The Perceptions of Consumers on McDonalds - Research Paper Example

Examining the Brand Value of McDonald’s : A Market Research Study The focus of this study is to investigate the perceptions of consumers on McDonald’s. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches shall be used in investigating the current topic. The qualitative style of approach will allow a certain flexibility within the study, to take account of the perceptions of consumers on the McDonald’s brand. On the other hand, there are also some considerations in adopting a quantitative data gathering technique through the use of survey questionnaires. A survey is a means of "gathering information about the characteristics, actions, or opinions of a large group of people, referred to as a population" (Salkind, 2000). There are several ways of collating data; surveys are the primary means through which data is measured and captured. They have varied purposes, and encompass “marketing surveys, opinion surveys, and political polls”, among others. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire has been self-constructed, dealing with the following items: competitive cost, convenience of fast food, cleanliness of the facility, ambience of the store, personalized service, promotional offers, varied menu, being a strong global brand, and other reasons. These close-ended questions had fixed options given for each, and the respondent simply checked which option/s are applicable for him/her. Close-ended questions are questions that the researcher provides, and which may be accomplished by putting a check mark on a box or by encircling a response that corresponds to your choice. Oppenheim (1992) suggests these questions are straightforward and thus easier and quicker to answer; they are very useful in testing specific hypothesis. Most probably, they shall be utilized in the beginning of the investigation, since the unrestricted responses they attract create a better picture of the survey for the researcher. The main advantage of this kind of question is its ability to obtain a summated value. As Chisnall (1997) suggests that mail questionnaire is a predetermined set of questions that is sent to a predetermined sample. Its advantages over other methods include its low price, reassured anonymity, confidentiality, its large target scope and its ability to keep certain standards. Mail questionnaires are advantageous when responses have to be obtained from a sample that is geographically dispersed, or it is difficult or not possible to conduct telephone interviews to obtain the same data without much expense. Respondents can take more time to respond at convenience. However, the return rates of mail questionnaires are typically low. A 30% response rate is considered acceptable. Another disadvantage of the mail questionnaire is that any doubts the respondents might have cannot be clarified. Another disadvantage is the restriction to verbal behaviour; answers must be accepted as written without the benefit of additional explanations which interviewers could obtain by probing questions, and overall lack of control on the settings of the research. Because of these constraints, the researcher decided to personally administer the tool to the respondents. It was finally decided that the self-administered questionnaire would be used for the purposes of this research. This was attributed to limitations in monetary funds and time, as well as the fact the entire preparation, administration and final discussion had to be solely assessed by the researcher. The pilot study allows the proponent to countercheck the comprehension of the interviewees of the research topic and the interpretation of its items. The respondents are asked to answer and comment on the questions. Based on their feedback, some changes are made to the questionnaire to improve the questions considered to be biased so that they would generate more honest and accurate answers. This piloting reveals that the duration necessary for accomplishing the survey shall not be over 10 minutes for each respondent. Finalizing the size of the sample to be used is critical from both statistical and economic perspectives (Ghauri et al, 1995). Thus, the size of the sample should be determined carefully. Ghauri et al (1995) suggests that the necessary sample size depends on the sample design and variability in the population. This variability is measured by a standard deviation gained from the pilot study. Because 30 is the minimum number of respondents necessary for using parametric statistics, the researcher ensured that the total number of respondents exceeded this minimum requirement for the quantitative portion of the study. According to Chisnall (1997), validity is generally considered and established through the relationship of the instrument to the content, criterion, or construct that it attempts to measure. A lack of validity can lead to incorrect conclusion. To ensure the validity of this research, the face validity test is employed as a measure for this questionnaire. The content of questionnaire after the pre-test is shown to marketing and branding experts. They confirmed that the questionnaire basically approaches the appropriate direction. Procedure An announcement was made to all students of the university. The participants’ were not told that the study is about consumer attitudes towards McDonald’s. This is so they do not try to guess the hypothesis. Each participant was given a consent form and asked to return it by a set day. All surveys and interviews were administered personally by the researcher to control for possible inconsistencies in explanation of terms (Mellor, 1990). On completion of the study the respondents were thanked, and were briefly informed of the study’s hypothesis, and of their part in the research. Results will be made available to all of them following dissertation submission. A total of 160 respondents participated in the study. Method for Data Analysis The statistical tool that shall be used for the quantitative portion are descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficient. This statistic is used to establish the relationship between two variables, in terms of the magnitude of association between them, ranging from -1.0 (perfect negative correlation) to +1.0. (perfect positive correlation). Results and Discussion Results McDonald’s Descriptive Statistics Table 1. Frequency and percentage distribution of whether or not the respondent has visited McDonald’s within the past month. Response Frequency Percentage Yes 62 77.50% No 18 22.50% Total 80 100.00% When asked whether the respondent has visited a McDonald’s branch within the past month, 77.50% of the respondents expressed that they have made such a visit. On the other hand, 22.50% said they have not. Table 2. Top 3 reasons for patronizing McDonald’s. Response Percentage Competitive cost 12.0% Convenience of fast food 45.6% Cleanliness of the facility 3.5% Ambience of the store 5.0% Personalized service 1.2% Promotional offers 4.4% Varied menu 2.8% Being a strong global brand 18.3% Other reasons 7.2% Total 100.00% The top three reasons for patronizing McDonald’s are as follows: convenience of fast food (45.6%); being a strong global brand (18.3%) competitive cost (12.0%), other reasons (7.2%), ambience of the store (5.0%), promotional offers (4.4%), cleanliness of the facility (3.5%), varied menu (2.8%), and personalized service (1.2%). Table 3. Top 3 reasons for not patronizing McDonald’s. Response Percentage Better ambience from other stores 19.2% Bad image of fast food not being “health-conscious” 59.6% Limited menu 4.6% More cost efficient options or competitors 10.2% Service not up to par with my expectations 2.9% Other reasons 3.5% Total 100.00% The reasons for not patronizing McDonald’s as often are as follows: bad image of fast food not being health-conscious (59.6%), better ambience from other stores (19.2%), more cost efficient options or competitors (10.2%), limited menu (4.6%), other reasons (3.5%), and service not up to par with my expectations (2.9%). Table 4. Competitive cost. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 45 56.25% Agree 25 31.25% Disagree 5 6.25% Strongly Disagree 5 6.25% Total 80 100.00% For McDonald’s being cost competitive, more than half of the respondents (56.25%) expressed that they strongly agree; 31.25% purported that they agree; and equal percentages of 6.25% said that they disagree or strongly disagree to the statement, respectively. Table 5. Convenience of fast food. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 39 48.75% Agree 32 40.00% Disagree 9 11.25% Strongly Disagree 0 0.00% Total 80 100.00% For convenience of fast food, 48.75% expressed strong agreement; 40.00% said that they agreed; 11.25% disagreed while 0.00% strongly disagreed. Table 6. Cleanliness of the facility. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 30 37.50% Agree 44 55.00% Disagree 3 3.75% Strongly Disagree 3 3.75% Total 80 100.00% For the cleanliness of the facility, 37.5% expressed strong agreement; 55.00% said that they agreed; 3.75% disagreed while 3.75% strongly disagreed. Table 7. Ambience of the store. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 36 45.00% Agree 29 36.25% Disagree 15 18.75% Strongly Disagree 0 0.00% Total 80 100.00% For the ambience of the store, 45.00% expressed strong agreement; 36.25% said that they agreed; 18.75% disagreed while 0.00% strongly disagreed. Table 8. Personalized service. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 36 45.00% Agree 34 42.50% Disagree 7 8.75% Strongly Disagree 3 3.75% Total 80 100.00% With having personalized service, 45.00% expressed strong agreement; 42.50% said that they agreed; 8.75% disagreed while 3.75% strongly disagreed. Table 9. Promotional offers. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 64 80.00% Agree 15 18.75% Disagree 1 1.25% Strongly Disagree 0 0.00% Total 80 100.00% For launching promotional offers, 80.00% expressed strong agreement; 18.75% said that they agreed; 1.25% disagreed while 0.00% strongly disagreed. Table 10. Varied menu. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 35 43.75% Agree 37 46.25% Disagree 5 6.25% Strongly Disagree 3 3.75% Total 80 100.00% For crew service, 43.75% expressed strong agreement; 46.25% said that they agreed; 6.25% disagreed while 3.75% strongly disagreed. Table 11. Being a strong global brand. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Agree 60 75.00% Agree 19 23.75% Disagree 1 1.25% Strongly Disagree 0 0.00% Total 80 100.00% For being a strong global brand, 75.00% expressed strong agreement; 23.75% said that they agreed; 1.25% disagreed while 0.00% strongly disagreed. Table 12. Overall satisfaction with McDonald’s. Response Frequency Percentage Strongly Satisfied 39 48.75% Satisfied 41 51.25% Dissatisfied 0 0.00% Strongly Dissatisfied 0 0.00% Total 80 100.00% Lastly, for overall satisfaction with McDonald’s as a whole, 48.75% expressed being strongly satisfied; 51.25% were satisfied; and none were either dissatisfied or strongly dissatisfied. Table 13. Means and standard deviations of consumer strategies. Consumer strategy Mean Standard deviation Competitive cost 3.375 0.862 Convenience of fast food 3.375 0.682 Cleanliness of the facility 3.263 0.707 Ambience of the store 3.263 0.759 Personalized service 3.288 0.783 Promotional offers 3.788 0.441 Varied Menu 3.300 0.753 Being a strong global brand 3.738 0.470 The foregoing table shows that the top consumer strategies as rated by the respondents are 1) being a strong global brand, 2) having attractive promotional offers, 3) competitive cost, and 4) convenience of fast food. Correlations of Consumer Factors and Overall Satisfaction Table 14. Interpretation of correlation coefficients. Degrees of Freedom Probability, p   0.05 0.01 0.001 1 0.997 1.000 1.000 2 0.950 0.990 0.999 3 0.878 0.959 0.991 4 0.811 0.917 0.974 5 0.755 0.875 0.951 6 0.707 0.834 0.925 7 0.666 0.798 0.898 8 0.632 0.765 0.872 9 0.602 0.735 0.847 10 0.576 0.708 0.823 11 0.553 0.684 0.801 12 0.532 0.661 0.780 13 0.514 0.641 0.760 14 0.497 0.623 0.742 15 0.482 0.606 0.725 16 0.468 0.590 0.708 17 0.456 0.575 0.693 18 0.444 0.561 0.679 19 0.433 0.549 0.665 20 0.423 0.457 0.652 25 0.381 0.487 0.597 30 0.349 0.449 0.554 35 0.325 0.418 0.519 40 0.304 0.393 0.490 45 0.288 0.372 0.465 50 0.273 0.354 0.443 60 0.250 0.325 0.408 70 0.232 0.302 0.380 80 0.217 0.283 0.357 90 0.205 0.267 0.338 100 0.195 0.254 0.321 * Adapted from “Correlation and regression analysis for curve fitting”, http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/statistics/table6.html#Correlation%20coefficient Table 15. Pearson r correlation coefficients of customer service dimensions. Consumer strategy Pearson r Substantive interpretation Competitive cost .244* Significant correlation Convenience of fast food .419** Significant correlation Cleanliness of the facility .161 Significant correlation Ambience of the store -.041 No correlation Personalized service .090 No correlation Promotional offers .040 No correlation Varied menu -.201 No correlation Being a strong global brand .344** Significant correlation *tested at the .05 level of significance **tested at the .01 level of significance The dimensions which are correlated with overall customer satisfaction convenience of fast food (r=.419, p Read More