Contrast and Comparison of two Local Restaurant Service Providers - Essay Example

Contrast and Comparison of two Local Restaurant Service Providers A restaurant is defined as a place where people come to sit, relax and have meals cooked on the premises. Hotels and restaurants are as essential to economies by providing facilities for the transaction of business, for meetings and conferences, recreation and entertainment (Medlik, 2000). The main aspects of service quality can be both tangible and intangible. From design and décor to lighting and general smell of the location. The hotels and hospitality industry in general, is rapidly changing. The changes have in turn increased competition among the hotels forcing each to adopt to the changes or else be faced out. It is nowadays normal to reserve tables, book rooms and order meals online through websites and smartphones. Customer loyalty is also key in the hotel industry, mainly because of the competition (Bowen & Shoemaker, 1998). Maintaining customers being one of the major tasks restaurants face, has made them go out of their way to ensure customer satisfaction. A good example is the Lotus of Siam and Hash House A Go Go restaurants both located in Las Vegas. Despite being a Thai restaurant, Lotus of Siam is a reputable restaurant that has made it into almost all Las Vegas guide books. The restaurant located in a nondescript mall strip offers over one hundred and fifty choices in the menu. It is vital to get familiar with Thai meals before visiting. The place is also highly packed during peak hours, and table reservations are important to avoid long waits that can be up to two hours. Service in the Lotus of Siam is outstanding considering a large number of customers. The serving staff was helpful and not in a rush. Never at any one time did the serving staffs mix up orders and deliver food to the wrong people. However, there is room for improvement as the ten-minute wait is on the higher side. Chefs went out of their way to prepare amazing mouthwatering food that is pricey although budget friendly meals are available. The food is served hot, unlike most restaurants the soup is thick and not watered down. Also, the food is fresh and not reheated. A wide variety of exotic wine is also available when it comes to drinks. Attention was also paid to the spice as one is required to select a spice level based on a scale of one to ten. The food had a distinctive aroma, and the general appearance of the food is inviting. The hotel setting is more of traditional décor. The interior is simple without unnecessary cluttering. Chandeliers give the right lighting without being excessively bright or dull. The other restaurant is Hash House A Go Go. The restaurant is well aware of the fact that service quality is considered when it comes to customers overall perception of brilliance and superiority (Clow, Kurtz, Ozment, & Ong, 1997; Zeithaml, 1988). This restaurant prides itself on providing the best farm food and is open twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. The restaurants catchphrase is actually twisted farm food. The restaurant has been serving the twisted farm food delicacies for over ten years. This restaurant is located in Las Vegas Nevada. The restaurant is full especially during breakfast. Food is served hot and fresh. The portions are huge and sharing goes without saying unless your level of hungry is off the charts. Serving staff in the restaurant paid attention to aesthetics; hence the food looked amazing, and the aroma is invigorating. The prices are pocket-friendly considering the huge portions can be shared among several people. Despite the huge numbers serving staff process orders within no time and are knowledgeable with an extensive understanding of the menu. Surprisingly orders do not get mixed up, and the staff is never in a rush. Interior décor is casual, and the lighting makes the place ideal for relaxing. In Hash House A Go Go the price is incomparable to that in Lotus of Siam. Orders in Lotus of Siam are processed slowly and require patience whereas in Hash House A Go Go food was served almost immediately after making the order. The serving staff was jovial and ready for customer queries. A good example is how the staff warned us that we needed to split the food. As for The Lotus of Siam special focus is given to the food preparation. The meal is customized to suit the customers taste and preference. Spicing levels are left for the customer to decide. This provides a unique way of appealing to different customer tastes thus creating a stream of returning customers. These particular aspects of service influenced my perception of the overall service experience. Quick service at the Hash House A Go Go made a positive influence on my overall service experience. The delay when serving food is tedious and boring especially when the customer does not have company or is in a hurry. Overall service experience was also influenced positively by the high-quality food at the Lotus of Siam. Value for money is felt after tasting the food considering that it is the main reason for visiting the hotel. Slow service at The Lotus of Siam had a negative impact on the perception of overall service. The delay is not a good experience for impatient customers and those who are in a rush. Customers feel neglected, and chances are returning customers are likely to reduce eventually or look for alternatives when in a hurry. Substandard food at Hash House A Go Go earned the restaurant negative points. Although large quantities are likely to attract customers especially groups of people, the quality should also be an influencing factor. Choosy customers who are into the best quality are unlikely to be everyday customers to the restaurant. The fruits that come with almost all meals are put there for decoration and not to supplement the taste of the food. According to Wakefield & Blodgett ambient conditions, facility aesthetics, and cleanliness influence customer opinions and overall customer perception of quality (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996; Wener, 1985). In Lotus of Siam, attention has not been paid to interior and exterior décor. Outside, it looks like any other mall strip restaurant. The interior is just rows of tables and on the walls are celebrity photos and the restaurant team. Surprisingly, there is no background music in the restaurant. The lighting is not over the top, but the aroma from the ready food is more than inviting. The physical evidence of the restaurant was not up to expectations for such a reputable restaurant and had a negative impact on the perception of the overall service. The décor in Hash House A Go Go is done in industrial, urban-farmhouse way. The restaurant is spacious with ambient lighting. The background music in Hash House is from the 80s and 90s hence most tracks are familiar to most. The smell in the restaurant is nothing but the aroma of the ready food. The restaurant has heavily invested in creating unique physical evidence that has a large positive influence on the customers. The farm-based theme of the restaurant is advantageous to the restaurant as it is not unique but also memorable. According to Wakefield and Blodgett (1999, p. 52), architecture and design has a great impact on peoples emotions and affects customer satisfaction. This is mainly because the environment enables the customer to have a rough idea of the quality of service they expect. Additionally exterior and interior design emerged as the largest influencers when customers were asked what creates value and improves customer satisfaction in hotels (Dube & Renaghan, 2000). Similarities in the above restaurants exist the first being location. Both are located in the heart of Las Vegas. Choice of location is crucial it determines the number of customers. Being in the heart of the city, the number of potential clients is high. Las Vegas also has a 24-Hour culture driving prospective sales even higher. This city is also a known tourist destination and this year alone the city is almost breaking the 40 million all time tourist record. The government also favors investment through zero state income tax, zero business income tax, zero capital gains taxes and among the lowest property taxes in the country. In both restaurants, reservations and booking are allowed with exceptions on weekends. Reservations are ideal to avoid waiting for long periods of time and convenient for those with tight, inflexible schedules. Casual meetings can be planned with ease and in advance. Serving staff in both restaurants are highly trained and professional. Picking items from the menu can be a daunting task considering the wide variety. The staff readily assist and offer options that would suit the customer. Good communication skills and enthusiasm from staff creates a friendly environment for customers. The staff works as a team and are well organized and are committed to customer satisfaction. Prices are high in both Lotus and Hash House. Budget packs are available although they do not contain the tasty delicacies. However, value for money is guaranteed despite the existing shortcomings in the restaurants. The restaurants target tourists and the people who work in the city hence the high prices. The two restaurants have major differences. The Hash House A Go Go is never closed taking advantage of the twenty-four hour economy in Las Vegas whereas the Lotus of Siam is only open from seven to two in the morning. With the booming nightlife and Lotus closed down, potential customers are forced to look for alternative places to have their meals. Hash House on the other hand explores full market potential by ensuring service is provided at all times hence maximizing profits. Service delivery is also another aspect that the two restaurants differ in. Hash House ensures all orders are delivered on time whereas Lotus is not efficient in terms of serving customer orders. Customers enjoy quick service as most restaurants do not emphasize on ensuring quick service. Food quality in the two restaurants is another diversity. Lotus of has the best quality and serves outstanding tasty food. However, the food in Hash House is below customer expectations. Considering that food is one of the core services of restaurants, high-quality levels should be maintained. Ability to take custom orders made by customers is another big advantage. Interior and exterior décor also varies in the two restaurants. The physical evidence of restaurants is crucial as customer expectations are mainly based on this. Lotus of Siam does not pay attention to any of the elements of creating a good, enticing physical environment. There is no background music and the furnishing is simple and does not capture the customers emotions nor attention. Hash House goes ahead and sets a farmhouse setting and goes to the extent of playing 80s and 90s music. The music completes the farmhouse setting and creates a memorable experience for customers. The layout is another aspect of physical evidence that was present. The furniture arrangement is in such a way that customers can get to their preferred table very fast and conveniently. Branding should also be well balanced to ensure it portrays the restaurant in a positive way and should not be overdone as the branding may end up appearing as advertisements. This also enables the restaurant to ensure when different chains are opened; they are also profitable. Each service provider used physical evidence as a differentiator. The farmhouse like experience in Hash House creates a unique customer experience making it a differentiator. The interior décor has a lasting impression that the customer has not witnessed anywhere else thus enhancing customer experience. Lotus of Siam has a wide variety of assorted wines on display that create a unique, classy feel. The wine display on Lotus of Siam creates a classy touch and the same time enhances service delivery by making it easier to find specific wine bottles ordered by customers. The layout in both restaurants ensures efficiency as the ease of accessing tables enables to move swiftly from table to table without unnecessary delays. Receiving orders and taking food to the tables is done without interfering with other customers who have already ordered. Recommendations to improve the customer service experience, in general, include increasing available customer parking space. Valet parking services should also be considered. Toning down the lighting but still ensuring it is bright enough for everyone to see keeps everything alive in the restaurant. Lotus of Siam should improve customer service by improving in physical evidence. Physical evidence is considered more of as packaging a service. As much as the core objective of the restaurant that is delivering quality food is met, improving physical evidence will make the customers see the quality food that might go unnoticed. Creating an environment that is service oriented should not go unplanned. The restaurant should mainly focus on enhancing the interior and exterior style. Soft background music will create an ambient atmosphere that will stir customers emotions. As for the Hash House A Go Go restaurant quantity should not be a substitute for quality. Food being the core reason for the existence of the restaurant should be top notch. The quality of food negatively affects all the other parts of customer service and physical evidence that the restaurant has perfected. In conclusion, the Hash House restaurant is a better choice compared to Lotus of Siam despite the substandard food. The overall customer experience is superior in Hash House as Lotus of Siam only have an advantage of quality food whereas all the other aspects of service delivery are poorly done. Simply improving the food quality would easily make Hash House dominant in the restaurant and food processing industry in Las Vegas. Service in Lotus of Siam needs a major overhaul by increasing the number of waiters taking orders and in turn improve order processing time. Opening the restaurant 24-hours a day will push the sales higher and enable the restaurant to acquire new customers. References Medlik, S. (2000). The business of hotels. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann. Clow, K. E., Kurtz D, L., Ozment, J., & Ong, B. S. (1997). The antecedents of customer expectations of services: an empirical study across four industries. The Journal of Services Marketing, 11(4), 230-248. Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effects of the services cape on customers behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45- 61. Dube, L., & Renaghan, L. (2000). Creating visible customer value: how customers view best- practice champions. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 62- 72. Read More