favored the menu board

option.

Table 35. What Influences Meal Choice when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL

ORDERED PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS

Value meal only

(Base = 110)

Value meal and other menu items

(Base = 233)


only (Base = 57)

Total % (n=400)

Menu board 51 129 30 210 53% Promotion (discounts, give-aways) 26 72 18 116 29%

Flyers 27 59 17 103 26% Banners 18 49 9 76 19% Product sampling 7 28 2 37 9% None 10 23 3 36 9%

Each physical surrounding component enumerated above was tested for

significance via the Contingency Coefficient test statistic (Table 36). Given that the

approximate significance figures were all greater than 0.05, hypothesis H3f: Meal choice

is largely influenced by promotions such as discounts and give-aways cannot be accepted

at the predetermined � = .05. There is no single collateral or event in a fast food outlet

that greatly influences consumers to purchase a particular type of meal (value meal or

otherwise).

Table 36. Contingency Test Statistics: What Influences Meal Choice when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Symmetric Measures

Physical Surroundings

Contingency Coefficient Value (Nominal by Nominal) Approx. Sig. N of Valid

Cases Flyers 0.0387 0.7405 400 Banners 0.0612 0.4718 400 Menu board 0.0777 0.2970 400 Promotion 0.0728 0.3447 400 Product sampling 0.1160 0.0654 400 None 0.0544 0.5519 400

The consumers’ social surroundings were defined as their usual companions when

dining in fast food outlets. Multiple answers were likewise allowed. The following cross

tabulation (Table 37) does not show any particular companion(s) consistently with target

consumers in fast food outlets. But it does show that consumers generally dine with

others when in fast food outlets. The majority of mentions were clustered between

family/relatives and friends consistent across meal types ordered.

Table 37. Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a

Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED

USUAL COMPANION

Value meal only

(Base = 110)


(Base = 233)

Individual menu items only (Base = 57)

Total % (n=400)

Family / Relatives 38 86 31 155 39% Friends 42 85 18 145 36% Self / Alone 14 33 3 50 13% Officemates 12 29 5 46 12% Schoolmates 7 4 1 12 3%

Similar to physical surroundings, each of the above identified social surrounding

variables was tested for significance. Of the five usual companions, only family/relatives

managed to post a significance measure less than 0.05 (Table 38). But what this means is

that the proportion of those who did not choose family/relatives was significantly higher

from those who did. For all other social surrounding variables, the test failed to detect

any significant difference between respective proportions of responses choosing a

particular variable vs. those who did not. And this is evidently so since the preceding

table showed that no single social surrounding variable managed to register responses

well above the 200 mark.

Thus, hypothesis H3g: Consumers dining alone are more likely to choose bundled

meals while consumers dining with family/friends are more likely to order a la carte

menu items cannot be accepted at an � = .05. Moreover, even those dining in groups

(family/relatives and friends) obviously opted for bundled meals. There is no correlation

established between consumers’ social surroundings and their menu selection process.

The likelihood that consumers will order value meals is not affected by any particular

companion that they are usually with when dining in food outlets.

Note that the FGD results similarly echoed the above finding as the target market

did claim that there were times when their meal choice was likely to be influenced by

recommendations of friends or relatives but their personal choice generally prevailed

most of the time.

Table 38. Contingency Test Statistics: Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Symmetric Measures

Usual companion Contingency Coefficient Value (Nominal by Nominal) Approx. Sig. N of Valid

Cases Family / Relatives 0.1314 0.0298 400 Friends 0.0424 0.6973 400 Self / Alone 0.0908 0.1898 400 Officemates 0.0406 0.7191 400 Schoolmates 0.1206 0.0524 400

Of particular interest is how the results will appear when consumers’ usual dining

companions are further collapsed into a single category aggregately labeled as “Others”

vs. “Self / Alone” as another category. These social surrounding variables are then cross

tabulated against meal orders that are similarly collapsed into just two categories, namely,

“Value Meal” (value meal only + value meal and other menu items) and “A la carte”

(individual menu items only). Note that the following tabulation reflects mutually

exclusive cell counts that should sum up to the total number of respondents surveyed

(400). For instance, if a respondent happens to dine in with both friends and officemates

most of the time, then the corresponding count is not “2” but just “1” under “Others” vs.

the earlier tabulation that gives both variables 1 count each. There are, however, still a

few respondents who equally claim dining in with others or just by themselves most of

the time. A separate category is, thus, created for this and aptly labeled as “Self or

Others.” Table 39 below shows the resulting breakdown of responses (“Observed”

column), as well as the expected frequencies. It is quite evident from the tabulation that

both types of consumers (i.e., value meal or a la carte) generally dine in with others when

in fast food outlets.

Table 39. Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet: Observed frequencies vs. Expected frequencies

MEAL ORDERED Value meal A la carte USUAL COMPANION Observed Expected Observed Expected

TOTAL

294 53 Others

298 49 347

42 3 Self / Alone

39 6 45

7 1 Self or Others

7 1 8

TOTAL 343 57 400

Testing for independence between row and column classifications using the Chi

Square test does not yield a significant result at α = 0.05 (Table 40). This is further

supported by the preceding cross tabulation (Table 39) between social surrounding

variables and type of meal ordered showing no great deviation between the observed

frequencies and expected counts. Similarly, the Contingency Coefficient test for

correlation is not significant at α = 0.05 (Table 40). This is to be expected since the

Contingency Coefficient incorporates the Chi Square value in computing its test statistic

and the significance of the Contingency Coefficient is dependent on the significance of

the Chi Square statistic. The difference between both tests is that the Contingency

Coefficient takes a step further and provides a measure of the degree of association

between variables, not just the existence of association.

Therefore, results from both significance tests echo the earlier conclusion that the

type of meal consumers order is not dependent on who they are with when dining in fast

food outlets. Hypothesis H3g: Consumers dining alone are more likely to choose

bundled meals while consumers dining with family/friends are more likely to order a la

carte menu items once again cannot be accepted at � = .05. Value meals are popular

menu choices among consumers dining in groups or by themselves.

Table 40. Chi Square Test for Independence and Contingency Coefficient Test for

Correlation: Usual Companion when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.435 a 2 0.296 N of Valid Cases 400 a 1 cell (16.7%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.14. Value Approx. Sig. Contingency Coefficient 0.078 0.296 Nominal by Nominal N of Valid Cases 400

Occasion was another purchase situation variable that the study wanted to

correlate with what consumers usually order when in fast food outlets. The cross

tabulation below (Table 41) does not show any apparent association with specific

occasions driving purchase of a particular meal type. In fact a high majority of target

consumers dined in fast food outlets during no special occasion --- consistent across types

of meal ordered. This was likewise the FGD finding when both market segments (i.e.,

young and old) agreed that there need not be any special occasion to avail of services

offered in fast food outlets.

Table 41. Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL

ORDERED OCCASION

Value meal only


Individual menu items only Total %

Birthday 4 17 8 29 7% Date 4 4 1 9 2% Reunion 4 2 1 7 2% Anniversary 2 1 3 6 2% Christening 1 0 1 2 1% Business meeting 0 1 1 2 1% No occasion 95 208 42 345 86%

Total 110 233 57 400 100%

The Contingency Coefficient test statistics (Table 42) proved that a significant

correlation exists between the occasion attended and type of meal usually ordered when

in fast food outlets --- but only because the option “no occasion” was included as another

occasion variable. The “no occasion” option garnered a high majority of responses that

led to the test yielding significant results. There was no strong link suggesting that

special occasions will be reason enough to order a la carte menu items as it appeared on

the preceding cross tabulation that even those who celebrated special occasions in fast

food outlets were almost equally likely to order both value meals and a la carte items.

Thus, hypothesis H3h stating that “Consumers dining in fast food outlets for no

special reason are more likely to order bundled meals” is accepted at an � = .05. There is

clearly no correlation between occasions attended when in a fast food outlet vis-à-vis

what consumers usually order. Thus, the alternate statement stating that “Consumers

celebrating special occasions are more likely order ala carte menu items” is not a valid

conclusion.

Table 42. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Occasion Attended when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal Contingency Coefficient 0.2398 0.0179 N of Valid Cases …………………………………. 400

Similar to the preceding statistical treatment of social surrounding variables, all

occasion variables will be collapsed into just one category labeled as “Special occasion”

while the “No occasion” category remains as is. Meal ordered categories will also be

collapsed into 2 categories as has earlier been done --- “Value meal” and “A la carte.”

The resulting cross tabulation is exhibited on Table 44 where it also shows observed and

expected frequencies occurring under type of occasion vs. type of meal ordered. Note

that the predominant clustering of responses falls under the “No occasion” event across

both types of meal ordered.

Table 43. Occasion Attended when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet: Observed frequencies vs. Expected frequencies

MEAL ORDERED Value meal A la carte

OCCASION Observed Expected Observed Expected TOTAL

40 15 Special occasion

47 8 55

303 42 No occasion

296 49 345

TOTAL 343 57 400

Testing for significance using both the Chi Square test for independence and the

Contingency Coefficient test for correlation yields associated probabilities of occurrence

lower than α = 0.05 for both test statistics (Table 44). This suggests sufficient evidence

that the type of meal ordered is associated with the occasion attended when dining in fast

food outlets. This supports the conclusion earlier arrived at where hypothesis H3h

stating that “Consumers dining in fast food outlets for no special reason are more likely

to order bundled meals” is once again accepted at � = .05. Consumers indiscriminately

order value meals regardless of the occasion they are celebrating when in fast food

outlets.

Table 44. Chi Square Test for Independence and Contingency Coefficient Test for

Correlation: Occasion Attended when in a Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 8.850 a 1 0.003 N of Valid Cases 400 a 0 cell (.0%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.84. Value Approx. Sig. Contingency Coefficient 0.147 0.003 Nominal by Nominal N of Valid Cases 400

Day time segment was similarly explored for possible correlation with the menu

selection process. Respondents were asked when they usually dined in fast food outlets.

Multiple responses were allowed. Table 45 shows that the lunch time segment posted the

most mentions from among 60% of the target market --- consistent across all meal types.

Table 45. Time of Day Usually Dine in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL

ORDERED TIME OF DAY

Value meal only

(Base = 110)


(Base = 233)


Total % (n=400)

Breakfast 3 7 3 13 3% Morning snack 6 9 5 20 5% Lunch 65 144 32 241 60% Afternoon snack 35 83 12 130 33% Dinner 17 67 22 106 27% No particular time 7 22 4 33 8%

Given that multiple responses were allowed per respondent, individual tests for

significance had to be run for each time segment (Table 46). Similar to occasion, the

significance detected for the dinner segment means that the proportion of respondents

who did not dine in fast food outlets during dinner was materially different from those

who did. This is substantiated by the preceding table where only a minority (27%) of

total respondents answered dinner as the usual time of day they dined in fast food outlets.

All other time segments failed to register a difference in respective proportions relative to

dining during that time or not.

Thus, the hypothesis of no difference under H3i stating that “Preference for

bundled meals has no correlation with the time of day that consumers usually dine in fast

food outlets” is accepted at � = .05. The likelihood of ordering value meals is not

affected by the day time segment when consumers dine in food outlets. The alternate

hypothesis “Consumers dining during major day segments (breakfast, lunch, dinner) will

more likely order bundled meals than consumers dining at odd hours”, therefore is not a

valid conclusion.

Table 46. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Time of Day Usually Dine in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Symmetric Measures

Time of day Contingency Coefficient Value (Nominal by Nominal) Approx. Sig. N of Valid

Cases Breakfast 0.0467 0.6456 400 Morning snack 0.0771 0.3028 400 Lunch 0.0417 0.7053 400 Afternoon snack 0.1051 0.1073 400 Dinner 0.1691 0.0028 400 No particular time 0.0516 0.5860 400

Task definition was defined as the action of buying a fast food meal for a

particular entity (self, family/relatives, friends, officemates, and schoolmates). Multiple

answers were allowed. Table 47 shows that consumers generally bought meals for

themselves and when they did so, they generally ordered either value meals or a la carte

menu items. Those who bought for others likewise chose value meals.

Table 47. For Whom Usually Buy when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL

ORDERED FOR WHOM BUY

Value meal only

(Base = 110)


(Base = 233)


Total % (n=400)

Self 60 130 21 211 53% Family / Relatives 42 75 27 144 36% Friends 9 22 6 37 9% Officemates 1 10 1 12 3% Schoolmates 1 0 1 2 1%

Buying for oneself was the only task definition variable vs. meal type usually

ordered that managed to register significant responses under the Contingency Coefficient

test for correlation (Table 48). This means that those buying for themselves will

generally opt for value meals. Thus, hypothesis H3j: Consumers buying meals for

themselves will more likely opt for bundled meals than consumers who buy for others is

accepted at � = .05. The likelihood of ordering value meals is not dependent on whom

consumers’ buy meals for.

Table 48. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: For Whom Usually Buy when in Fast Food Outlet vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Symmetric Measures For whom usually

buy Contingency Coefficient Value

(Nominal by Nominal) Approx. Sig. N of Valid Cases

Self 0.1293 0.0334 400 Family / Relatives 0.1099 0.0866 400 Friends 0.0260 0.8736 400 Officemates 0.0904 0.1927 400 Schoolmates 0.0910 0.1879 400

Socio-Demographic Profile

The value meal and non-value meal market segments will be profiled relative to

socio-demographic variables such as age group, gender, civil status, monthly household

income, social class and educational attainment. Cross tabulations among variables of

interest and corresponding correlation tests will be presented in the succeeding

discussions.

The cross tabulation on Table 49 of age groups vis-à-vis type of meal usually

ordered at fast food outlets shows no clustering of a majority of responses within a

particular cell(s). Thus, when tested for significance, no correlation was detected at � =

.05 (Table 50). Therefore, hypothesis H3a: Consumers belonging to younger age

brackets are more likely to choose bundled meals than their older counterparts cannot be

accepted at the predetermined level of significance. Age does not affect the likelihood of

ordering value meals.

Table 49. Age Group vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED

AGE GROUP

Value meal only

Value meal and other items in the menu

Individual menu items only Total

15 – 24 44 71 15 130 25 – 34 31 70 16 117 35 – 44 15 55 13 83 45 – 60 20 37 13 70 Total 110 233 57 400

Table 50. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Age Group vs. What Usually

Order in a Fast Food Outlet


Gender breakdown per type of meal ordered did not appear to lean towards only

males or only females (Table 51). The test for significance consequently failed to prove a

correlation existed between gender and type of meal ordered at fast food outlets (Table

52). Hypothesis H3b: Meal preference has no significant correlation with consumers’

gender is, therefore, accepted at � = .05. Gender does not affect the likelihood of

ordering value meals. Therefore, both male and female consumers order bundled meals.

Table 51. Gender vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED

GENDER

Value meal only



Male 58 111 22 191 Female 52 122 35 209 Total 110 233 57 400

Table 52. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Gender vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet



However, future studies can focus on gender vis-à-vis meal portioning where one

possible hypothesis may be that males are more likely to opt for upsizing an order. This

is assumed given the observation that males generally consume larger quantities than

females.

Cross tabulating civil status vis-à-vis type of meal ordered (Table 53) showed that

no particular preference among the single or married segments was evident for any meal

type ordered. This was further confirmed when the resulting Contingency Coefficient

test statistics failed to establish a correlation between both variables (Table 54).

Hypothesis H3c: Meal preference has no significant correlation with consumers’ civil

status is, thus, accepted at � = .05. The likelihood of ordering value meals is not

determined by consumers’ civil status. Both single and married consumers order bundled

meals.

Table 53. Civil Status vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED

CIVIL STATUS

Value meal only



Single 68 118 24 210 Widow/Widower 2 2 2 6 Separated/Divorced 2 5 0 7 Annulled 1 1 1 3 Married 37 106 30 173 Common law/Live-in 0 1 0 1

Total 110 233 57 400

Table 54. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Civil Status vs. What Usually



A sizeable proportion of total respondents refused to provide data on their

monthly household income. Among those who were amenable enough, the P15,001-

100,000 range garnered the most mentions (though not a majority) across meal type

ordered (Table 55). The ensuing test for correlation failed to yield an approximate

significance measure less than 0.05 (Table 56); hence, hypothesis H3d: Consumers from

middle to lower income households are more likely to choose bundled meals than those

from upper income households cannot be accepted at � = .05. Value meal selection is,

thus, unaffected by consumers’ household income level. Consumers belonging to

different income brackets indiscriminately choose bundled meals.

Table 55. Monthly Household Income vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL

ORDERED MO. HH INCOME

Value meal only



P8,000 and below 12 12 1 25 P 8,001 - 15,000 22 53 10 85 P 15,001 - 100,000 33 72 13 118 P 100,001 and above 5 16 6 27 No answer/Don't know/Refused 38 80 27 145

Total 110 233 57 400

Table 56. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Monthly Household Income vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet



Future correlation studies involving monthly household income as a variable

should be subject to further refinement such that income gradation permits classification

into low, medium and high levels. Additionally, the P15,001–100,000 bracket is

considerably big and can still be subdivided into smaller intervals such as P15,001–

50,000 and P50,001–100,000. Introducing these intervals in the survey might have

resulted into different clustering patterns and possibly, a different significance test

outcome.

Table 57 classified total respondents into social classes with Class C posting a

majority of mentions across meal type ordered. However, the resulting correlation test

failed to establish any association between both variables at � = .05 (Table 58). Given

that household income is unquestionably correlated to social class, then it is not

surprising that said variable is likewise not significantly associated with consumers’

menu selection process. This mirrors the preceding test results correlating meal type

ordered with monthly household income. There is no sufficient evidence to prove that

the likelihood of ordering value meals is affected by consumers’ socioeconomic class.

Table 57. Social Class vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED

SOCIAL CLASS

Value meal only



AB 15 47 9 71 C 60 122 41 223 D 33 61 6 100 E 2 3 1 6

Total 110 233 57 400

Table 58. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Social Class vs. What Usually



The cross tabulation between educational attainment and what consumers

typically order when in fast food outlets shows a concentration of responses around those

who completed college across meal types ordered (Table 59). The corresponding

correlation test returned significant measures (Table 60), establishing a strong association

between both variables. Thus, hypothesis H3e: Meal preference has no significant

correlation with consumers’ educational attainment is rejected at � = .05. This implies

that educational attainment does have an inherent effect on consumers’ menu selection

process.

Table 59. Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

MEAL ORDERED

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

Value meal only

Value meal and other items in the

menu


only Total

No formal education 1 0 0 1 Some elementary 1 0 0 1 Completed elementary 1 0 0 1 Some high school 4 1 0 5 Completed high school 11 10 2 23 Some vocational 4 7 2 13 Completed vocational 6 7 3 16 Some college 25 42 13 80 Completed college 47 132 28 207 Post graduate 3 23 1 27 Don't know/Refused 7 11 8 26

Total 110 233 57 400

Table 60. Contingency Coefficient Test Statistics: Educational Attainment vs.

What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet


Compressing the above educational attainment levels into “Some college and

below” as one group, “College graduate and above” as another and “Don’t

know/Refused” as the third group yields the following distribution of responses (Table

61). A high majority of observations clustered under value meal as the predominant type

of meal ordered in fast food outlets regardless of consumers’ educational attainment.

Within educational attainment levels, more than half of responses were concentrated

under the “college graduate and above” category.

Table 61. Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet: Observed frequencies vs. Expected frequencies

MEAL ORDERED

Value meal A la carte EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Observed Expected Observed Expected

TOTAL

120 20 Some college and below

120 20 140

205 29 College graduate and above 201 33

234

18 8 Don’t know / Refused

22 4 26

TOTAL 343 57 400

Testing for significance using the Chi Square test for independence and the

Contingency Coefficient test for correlation both yield significant results at α = 0.05

(Table 62). This confirms the previous conclusion before collapsing both row and

column categories. Thus, hypothesis H3e: Meal preference has no significant

correlation with consumers’ educational attainment is once again rejected at � = .05.

Educational attainment is associated with the type of meal (value meals, in particular)

that consumers order when in fast food outlets.

Table 62. Chi Square Test for Independence and Contingency Coefficient Test for Correlation: Educational Attainment vs. What Usually Order in a Fast Food Outlet

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.467 a 2 0.039 N of Valid Cases 400 a 1 cell (16.7%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.71. Value Approx. Sig. Contingency Coefficient 0.126 0.039 Nominal by Nominal N of Valid Cases 400

Note however that accepting the foregoing conclusions following test results from

Tables 60 (original educational attainment levels) and 62 (collapsed educational

attainment categories) is not supported by the reality that in Metro Manila a high majority

of Filipino consumers did reach the collegiate level vs. those who did not (given the high

emphasis on education in our culture) hence, resulting into the obvious clustering at that

point that proved to be significant. If the scope of this study were on a nationwide level,

a different distribution of responses might have been evident and possibly a different

significance outcome.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Dynamics Toward Patronage of Fast Food Outlets

Considering the habitual eating habit and the annoyingly presence of fast foods

everywhere, target market groups regardless of socio-demographic profile are likely to

have tried a multitude of fast food. The more frequently visited fast food by these target

market groups include McDonald’s, Jollibee and KFC.

From the focus group discussion it was derived that the decision making process

when choosing for a fast food outlet to patronize varies among the target market groups.

While collaborative decision-making process is usually adopted by young age segments

(15-25), the older age segments (26-59) are more lenient as they usually let their

companions in deciding which one to go to. From the results of Contingency Coefficient

treatment it can be seen that the likelihood of consumers ordering value meals is not

affected by any particular companion that they are with when dining in fast food outlets.

Whether they are alone or with the company of others they will still opt for bundled

meals

Relatively, while there are times when choice of food to order are likely to be

influenced by the recommendations of friends or relatives, generally personal choice

prevails most of the time. The survey revealed positive correlation of consumers buying

for themselves to bundled meals than consumers who buy for others.

Among the target market groups, various considerations are taken into account as

well when choosing for a food item to order in a fast food. The degree of importance in

their consideration however established that affordable pricing and taste significantly top

the rating.

Perception/Consumption/Purchase of Food Bundles

Saliency of food bundle promo’s or popularly termed value meals is high. In fact

it is generally perceived favorable and beneficial for it offers savings, value for money

and convenience. Disadvantage noted lies only on the instance when food bundle does

not match food craved for.

While several fast food outlets may be associated with the different terms more

commonly used to denote a bundled meal, McDonalds enjoy equity for “value meal.”

Adding value to a meal is subjective and depends on how a person qualifies the term,

hence, the fast food that is considered to offer the “best” value meal may vary among

target market segment.

Contingency coefficient rejected the hypothesis that consumers who regularly

dine in fast food outlets are more likely to order bundled meals than consumers who are

not regular food outlet patrons. Therefore the likelihood of ordering value meals is not

dependent on the frequency of dining in food outlets.

It is a general trend among the target market to frequently order a value meal each

time they go to a fast food outlet. Fact is, there is no evidence from the survey that there

is a difference in socio-demographic profile between those who regularly order value

meals and those who don’t. However it can be noted that the tabulation and the

corresponding correlation test established a strong association between educational

attainment and food choice. Accepting the foregoing conclusions following test results

from Tables 60 (original educational attainment levels) and 62 (collapsed educational

attainment categories) is not supported by the reality that in Metro Manila a high majority

of Filipino consumers did reach the collegiate level vs. those who did not (given the high

emphasis on education in our culture); hence, resulting into the obvious clustering at that

point that proved to be significant. Survey might yield a different result when done in the

provinces or nationwide since the study is limited to key Cities of Metro Manila.

Likewise, there is no established difference as to occasions or time of the day when value

meal is to be ordered or not. Generally, fast food is value meal. The only cases when

value meal is not ordered depend on the following:

• When food craved for is not included in any of the value meals

offered

• When deciding companions feels that those who would avail of it

would not be able to consume all the food offering in the value

meal, hence a waste.

• When value meal is perceived not to satisfy food craving or fill up

hunger.

Receptivity to Promotions/Advertising Campaigns for Food Bundles

Target market groups are well informed of the promotional campaigns adopted

for value meals. In fact they consider such a considerable motivator to their purchase

consumption of value meals. However the study’s statistical treatment result state that

there is no significant correlation to the physical surrounding and the choice of meal

ordered. Although based on survey frequency alone most prominent promo that

motivates purchase include merchandising visuals in-store, free items (toys) and

sampling.

Lifestyle Habits and Practices

Malling has become a way of life among the target market groups. However

differing behavior seem to prevail between the two market groups as while the younger

age segment (15-25) feels that it is a need, the older age segment (26-59) finds it more of

a necessity than a need. Such is deduced considering the frequency of doing and the

reason for doing such an activity.

Regardless of socio-demographic profile, target market groups spend their time

generally outside their home either at work, school or other activities that suit their needs.

Such that dining out like malling has been a prevalent routine. In fact it does not take any

special occasion to do such an activity. Regular eating out are generally done in fast

foods.

Recommendation

The study revealed that packaged prices are sought after and attract diners to the

establishment like magnets. Bundled meals (value meals) are definitely a boon to the

family’s purse that is why it is widely accepted. With the strong push of the Maxim’s

bundled meal “maximeal” they can get more discounts and longer credit line with

suppliers like plastic cups, foam packs, drink companies etc.

A combination of factors affect the consumer’s choice of bundled meal but the

most mention and significantly correlated with meal decision are affordable pricing and

taste which is characteristic of a utilitarian value. With this in mind fast food companies

should carefully evaluate their food combinations as well as adapt to the majority of the

Filipino taste and appetite. This might be the reason why KFC recently launched the P29

chicken steak meal with superb flavor and reasonable price. It is therefore suggested to

Maxim’s to sit down with their chefs and create an irresistible treat to consumers.

Consumer’s choice of bundled meals is not bounded by any socio-demographic

profile whether young or old, male and female, married or single, middle or higher

income household, less education or high education …..bundled meal is a popular order

in fast food outlets. Strategy in terms of marketing campaign should have appeal to the

general family. It is therefore recommended that a particular fast food restaurant conduct

its own study to find out who are the dominant key decision influencers for choosing a

particular fast food outlet that they may determine their primary target market and thus

develop campaign material intended for them.

No occasion situation is more prevalent reason for dining in fast food outlet and

ordering of bundled meals. It was not established that during special occasion there is

preference for ala carte menu therefore it is recommended to offer special package food

combinations and treats for particular occasions such as birthday, graduation, baptismal

and reunions as this maybe an additional source of increasing profit for value

meal/bundled meal sales. For instance Maxims can offer dimsum “bilao” this Christmas

Season for a discounted price. It should be cheaper compared to buying the dimsum in a

one order size.

According to the results of the study Meal Choice is not greatly influenced by any

single collateral or event in the fast food outlet (physical surrounding). Although a

majority of responses clustered around “menu board” as what might prompt them to

notice and order bundled meal. With this, fast food outlet particularly Maxim’s should

consider an attractive menu board with visuals of the food package that is eye-catching

and mouth watering with its corresponding affordable price tag. Promotions and Product

Sampling although statistically not significant influencer also plays a role to encourage

bundled meal offer. Therefore it is highly suggested to come up with interesting

promotion to support the sales of bundled meal. For instance, since the people of Metro

Manila are technology crazed society Maxim’s could offer an hour of wireless internet

access for a value meal order. Technology and fast food is quite a combination to offer a

great way to unwire, unwind and enjoy extra value meal and catch up on email. For busy

people who rely on laptops and PDAs it makes a lot of sense. The concept fits many

types of consumers benefiting from high speed access while escaping from the office or

school for a few minutes. Understanding the importance of value, speed, convenience

and ease of service are for today’s time-pressed consumers and with a good promotion

Maxim’s can be a relevant choice out there.

Further research can be made investigating total food industry including fine

dining restaurants and factors affecting the choice of meals. Areas such as value meal

upsizing could also be correlated to specific demographics that might affect the sales of

bundled meal. Psychographic descriptors deducted from this study could still be

extracted to find out which segment of the target market seems to cluster most or if such

lifestyle variable affects menu choice. Future correlation studies involving monthly

household income as a variable should be subject to further refinement such that income

gradation permits classification into low, medium and high levels. Additionally, the

P15,001–100,000 bracket is considerably big and can still be subdivided into smaller

intervals such as P15,001–50,000 and P50,001–100,000. Introducing these intervals in

the survey might have resulted into different clustering patterns and possibly a different

significance test outcome. The research can also be replicated in other areas such as

provincial since it was limited to Metro Manila. Further external validity can be achieved

by applying this research in other regions in the Philippines for a comparison of results

across areas.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Assael, Henry. Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. 6th Edition. New York

University, 1998.

Chan, T.S. Consumer Behavior In Asia: Issues and Marketing Practice. Haworth Press

Inc., 1999.

Edralin, Divina. Business Research Concepts and Applications. De La Salle University

Press, Inc. 2000.

Go, Josiah. Contemporary Marketing Strategy in the Philippine Setting (Updated

Edition). April 1996

Lehmann, Donald R., Sunil Gupta and Joel H. Steckel. Marketing Research. New York:

Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., 1998.

Malhotra, Naresh. Marketing Research An Applied Orientation 4th Edition. Pearson

Prentice Hall 2004.

Moutinho, Luiz, Mark Goode and Fiona Davies. Quantitative Analysis in Marketing

Management. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1998.

Roberto, Eduardo L. Applied Marketing Research. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila

University Press, 1987.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. International

Student Edition. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha Ltd., 1956.

Periodicals

Asim Ansari, S. Siddarth and Charles Weinberg. “Pricing a Bundle of Products or

Services: The Case of Nonprofits.” Journal of Marketing Research Vol XXXIII

(February 1996) 86-93.

Chandon, Pierre; Wansik Brian and Laurent Gilles. “A Benefit Congruency Framework

of Sales Promotion Effectiveness.” Journal of Marketing Vol.64 (October

2000), 65-81.

Dilip Soman and John T. Gourville. “Transaction Decoupling: How Price Bundling

Affects The Decision to Consume.” Journal of Marketing Research Vol

XXXVIII (February 2001) 30-44.

Eric T. Bradlow and Vithala R. Rao. “ A Hierarchical Bayes Model for Assortment

Choice.” Journal of Marketing Research Vol XXXVII (May 2000) 259-268.

Francis J. Mulhern and Daniel T. Padgett. “The Relationship Between Retail Price

Promotions and Regular Price Purchases.” Journal of Marketing Vol.59

(October 1995) 83-90

Jannet Highfill “Mixed Bundling with Profit and Sales Objectives” International

Advances in Economic Research; May 1, 2001

Joel Tanchuco and Neriza Delfino. “Business Focus: The Benefits of Bundling.” Manila

Bulletin; August 30, 2004.

Wubker Georg. “Bundles’ Effectiveness is Often Undermined” Marketing News;

March 18, 2002

News Article “Pizza Chain Introduces Pepperoni Value Meals” New Strait Times;

October 12, 2002

News Article “Add-tie-ins to Menu Enticement” Mediaweek; October 18, 1993

News Article “Burger King Corp. Introduced Three-tiered Value Meals” Newswire;

April 23, 2001

News Article “Beyond Your Next Renovation: B&I Volume Increases with Value Meals;

Daily Specials” Food Service Director; October 15, 2002

News Article by Bob Sperber “McD Beefing Up Value Meals” Brandweek; December

3, 2001

News Article by Carol Casper “Cutting the Mustard” Restaurant Business; February 10,

1995

Opinion and Editorial. “Why Value Meals are Popular.” Manila Bulletin; September 1,

2002.

Supplement “Add tie-ins to Menu Enticement; Discount Wars Over the Last Four Years

Have Increasingly Made Brand Loyalty Moot in Fast Food” America’s Top 2000

Brands; 2002

Internet

www.census.gov.ph

www.cbsnews.com “Save By Bundling”

www.wikipedia.org (encyclopedia)

www.jollibee.com.ph

www.okstate.edu/ag/agedcm4h/academic/aged5980a/5980/newpage110.htm, June 2005. Key, James P. “Research Design in Occupational Education.”

Interviews Conducted

Rara Naval

Research Manager

McDonalds Philippines

Email sent on December 11, 2004

Dr. Antonio Conception

Chairman Marketing Management DLSU

Corporate Marketing Research Manager, San Miguel Corp.

Email sent on November 7, 2004

Bill Marvin

Author “Guest Based Marketing: How to Increase Restaurant Sales Without

Breaking your Budget” 1997

Restaurant Doctor

Email sent November 2004

APPENDIX B

PROPOSED FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

I. Introduction/Warm Up (5 mins.) 1. Brief Introduction of purpose of meeting, confidentiality of survey

2. Discussion of rules, i.e., no right or wrong answer, take turns in answering questions 3. Brief introduction of moderator and participants

II. Warm-Up/ Lifestyle Habits Information (20 mins.)

� How do you go about your day? Describe your typical day? What time wake up and your activities after? What time do you end your day? � When are you most likely at home (daypart/time/day of the week)? What activities

do when at home? How often do such activity? Companions when doing so? � (Aside from work) What activities do you do during weekdays? How about

weekends? � What activities do you do out of home? Where do activities? Companions when

doing so? How often engage in such activity? � When engaging in (activity) who do you usually spend it with ? � What leisure activities do you do when your just alone? What about when with

friends? Family/kins? � Where do you spend such leisure/entertainment activities? Who do you spend it

with? Additional Probes if not mention in leisure activities: � Do you go out malling? What activities do you do in a mall? How often do such

activity? � Do you indulge yourself in dining or eating out?

III. Eating out Habits (15 minutes)

� What types of food outlets patronized when eat out/dine-in? Probe: Do you patronize the services of a fast food outlet? What services avail of, i.e., dine-in, take out, delivery? � How often patronize services of fast food or quick service restaurant for specific

services? � Occasions/Time of the day when visit fast food outlet/quick service restaurants? � Companions when dine-in at fast food/quick service restaurant? � Amount spent usually spent when eat out/dine-in at fast food restaurant � Which fast food outlet/quick service restaurant have they availed service from? Which is most often? Why most often? � Who usually decides which fast food /quick service restaurant to patronize? � Foods usually ordered when dine-in in fast food/quick service restaurants? � Whether take out food when dine in? Occasions when take out food? How often take out food? � For whom usually take out food? � What foods usually take out?

IV. Consumption/Purchase Patterns for Value Meals/Food Bundled Promo (30 minutes)

� How do you normally choose the food to order in a fast food /quick service restaurant? Whether take a look at the menu or already have a planned food to order prior to visiting the outlet/restaurant?

� What usually is the basis for ordering a food item? What motivates them to order a food item? Who usually decides what to order?

� Whether avail of value meals/food bundled promo when availing services of fast food /quick service restaurant? When do they avail of value meals/food bundled promo, i.e., dine-in or take out? � How often order value meal/food bundled promo when visit fast food/quick service

restaurant? Compare ratio of ordering value meal to ordering individual meals, how many percent of the time would you order a value meal each time you go to a fast food/quick service restaurant?

� Reasons why opt to order value meals/food bundled promo/Factors that motivated to order value meals/food bundled promo

� When ordering a value meal/food bundled promo, what do you consider or take into account when choosing which value meal to order? Why consider such? Which would you prefer ordering a value meal or ordering individual meals/menu? Why?

� Occasions/Time of the day avail of value meals/food bundled promo. During what instances would you avail of a value meal/food value promo? Why?

� Companions when avail of value meals/food bundled promo � For whom order value meals/food bundled promo? During what occasion order value

meal/food bundled promo for them, i.e., dine-in or take out? Why order such for them during such occasion?

V. Attitude and Perception Towards Value Meals/Food Bundled Promo (20 minutes)

Intro: You mention to order value meals or food bundled promo when availing the services of fast food /quick service restaurant, I would like to understand further your perception of value meals and food bundled promo.

� How or where did you get to know about value meals/food bundled promo in fast food /quick service restaurant you visit or patronize?

� What is your perception of value meals/food bundled promo? � What if any do you like about it? What about the things that you don’t like about it? � Are there benefits or advantages derived from ordering a value meal/food bundled

promo? If so, what do you think are the benefits or advantages? Any disadvantage? � Which fast food outlet/quick service restaurant that you have gone do you think offers the

best value meal or food bundled promo? Why did you say so? What is it in their value meals that made you think it is best? What things do you look for or expect in a value meal or food bundled promo for it to be acceptable to you?

VI. Receptivity to Promotions (10 minutes)

� Are you aware of promotional advertisements or campaigns for value meals? If yes, what promotional campaigns are you aware of?

� Where do you usually find or see such promotional campaigns or advertisements? Have you seen any clippings for discounts or promos on value meals in brochures or magazines? Do you usually collect this promo discount coupons? If no, why not?

� What promotional campaigns would be acceptable to you for such food offerings? VII. Closing/Wrap up ( Estimated Time 100 minutes)

APPENDIX C

FGD SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

A. Prevailing Lifestyle Habits and Practices The lifestyle habits of the target market groups under study reveal that while there are some similarities, there appears to be some variations as well. For instance, one of the most prominent similarities is the fact that the target market groups spend a lot, if not most of their time outside of their homes. The youngest age group (15-20 years old), generally spends at least half of the day in school. After school, during lunch breaks or even short vacant periods, they either go to the malls, or indulge themselves in other activities with their friends or schoolmates, still outside of their homes. On the other hand, those above 25 years old are most of the time out of their homes because they are pre-occupied with work. Established routines of those between 21 to 25 years old more or less is a cross section of the youngest and older market segments (15-21 or 26 years and above) Variations may be noted however as to the time they conduct their daily activities. While the older age group being more work oriented, normally starts their day during weekdays as early as 5:30 in the morning and latest at 9 or 10 am if worked late the previous day, those from the 15-25 years old age groups are more relaxed with their time waking up earliest at 9 am and latest even 12 noon.

Actually I wake up 11 or 12, watched TV then probably 2-3Pm go out, after that 7-8 pm dinner, around 8:30 or 9 go out again. I wake up 11 am tapos at 3 pm I go out then I go home 9 pm

(Class AB, 21 -25 years old)

Siguro pag gising ko mga 9 am, breakfast, tapos ready na for school. After school , lalabas kami ka-klaseko sa Mall up to 7PM Mga 10 am po, breakfast, then lalabas para makipagkwentuhan, then ligo tapos pasok na.

(Class C 15-20 years old)

We drive our children to school so I usually wake up at 5:30 afterwards straight to the office usually 10 am. My schedule after lunch is unpredictable so can be home by 5 pm or midnight. With difficulty, I pull up from bed quarter to 7, have breakfast, wash off, head for the office before 8:30 finish up at 6:30 pm,

(Class AB 26-59 years old) Usually wake up at 6 am, quick breakfast, leave the house by 7:15, office about 8:30 go home 6:30 to 7 at home by 8 Early person ako, so I wake up at 5AM, quick breakfast, leave the house 6:15 in the office by 6:30-7 am, then work the whole day, head home 6:30-7 pm. Rest, kung may magyaya, go out

(Class C 26-59 years old)

Similarly, both target market groups makes it a point to spend at least a day of the week at home. Differences rest however on the day when they are usually at home and the activities they indulge in when at home. Among those 15-25 years old, they take their time to indulge themselves in doing personal stuffs like working on the computer, watching TV, chatting on the phone and doing some household chores when at home. On the other hand, the older age segment (26 and above) take their time to rest and enjoy relaxing moments by themselves or with the family members. Activities more likely engage in include, reading, getting in-touch with relatives through email, cleaning household fixtures, cooking for the family, tinkering the piano, watching TV or simply spending time with their kids. As to the time they are home, the younger age segment seems to have unpredictable time when they are mostly at home. Such instances happen either when they do not have classes or work during weekdays or have no activities outside of home during weekends. Meanwhile, the older age segment generally is more predictable making it a point to be home at least a day during weekends. What do you do when at home…

Tumutulong po ako sa mama ko sa pag luto, pagligpit ng bahay at yon po nanunuod ng TV. Naglilinis ng bahay, inaasikaso yong mga kapatid ko. Pag Sunday po kasi usually nagigising na ako ng 12 o’clock tapos kakain po, manunuod ng TV hanggang mag hapon na po iyon.

(Class C 15-20 years old) Wala, or telephone din, watch TV Watching TV and computer

TV or DVD (Class AB, 21 -25 years old)

I would say I’m home during weekends, that’s the time I can relax, do the things that I want to do, my personal errands, whether its just staring at the window, smoking, that’s for me at home. Normally I define home when I can stay up in bed more than 10 hours during weekends.

(Class C, 25 -59 years old) Weekends, the whole day, sleep, watch TV, play the piano, read books. We usually try to be home during weekends. Funny our kids do not want to go out, they want to stay home.

(Class AB, 25 -59 years old)

Companions are inevitable among the target market groups. In most instances while doing an activity or so, it is more likely that they do these activities with a companion. Among the younger group, activities outside of the home are generally carried out with their friends or schoolmates. It is surprising that kins and relatives are seldom or an occasional companion when engaging in activities outside the home. Family and relatives are more often companions when engaging in activities inside the home. In contrast, while there is also evidence of friends as outdoor activity companions among the older age segment, family members either wives, husbands, kids, grandchildren, parents, nephews or nieces more likely prevail. One other revelation among the older age segment is the fact that, some activities are preferred to be done just by themselves.

I get the kids on Sunday and we go malling…. Every other weekends we go home to Binangonan to be with my mom and dad, so some sort of family gathering Kasi for example gusto kong pumunta sa mall, ayokong magdrive kaya kasama ko siya (husband).

Any activities done alone?

Parlor and sometimes I just would like to go to a coffee shop I make it a point na at least Thursday I have a date for myself. I have been wanting to have a Robbie day…. Shopping, kasi my husband would complain ang dami dami mong tinitingnan, don’t touch, so I don’t end up buying anything.

(26 -59 years old) Indulging in leisure activities is likewise prevalent among the target market groups. A diversity of leisure activities is quite apparent however. Relatively, while some leisure activities are evident to both, the incidence of engaging in such activities, their purpose in doing such activities, the companions they do it with, the places they frequent for such activities varies considerably as well. TV viewing among the 15-25 years old is a frequent habit in fact, as soon as they wake up in the morning and at any time they are in the house such activity is being conducted to while away time. On the other hand, among the older ones, such activity is done quite seldom and if ever they do, only as a form of relaxation and as a tool to fall asleep. Radio listening is another leisure activity more commonly engaged in. While both target market groups tune into the radio quite frequently, i.e., almost everyday, variations as to the stations and programs each target market groups tune into as well as the time and place where they conduct such activity is likewise notable. For instance among the younger age segment, radio listening is usually done in the evening at home and more often, they are tuned into musical programs. Meanwhile, it has been a habit among the older age segments (26 and above) to tune into news programs every morning or musical programs while driving to the office in the morning or driving home in the afternoon or evening. Engaging in sports activities among the target market groups is likewise apparent. Comparatively, both admit that when they do engage in such activities friends are likely to be their frequent companions. Noteworthy however is the fact that, incidence of engaging in such activities seems more frequent among the older age segments, i.e., at least once a week., unlike the younger age group which happens sporadically, i.e., when they just feel like it or they just thought of it as a means of gathering their group. This is not surprising since the older age segment considers such activities not only a form of relaxation but leisure as well, not to mention being more health conscious and more adhering to the value of health fitness because of their age than the younger age segment. Sports activities of which the younger age segment would likely engage in whenever they do so include badminton, table tennis, and basketball. Note that most of the sports activities take more than one person to happen, a proof of the need for companions. On the other hand, the older ones are likely to engage in motor or mountain biking, scuba diving, gym work-outs and regular brisk walking, some of which they would likely do on their own.

Malling is almost a way of life to both target market groups. While both groups never miss to go to the malls in a week’s time, a diverse malling habit is displayed. Incidence of malling among those 15-25 years old is quite frequent, i.e., an average of 3-4 times a week and if they do they spend longer hours, i.e., 3 to even 15 hours each visit (longer during the weekends). When at the malls, this age segment are likely to meet friends, do shopping, watch movies, dine-out, play computer games, or simply just stroll or roam around to while away time. To those 26 years and above, malling is more of a necessity rather than a need unlike the younger ones. In fact, if they can help it they would like to veer away from going to the malls. The older age segment go to the malls more likely because it’s the nearest place to dine and the fast foods are there, they need to shop for groceries, personal items for themselves or their kins, they’d like to bring their grandchildren to amusement centers, they want to please their girlfriend because she likes to shop in the mall or simply because the workplace is situated in the malls. As such, they visit the mall less frequent, i.e., once a week or less often. How often do you go to the mall and what activities do you do in the mall?

Not really, unless I have to please my girlfriend, average twice a month.

Once a week primarily because kung sino ang kasama ko not because I want to.

Once a month, kuripot ako eh. Attending to my grandchildren, naglalaro sila sa amusement center while I sit in one side reading. Twice a month. On the average, once a week as a driver, napipilitan din magpunta ruon.

(26 -59 years old) Further distinction as to malling habits pertains to the amount spent when inside the mall. The younger age groups since under a budget are likely to spend between Php 200 to 500 for their usual activities in the mall. On the other hand, since the older age groups are likely to go out with the family or would go to the malls because they are to shop for some items every time they visit the mall, though under budget constraint, tend to spend even higher, more likely Php 500 to 1,500 per visit.

Eating out is seemingly inevitable to both groups as most of their time is spent outside of their home. Amongst the younger age segment, it has become a usual habit to eat out prior or after an activity in the mall. Likewise, they find such occasions as a venue to be with their friends and peers or occasionally with their families. Such is also the case amongst the older age segment except that it’s more of an occasion to be with their families rather than their friends and peers. While there are instances when dining out are done to celebrate special occasions like birthdays, anniversaries or family reunions, it has become more of a daily routine to both segment because of the necessity, hence, needs no particular occasion to do so. With the prevalence of several food outlets in the metropolis and since it has become a habitual practice among the target market groups to eat out, it is not surprising to note that they have tried a myriad of food outlets ranging from the simple carinderia, to fine dining and more specially the countless fast foods which likely includes, McDonalds, Jollibee, KFC, Wendy’s, Chowking, Pizza Hut etc. Variations however lie on the fact that fast foods are more frequently visited compared to the other types of food outlets because its cheaper, offers faster service and as one customer would say, “it’s annoyingly everywhere” . B. Dynamics Towards Patronage of Fast foods Both target market segments appear to have tried almost all types of fast food outlets. More prominent however are burger joints, chicken and pizza houses. To cite a few, such would include McDonald’s, Jollibee, KFC, Pizza Hut, Greenwich, Chowking, Burger King, Shakey’s with the first three being most regularly patronized. Services availed of from a fast food outlet differs somehow. While the younger age segment particularly those from middle income group would have availed of both dine-in and take out services only, those from the upper income segment have likely availed of all the services offered in the same manner as the older age segment. Generally though, dine-in is the type of service regularly availed.

Availing of take out service seems more frequent among the younger age segment compared to the older age segment (average twice a week vs. seldom). When such is availed, it is more likely for themselves (more apparent among younger age group) or for their kins (both segments). Amongst the younger age segment, food take out likely happen when they are in a rush and they feel that what they have taken is “bitin” , when they want to take some dessert while they stroll or when one of their kins requested them to do so. Among the older age segment, take out happens when there are leftovers and they want to bring such to their pets or when they found the food offering in the outlet worth trying by friends or other relatives. Delivery service are not often availed of or not availed at all. Propensity to avail the service is more notable among the older age group (average once every two weeks or less often). Both market segments somehow agree that it takes no special occasion when availing the services of fast foods. In fact both segments confirm that there’s no specific time preference when to eat in a fast food, meaning this could be anytime either breakfast, lunch, dinner or snack time in the afternoon. Among the younger age group, companions when eating in a fast food are more frequently friends, schoolmates, and occasionally family members. Meanwhile, family members or relatives and officemates are usually the more common companions of the older ones. Decision making process when choosing for a fast food outlet to patronize varies among the target market groups. While the younger age groups either choose by voting amongst their companions, the older age segment thinks otherwise, sometimes they let their companions decide which fast food to patronize or go with the flow of who’s buying for the food.

The magic word is who’s buying e di dun ako. Minsan ayoko na mag isip so I let who ever I am with to decide.

(26 -59 years old) Amount spent per dining occasion in a fast food more or less range from as low as Php 50 to 120 for one person and to about Php 250 to as high as 1,000 if with companion (older age group).

The younger age segments appear less critical when choosing for a fast food outlet to patronize compared to the older segment. Amongst the younger ones, they choose the fast food to patronize on the basis of accessibility, quality of food, i.e., taste, price offering/affordability and affinity “ nakasanayan”. On the other hand , the older age segment would likely include fast service, food offering (combination meals or variety of food offerings), cleanliness of outlet and reputation in their consideration as well. C. Consumption /Purchase Patterns for Food Items/Value meals Choice of food to order when visiting a fast food outlet varies during each eating occasion. However, decisiveness seems more evident among the older age segment as usually they have already thought of the food they would initially order prior to going to the outlet. What’s surprising about this age group is the fact that despite having a planned menu in mind to order, they take their time to look at the menu board and check what’s new in the fast food outlet as well for possible additional order.

Me I have fishburger in mind before I enter. Yes , I have a plan but I listen to the offer usually given at the counter Me usually, alam ko na what to order but it has always been a habit to look at the menu board to know what’s new Oo, may favorite na ako, but still look at the menu board baka may bago

(26-59 years)

The younger age segment on the other hand, decides on a case to case basis. There are times when prior to getting to the outlet a menu in mind had been set because of affinity or cravings for the food item, there are also times when they just plan when at the store and look at the menu board first of what fits their budget or what’s new.

Sometimes na prior to going there meron na, may time naman na duon na.

Titingin muna sa menu board

Hindi na kasi yon na ang lagi kong inoorder Ganuon din, depende na lang kung may bagong food

Budget muna kung ano ang magmamatch sa budget ko.

(15-21 years old)

Varied considerations are taken into account when choosing for a food item to order, it may be noted however that such consideration appear to be common to both target segments. More likely, they would consider, the price, the taste, value for money (whether they get their money’s worth in terms of quantity, price and completeness of food offering), Mood ( whether hungry or would want to take light meal or cravings for food item), ease of ordering, availability, attractiveness of food visual advertisements, variety of choices, recommendation of friends and promo offerings. Generally, burgers, fries, pasta, chicken and the very popular value meal are frequently ordered food items during each eating occasion in a fast food outlet. Further, food ordering process though sometimes driven by recommendation is more of a personal decision. Irregardless of time, value meals as choice option during dine-in occasion in fast food is more prevalent. While in some instances value meal is also a choice option during take out occasion such is more apparent among the older age segment and those from class C homes from the younger age segment who would likely take out for their kins. Ordering ala-carte during take out seems more apparent among the younger age segment from the Upper income class. Further, value meal as a food choice option during dine-in occasion spreads across socio-demographic profile of target market groups. While it is apparent that value meal is generally ordered when visiting a fast food outlet because of its affordability, the convenience, i.e., ease of ordering , the fast and quick service, value for money, there are certain instances when such are not availed of as follows:

• When food desired to eat is not included in any of the value meals offered • When deciding companion feels that the children may not be able to eat

up all the food offering in the value meal • When value meal is perceived not to satisfy or fill up hunger

Considering that there are several value meals currently being offered, basis for choosing a value meal to order are likewise subjected to the same criteria as when they are choosing for a general food to order in a fast food.

D. General Perception Towards Value meals Overall, awareness to value meals is high. This may be attributed to the wide communication and advertising campaigns being adopted for the product both in-store and on media. Proof of the strong saliency of value meals among target market groups is the fact that when they are presented with several terms commonly used by specific fast foods to advertise a value meal, it is likely that 6-7 out of the 8 terms presented are associated with the right fast food outlet. Result of the association exercise reveal that McDonald’s holds equity for the term value meals particularly among the younger age group. While there is also likelihood to associate the term to McDonalds among the older group, there appears to be some indication of such being also associated with Jollibee. Value meal is generally perceived favorable. Both target market groups find the idea of value meal beneficial because of price consideration, value for money, i.e., completeness of food offering, convenience, i.e., ease of ordering and fast service. Only unfavorable concern cited about the value meal is the fact that the food combination are fixed and that no value meals actually matches the their desires during a given purchase time. While the younger age market are quick to utter a fast food that they perceive to have the best value meal, the older age segment are more critical saying that they have not yet seen so far or they not yet tried so far the best value meal offer. To them value meal would mean, quality food, i.e., good taste, enough serving at the same time priced affordably. E. Receptivity to Promotions for Value meals Both target market groups are generally aware of the promotional campaigns adopted for value meals. In fact they praise the visual advertisements for the product saying that indeed it motivates them to buy the product and that sometimes they are driven to purchase the food item because of the way the products are presented and used as in-store merchandising materials. Promo Coupons are likewise salient and welcomed as at one point in time they have collected and made use of or availed of such promotional campaign. It is quite apparent though that such is not much a motivator to drive them to go to the fast food on purpose and avail of the products. Availing such promotional materials is quite incidental.

Product sampling, freebies such as toys and other personalized items are more welcomed as promotional items to further motivate product purchase. Likewise to encourage target market groups to continue patronizing value meals, the adopting a point system that would provide free gas or even free parking fee is suggested, such suggestion being more apparent among the older age segment.

APPENDIX D

Respondent # Good morning/afternoon/evening. I am [your name], an independent researcher conducting a survey on fast food outlets in this area. I’d like to ask you a few questions that should take a maximum of only 15 minutes of your time. Magandang umaga/tanghali/hapon/gabi po. Ako po ay si [your name], isang independent researcher na may ginagawang survey tungkol sa mga fast food outlets sa lugar na ito. Maaari po ba kayong matanong ng ilang katanungan na hindi po hihigit sa 15 minuto lamang? A. SCREENING 1. When was the last time you visited a fast food outlet?

Kailan po kayo huling pumunta/bumisita sa isang fast food outlet?

Within the past 3 months 1 � CONTINUE More than 3 months ago 2 � TERMINATE

2. What is your age?

Ano po ang edad ninyo? [RECORD ACTUAL]

Below 15 1 � TERMINATE 35-44 4 � CONTINUE 15-24 2 � CONTINUE 45-60 5 � CONTINUE 25-34 3 � CONTINUE Above 60 6 � TERMINATE

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: Record gender. Male 1 � CONTINUE if age and gender quota is still not met. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE. Female 2 � CONTINUE if age and gender quota is still not met. OTHERWISE, TERMINATE.

3. Where do you live? Saan po kayo nakatira?

Caloocan 1 Parañaque 10 Las Piñas 2 Pasay 11 Makati 3 Pasig 12 Malabon 4 Pateros 13 Mandaluyong 5 Quezon 14 Manila 6 San Juan 15 Marikina 7 Taguig 16 Muntinlupa 8 Valenzuela 17

CONTINUE

IF 100 MALL

QUOTA IS STILL NOT

MET

Navotas 9

CONTINUE IF 100 MALL

QUOTA IS STILL NOT

MET Outside Metro Mla 18 � TERMINAT

E

B. FAST FOOD OUTLET and MEAL PREFERENCE 1. How often do you dine in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]

Gaano kadalas po kayong kumain sa isang fast food outlet?

Everyday 1 Less than once a month 6 2 – 6 times a week 2 Once every 2 months 7 Once a week 3 Less than once every 2 months 8 2 – 3 times a month 4 Once every 3 months 9 Once a month 5 Less than once every 3 months 10

2. Which fast food outlet do you dine in most often? [UNAIDED – SINGLE

ANSWER ONLY] Ano pong fast food outlet ang pinakamadalas ninyong kainan?

Jollibee 1 Shakey’s 9 McDonald’s 2 Pizza Hut 10 KFC 3 Sbarro 11 Burger King 4 Tokyo Tokyo 12 Chowking 5 Maxim’s Tea House 13 Goldilocks 6 Wendy’s 14 Greenwich 7 Other (Specify) 15 Red Ribbon 8

3. What do you usually order when dining in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]

Ano po ang kadalasan ninyong ino-order kung kumakain kayo sa isang fast food outlet?

Value meal only 1 Value meal and other items in the menu 2 Individual menu itemsonly 3

4. What did you order the last time you dined in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]

Ano po ang ino-order ninyo nung huli kayong kumain sa isang fast food outlet?

Value meal only 1 � CONTINUE Value meal and other items in the menu 2 � CONTINUE Individual menu itemsonly 3 � SKIP TO SECTION C

5. When you last ordered a value meal, from which fast food outlet was it? [UNAIDED]

Noong huli kayong um-order ng value meal, saang fast food outlet ninyo ito binili?

Jollibee 1 Shakey’s 9 McDonald’s 2 Pizza Hut 10 KFC 3 Sbarro 11 Burger King 4 Tokyo Tokyo 12 Chowking 5 Maxim’s Tea House 13 Goldilocks 6 Wendy’s 14 Greenwich 7 Other (Specify) 15 Red Ribbon 8

C. FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN MEAL CHOICE 1. Which among the following factors do you consider important in choosing a

particular meal item from among several menu items available? What else? Anything else? [SHOWCARD – CONSIDER MULTIPLE ANSWERS.]

Alin po sa mga sumusunod na bagay ang sa tingin ninyo ay importante sa pagpili ninyo ng pagkaing o-order-in mula sa karamihan ng mga pwedeng piliin sa menu? Alin pa po? Meron pa po ba o wala na?

a. Affordably priced 1 h. Trial of new product offering 8

b. Ease of ordering 2 i. Attractiveness of visual ads 9 c. Availability of menu item 3 j. Type of food in mind 10 d. Completeness of food combinations 4 k. Promotion

(discounts, give-aways) 11

e. Taste 5 l. Recommendation of others 12 f. Big serving size 6 m. Variety of menu choices 13 g. Affinity towards menu item (“nakasanayan”) 7 n. Other (Specify)

14

2. I have here a list of factors that you may or may not consider important in choosing a

particular meal item from an entire selection of menu items. Please rate each factor according to a 5-point importance scale where a rating of “5” means that the factor is ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT to you and “1” means that the factor is ONE OF THE LEAST IMPORTANT to you. How important is [MENTION FACTOR] to you in choosing a particular meal item from a menu selection? [PLEASE ROTATE CARDS BEFORE HANDING RATING BOARD TO RESPONDENT.] Meron po ako ditong listahan ng mga bagay na maaaring importante or hindi sa pagpili ninyo ng pagkaing o-order-in mula sa karamihan ng mga pwedeng piliin sa menu. Paki-graduhan po ninyo ang bawat isa sa pamamagitan ng 5-point scale na kung saan ang gradong “5” ay nangangahulugang ito ay ISA SA PINAKA-IMPORTANTE sa inyo at ang grading “1” ay ISA SA HINDI IMPORTANTE. Gaano po ka-importante ang [MENTION FACTOR] sa pagpili ninyo ng pagkaing o-order-in sa menu?

Very important Not important at all

Factor (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) a. Affordably priced 5 4 3 2 1 b. Ease of ordering 5 4 3 2 1 c. Availability of menu item 5 4 3 2 1 d. Completeness of food

combinations 5 4 3 2 1

e. Taste 5 4 3 2 1 f. Big serving size 5 4 3 2 1 g. Affinity towards menu item

(“nakasanayan”) 5 4 3 2 1

h. Trial of new product offering 5 4 3 2 1 i. Attractiveness of visual ads 5 4 3 2 1

Very important Not important at all

Factor (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) j. Type of food in mind 5 4 3 2 1 k. Promotion (discounts, give-aways) 5 4 3 2 1

l. Recommendation of others 5 4 3 2 1 m. Variety of menu choices 5 4 3 2 1

D. PURCHASE SITUATIONS 1. When choosing what to order from among several fast food menu items, which do

you think influence your choice the most? What else? Anything else? [SHOWCARD - CONSIDER MULTIPLE ANSWERS.] Kung pipili kayo mula sa karamihan ng pwedeng order-in sa isang fast food menu, anu-ano po sa mga sumusunod na bagay ang masasabi ninyong higit na nakaka-impluwensya sa inyo? Ano pa po? Meron pa po ba o wala na?

Flyers 1 Banners 2 Menu board 3 Promotion (discounts, give-aways) 4 Product sampling 5 None 6 Other (Specify) 7

2. Who are you usually with when dining in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD] Sino po ang kadalasan ninyong kasama kung kayo ay kumakain sa isang fast food outlet?

Self / Alone 1 Officemates 4 Family/Relatives 2 Schoolmates 5 Friends 3 Other 6

3. What occasion do you usually attend when dining in a fast food outlet?

[SHOWCARD] Ano pong okasyon ang kadalasan ninyong dinadaluhan kung kayo ay kumakain sa isang fast food outlet?

Birthday 1 Reunion 5 Anniversary 2 No occasion 6 Christening 3 Other 7 Date 4

4. What time of day do you usually dine in a fast food outlet? [SHOWCARD]

Ano pong oras kayo kadalasang kumakain sa fast food outlet?

Breakfast 1 Afternoon snack 4 Morning snack 2 Dinner 5 Lunch 3 Other 6

5. When ordering at a fast food outlet, for whom do you usually buy? [SHOWCARD]

Kung kayo po ay umo-order sa isang fast food outlet, para kanino po kayo kadalasang bumibili?

Self / Alone 1 Officemates 4 Family/Relatives 2 Schoolmates 5 Friends 3 Other 6

E. PSYCHOGRAPHIC PROFILE I have here a list of statements that may or may not describe you. Please indicate your agreement or disagreement to the following statements using a 5-point scale where “5” means that you definitely agree and “1” means that you definitely disagree to how each statement describes you. [PLEASE ROTATE CARDS BEFORE HANDING RATING BOARD TO RESPONDENT.]

Meron po ako ditong ilang mga pangungusap na maaaring naglalarawan sa inyo o hindi. Sabihin po ninyo kung gaano kayo sumasang-ayon o hindi sa mga sumusunod na pangungusap sa pamamagitan ng 5-point scale na kung saan ang gradong “5” ay nangangahulugang talagang sumasang-ayon kayo at ang gradong “1” ay talagang hindi kayo sumasang-ayon sa paglalarawan sa inyo ng bawat pangungusap.

Agree a lot Disagree a lot

Statement (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 1. When I see a new brand on the shelf, I often buy it just

to see what it's like. 5 4 3 2 1

2. It’s worth paying extra for quality goods. 5 4 3 2 1 3. I would rather spend my free time at home than go out. 5 4 3 2 1 4. I am concerned about health but tend not to do much

about it. 5 4 3 2 1

5. I am particular about what I eat. 5 4 3 2 1 6. I often buy take-out meals to eat at home. 5 4 3 2 1 7. I really enjoy cooking. 5 4 3 2 1 8. I shop around a lot to take advantage of specials or

bargains. 5 4 3 2 1

9. I try to eat healthier food these days. 5 4 3 2 1 10. I like attending social occasions like weddings,

birthdays, parties, etc. 5 4 3 2 1

11. I like dining out. 5 4 3 2 1 12. I like spending my free time in malls. 5 4 3 2 1 13. I like to try out new food products. 5 4 3 2 1 14. I do volunteer work in my community or in school. 5 4 3 2 1 15. I enjoy surfing the internet. 5 4 3 2 1 16. I enjoy watching TV and home videos. 5 4 3 2 1 17. I follow the latest trends and fashions. 5 4 3 2 1 18. I like going to the movies. 5 4 3 2 1 19. I would like to spend my vacation traveling to far and

different places. 5 4 3 2 1

20. I like reading a lot. 5 4 3 2 1 21. I enjoy engaging in sports activities. 5 4 3 2 1 22. I like playing games online. 5 4 3 2 1 23. I enjoy being in the company of friends and/or family. 5 4 3 2 1

F. DEMOGRAPHICS

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASS CIVIL STATUS FACILITIES FOUND IN THE HOMEAB 1 Single 1 Running water 1Upper C 2 Widow / Widower 2 Electricity 2Broad C 3 Married 3 Radio 3D 4 Separated / Divorced 4 TV 4E 5 Annulled 5 Black & White 5

Common Law / Live-in 6 Color 6w/ Cable 7

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT VHS/VCD/LASER/DVD 8(SHOWCARD) HH R LAST AMOUNT PAID FOR ELECTRICITY Stereo 9No formal education 1 1 P ___________________ Piano/Organ 10Some elem 2 2 P 300 & below 1 Oven Toaster 11Completed elem 3 3 P 301 - 500 2 Coffee Maker 12Some HS 4 4 P 501 - 1,000 3 Turbo Broiler 13Completed HS 5 5 P 1,001 - 1,500 4 Range with Oven 14Some vocational 6 6 P 1,501 - 2,000 5 Microwave Oven 15Completed vocational 7 7 P 2,001 - 5,000 6 Refrigerator 16Some college 8 8 P 5,001 - 10,000 7 Washing Machine 17Completed college 9 9 P 10,001 - 15,000 8 Air Conditioner 18Post graduate 10 10 P 15,001 - 25,000 9 Water Heater (installed) 19Don't know/Refused 99 99 P 25,001 and up 10 Water Purifier 20

Don't Know / Refused 99 Not Installed 21Installed 22

OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD HOME OWNERSHIP Automobile 23Own house 1 Telephone 24Renting 2 Cellphone 25Neither own nor rent 3 Computer 26

With Internet 27OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENT Without Internet 28

MONTHLY HOME RENTAL (if renting) MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD INCOMEP ___________________ (SHOWCARD)

P 2,000 and below 1 P 8,000 and below 1WORKING STATUS OF RESPONDENT P 2,001 - 5,000 2 P 8,001 - 15,000 2

Working 1 P 5,001 - 20,000 3 P 15,001 - 100,000 3Non-working 2 P 20,001 and up 4 P 100,001 & up 4Student 3 Don't Know / Refused 99 Don't Know / Refused 99

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER:

Do not fill out.

Name of Respondent (optional) Contact nos.

END OF INTERVIEW. THANK RESPONDENT and GIVE TOKEN.

APPENDIX E

RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE PRE-TESTING Based on the pre-testing of questionnaire conducted on July 30, 2005 in Maxims MH Del Pilar branch (outside the mall outlet), the following amendments were applied so as to make the research instrument more reliable and accurate in measuring the variables: 1. Respondents gave more than one answer to the factor they consider important in choosing a particular meal (C1). To allow multiple answers there was a note to the questionnaire that says “consider multiple answers.” That was also the reason why follow up questions of "What else" and "Anything else" was inserted. 2. Respondents identified a combination of answer to the question about physical surrounding as an influence to what they order (D1). Again multiple answers was considered. If they say that they order out of habit/experience, then that means that none of the collaterals or promos (or what the researcher collectively term as "physical surroundings") influence them in any way. Then the additional choice "None" was inserted. 3. In the Screening portion, the researcher incorporated the 17 MMla areas in the questionnaire so it won’t be hard for the interviewer to flip through an additional page. 4. In the tagalong translation of the question pertaining to meal preference ( B1-B4 ) the word “bumisita” was replaced with “kumain” to clarify the English thought of the sentence. 5. Respondents gave two additional factors considered in meal choice. This was incorporated in question C1 & C2 (convenience and variety to choices). 6. For question pertaining to purchase situation, the researcher added choice of companion to question D1 and D5 identified as “officemates” 7. The Psychographic statements were cut down from 35 to 23 as this was the tolerable number that the respondents were willing to answer.

A Study of Factors

Documents

Transcript of A Study of Factors