Establishing a Fast Food Retail Outlet in the UK - Research Proposal Example

A Market Research Study on Establishing a Fast Food Retail Outlet in the UK Introduction Branding is extensively seen as one of the standards of marketing creed. Doyle (1998), for instance, disputes that "brands are at the heart of marketing and business strategy" and Kotler et al (1999) propose that "the most characteristic skill of professional marketers is their capability to create, protect, re­inforce maintain, and enhance brands". Even though the service sector has been the biggest and most active element inside the economy of advanced industrialist nations for some time, it has conventionally been product, rather than services, brands that have attracted the furthermost awareness within the marketing litera­ture. That said branding is seen to be gradually more significant in service retail­ing (Newman & Cullen 2001) and nowhere is this more apparent than in the fast food region where companies such as KFC and McDonalds are seen as to be among the worlds foremost brands. During the past decade there has been increasing academic concern in assorted features of services brands and this article seeks to include to this work through an investigative case study of customers observations of two major fast food brands within the UK. The aim of the current study is to investigate the branding and customer satisfaction trends among the best fastfood retailers in the UK, and to put forth recommendations on setting up one’s own fastfood retail outlet. Following the results of the branding study among these fastfood retailers, brief recommendations on the feasibility of setting up one’s own fastfood retail outlet are discussed. Review of Related Literature (Secondary Research) The purpose for carrying out secondary research is to have a clearer and more comprehensive background of the topic at hand. Background information on the fast food companies and their branding services has been researched through books, online sources and journal articles. In its original sense, a brand can be described as a mark burned into anything with a hot iron and in some pre-modem cultures branding was utilized to differentiate ownership and identity of cattle, of slaves, and of some com­modities. Business historians concur that branding by companies is more than a century old (Rooney 1995) - The Bass red triangle recorded as a trade mark in 1876 is often recognized as the first British brand- and Palmer (2001) implies that in history, branding assumed importance when economies of scale meant that producers were no longer able to offer customers with personal reassurances about product value. Within marketing, branding has a more definite significance and is normally described as "a name, term, sign, symbol, or design or a mixture of these intended to recognize the goods or services of one seller or a group of sellers and to distinguish them from those of competitors" (Kotler et al, 1999). Biel (1997) proposes that brands can be seen to be composed of three elements viz. brand per­sonality, brand skills, and brand relationships. A brand skill refers to the functional qualities a brand alleges to present customers. The aspect of brand personality refers to value and lifestyle relations whereas the third element is involved with the maintenance, building, and improvement of relationships be­tween brands and customers. Branding is seen to recommend significant benefits both to the company and to its customers. These comprise of providing informa­tion on quality; offering recognition, reassurance, security, and exclusivity; contributing to brand image and identity; market segmentation the mutual development and strengthening of trading relationships; and legal protec­tion. While brands and branding have long been close to the heart of marketing, the major center has usually been on product rather than services brands (Krishnan & Hartline, 2001). McDonald et al, (2001) have disputed that while much that has been written about marketing is just as suitable to products and services and that the idea of a brand is identical, for both there is a disparity between the execution of product and service brands. Partially, at any rate, this difference is seen to center around the principle that services are theoretically dissimilar from products in that services are seen to have a number of distinctive characteristics including inseparability of production and consumption, intangibility, heterogeneity of quality and perishability, (de Chernatoy & Segal-Horn 2001). Therefore Simoes and Dibb (2001), for instance, dispute that branding plays a particular role in service companies since strong brands raise customers trust of the unseen, allow them to bet­ter picture and realize the vague and lessen customers perceived financial, social or safety risk. Because it is the company which is the primary brand, they go on to emphasize that branding for services is dissimilar to than branding for products. In their conversation of the issues and challenges in the posi­tioning of service brands Blankson and Kalafatis (1999) propose that service brands are mostly unusual in that service characteristics are unlike from those of material goods and that they rely on employees actions and attitudes. Nevertheless de Chernatoy and Segal-Horn (2000) perceived that while there has been much published about the dissimilarity between products and serv­ices, this is of little value for companies wishing to develop winning serv­ice brands and they emphasize that there are few models to aid managers develop services brands. In an effort to explore this subject they assumed some research with a series of services branding consultants intended to dis­cover their observations of particular criteria which were seen to add to a successful services brand. The major three themes connected with suc­cessful service brands were expressed as being focused position, consis­tency, and values. A focused position was seen to be established by a short, to the point statement of the brands benefits which are plainly communi­cated to both staff and customers. The capacity to achieve regularity in all stakeholders perceptions and experiences of the brand is also seen to be a crucial, if principally complicated, factor in developing a successful service brand. These difficulties occur because as Irons (1994) emphasizes, a brand must be a reliable balance of all of the elements of the service mix by the use of personnel, image, core products and prices, delivery and the customers themselves. Thirdly, successful brands are seen to be developed by companies that have obvious and extremely embedded core values and staff that live the brand. The research also specified that a number of other themes also added to suc­cessful service brands including communication, innovation, systems, models, emotion, added value, relationships, commitment, and competitive advantage. These issues were all considered to contribute to, or to be a needed, but not adequate, condition for, success. Running through all the ideas was the belief that staff were vital in services branding and that staff dedication has to come first customer commitment. The authors wrap up their work with two suggestions. Firstly that the rela­tive significance of the three chief criteria could be tested in a variety of service industries differing in their balance of service characteristics, for instance, their mix of physical to indefinable components. Secondly that a different direc­tion for future research might be to center on the theme of reliability and to recognize more accurately the relationships between the human and the non­human elements involved in achieving constancy in supporting brands in different service contexts. There is an extensive selection of elements in the UKs retail catering industry but fast food is possibly the most important, the most active, and the most rap­idly growing. Although there are discrepancies in the particular styles adopted by the fast food operators, a number of common essential characteristics can be iden­tified. Fast food outlets offer an easy and quite restricted menu within a cautiously controlled operating system. An assortment of fried chicken, burgers in a bun, French fries and to a lesser degree pizza and baked potatoes present the main course. Usual desserts are ice cream and fruit pies and the drinks choice contains fizzy drinks, milk shakes, and tea and coffee. Customers line up to be served at a counter, the plan being to provide a large number of people with the smallest amount of waiting time and nearly all operators look to serve customers within three minutes of their entrance onto the building. The food is sold in not reusable packaging without dishes. Some operators present facilities for customers to eat their food on the premises while others tend to accommodate more for the take-away trade. The fast food revolution basically had its origins in the US in the mid 1950s and this style of catering has continued to develop there and to spread to most of the rest of the world in the decades since then. Schlosser (200 1) has recommended that within the US the influence of this revolution has been seen to be chiefly invasive. He argues, for instance, that during a comparatively short period of time, the fast food industry has helped to convert not only the American diet but also our economy, workforce, landscapes, and popular culture. More normally fast food can be seen as a potent sign of globalization and of post-modern society and few countries of the world seem resistant to its evident attractions. McDonalds, for instance, declare to serve 45 million customers every day in 30,000 restaurants in 121 countries around the world. US companies have played the vital role in the development of fast food operations in the UK and even though McDonalds are now the market leader and key player in this sector, it was KFC (formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken) who were the pioneers in the field. In 1965, KFCs first outlet was opened at Preston. Following KFCs introduction of the fast food concept into the UK in the mid 1960’s, it was well over a decade later before the fast food revolution began to take off. The first McDonalds restaurant in the UK was opened in Woolwich in South London in 1974 and a decade later the company were trading from over 120 franchised restaurants and they had spread out from their original base in and around Greater London to the Mid­lands and the North West of England. A number of other, then US based, companies including Burger King, Wendys and Pizza Hut followed McDonalds into the UK market in the late 1970s but none were originally able to keep pace with McDonalds quick development. A number of UK based companies including Wimpy, Casey Jones, Mr. Big, Spud-U-Like, and Olivers also entered this growing new sector of the retail catering trade during this period. During the 1980 s and 1990 s the bigger, more successful chains like Burger King, McDonalds, and KFC continued to develop quickly and to expand their geographical exposure to, and within, all urban and some rural districts while some smaller operators disappeared from the map. Branding has been a central and fundamental element in the introduction, growth and successful development of fast food in the UK. According to Mintel (2001), branding is seen to provide consumer encouragement and confidence in terms of the service, the quality of the food, menu pricing and overall stan­dards, which efficiently creates a sense of knowing what you are going to get. Therefore brands are seen to take the guesswork and doubt out of choosing somewhere to eat, so long as they are operated within stringent procedures to make certain that the brand offer is identical. This consistency is seen to carry benefits not only to the customer but also to the operating company through economies of scale. Bulk buying and marketing strategies are iden­tified as two main areas where considerable cost savings can be made. Mintel (2001) disputes that the "success of branded operators...is largely due to their capacity to offer formula food, that is, utilizing comparatively cheap ingredients, being constant in their quality and with quick service". In a comparable vein the large branded chains are seen to be able to carry out national advertising campaigns and thus reach a nationwide audience. In 2001 branded fast food outlets within the UK were projected to account for some £2,966 million of sales with burger and fried chicken sectors taking an 85% share of this spending and McDonalds and KFC were recognized as being the two most popular fast food brands (Mintel, 2001). McDonalds Restaurants Ltd is the UK working division of The McDon­aIds Corporation. The first McDonalds restaurant was opened at Des Plaines in Illinois in 1955 and the company now has some 30,000 restaurants in over 120 countries and with 200 I sales in surplus of $40 billion the company claims to be the worlds biggest food service organization. McDonald’s dream "is to be the worlds best quick service restaurant. This means opening and running great restaurants and offering outstanding quality, cleanliness, service, and value". There are over 1, 200 McDonalds out­lets and some 70% are company owned with the remaining 30% being fran­chised within the UK. Takeaway sales have become an ever more significant part of McDonalds business and well over 500 outlets have drive-through facilities which in turn mirrors their rising presence on retail parks and roadside sites. The present product choice includes a range of hamburgers, mainly the Big Mac, the Quarter Pounder, the Cheeseburger along with Chicken McNuggets, the McChicken Sandwich, all on hand with French fries, as well as breakfast and dessert menus and a range of hot and cold of drinks. KFC is a section of Tricon Global Restaurants. The company trades from approximately 11,000 outlets in over 80 countries and its 290,000 employees sell some two billion meals yearly to produce sales of$9 billion. KFC has some 500 outlets and some 80% of these outlets are fran­chised within the UK. The KFC brand is best recognized for the image of its now deceased founder Colonel Sanders who endorses the companys range of chicken products by means of a range of media and in store advertising. For instance at the time of writing, the KFC website contains the subsequent message from the Colonel Now if theres one thing I like talking about it is my chicken-I am a chicken champion, a poultry professor, the worlds greatest chicken expert. KFC declare to use only whole chicken rather than processed reformed or re­constituted varieties. The chicken is then encrusted with the Colonel Sanders secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices and all chicken is said to be newly pre­pared in store. The precise nature of the chicken product choice has varied over time but the companys menu presently includes Extra Tasty Crispy Chicken, Chicken Burgers, Original Recipe Chicken, Crispy Strips and Chicken Wraps. These products can be ordered with fries and drinks as part of a standard or bucket meal. The current study aims to employ questionnaires to gather their brand perceptions of Mcdonalds and KFC. Such a method was seen to present operational simplicity while allowing participants a chance to share about not only the perceptions but also, where suitable, their deeper feelings and emotions about the two fast food brands through the open ended questions. Moreover, focused group discussions were arranged with selected respondents. A topic guide was arranged structured around the three main services brand themes identified by de Chernatoy and Segal-Horn (2000) but participants were also persuaded to talk about other associations with each brand. The group discussions were performed in between 45 and 60 minutes. The participants covered a wide variety of ages and working back­grounds. The author made detailed notes during the discussions and the examination that follows draws on these notes to summarize and explore customers perceptions of fast food brand attributes. Theoretical/ Conceptual Framework The theoretical framework for the current study has been adapted from the service quality model of Gilbert and Joshi (1992). The fast food companies shall be evaluated by their customers in terms of their perceptions on six (6) branding dimensions, as follows: 1) restaurant cleanliness, 2) lavatory, 3) ambience, 4) advertising, 5) food (i.e. quantity and quality), and 6) service crew. Figure 1. Gilbert & Goshi’s (1992) service quality model. Consumer Methodology for Primary Research Research Design The current study on brand building employs a descriptive-comparative research design. It is descriptive in nature because it aims to “provide further insight by describing the variable of interest.” (http://cas.uah.edu/wrenb/mkt343/resdesigns_files/frame.htm). Moreover, it is comparative in nature because it aims to identify significant differences between the brand service perceptions of consumers between two airline companies: Mcdonalds and KFC. Samples of the Study Two samples were used for the study, representing Mcdonalds and KFC, respectively. These consist of consumers of both establishments. The respondents were chosen randomly, with 70 respondents from each establishment. The t-test for dependent variables as a statistical tool for analysis. The respondents were randomly selected, and asked by service crew to accomplish the questionnaire during their visit at the fastfood outlet. Instrumentation The main instrument used for data gathering was the Branding Services and Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire. This tool has been self-constructed by the researcher, and underwent content and face validation by two Testing and Instrumentation experts. Item 1 of the tool is a dichotomous (yes-no) item, asking if the respondent has eaten in the establishment in the past. The next item inquires about the frequency with which the respondent flies with the airline, using a 4-point likert scale, ranging from 1– never to 4 – always. The succeeding items measure the level of the six (6) customer service dimensions, namely: 1) restaurant cleanliness, 2) lavatory, 3) ambience, 4) advertising, 5) food (i.e. quantity and quality), and 6) service crew. A 5 – point likert scale was used for the purpose, with 5 – outstanding to 1 – needs improvement. This is followed by an open-ended question on which features of the fastfood outlet needs improvement. Finally, a yes-no question is asked on whether the passenger was willing to visit the fastfood restaurant again. Procedure The researcher first finalized the topic and decided to undertake a study on the comparison of the branding services customer satisfaction between consumers of McDonalds and KFC. The researcher then submitted the topic to their mentor for approval. Consequently, the researcher gathered secondary data through books, journals, white papers, and the internet to provide a coherent background for the study through the review of related literature. The construction of the questionnaire followed; the content and face validation of the tool were done through two Testing and Instrumentation experts. The researcher then submitted letters requesting for permission to conduct surveys with consumers of McDonalds and KFC, to which they both obliged. Sixty four accomplished questionnaires were returned to the researcher for collation and tabulation. Data analysis followed, computing for frequency and percentage distributions, and the t-statistic. The statistical results were substantively analyzed, which were the basis for the recommendations and conclusions. Data Analysis Frequency and percentage distributions were used to describe the data on item 1 (i.e. whether they have already eaten at the establishment in the past); item 2 (frequency of eating in the establishment); and item 12 (i.e. willingness to eat at the establishment again). The t-test for two independent groups has been used to test if there were significant differences in the branding service evaluations of consumers of the two fastfood chains. Finally, the point-biserial correlation coefficient was used to determine which of the branding services were significantly correlated to willingness to patronize the establishment again. Results KFC Descriptive Statistics Table 1. Frequency and percentage distribution of whether or not the respondent has eaten at KFC before. Response Frequency Percentage Yes 65 100% No 22 0% Total 65 100.00% When asked whether they have eaten at KFC in the past, all respondents have indicated yes. Table 2. Frequency of eating at KFC. Response Frequency Percentage Never 0 0.00% Rarely 41 63.07% Sometimes 21 32.31% Always 0 0.00% Total 65 100.00% For the frequency with which they eat at KFC, 32 (63.07%) said they rarely eat; 21 (32.31%) expressed they sometimes eat; while none always ate. Table 3. Lavatory frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 2.49 0.50 2 33 50.77%     3 32 49.23%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     For the dimension lavatory, the computed mean was 2.49. Almost equal percentages of respondents said their expectations were either met (32 or 49.23%) or only some of these were met (33 or 50.77%). All the other responses yielded 0.00%. Table 4. Ambience frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 2.58 0.50 2 27 41.54%     3 38 58.46%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     Similar to the pattern of responses for lavatory, ambience garnered an average of 2.58. with majority of the responses falling into the expectations met category (38 or 58.46%). Twenty seven (41.54%) expressed that some of their expectations were met. All other categories yielded 0.00% response rates. Table 5. Advertising frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 1 1.54% 4.26 0.87 2 4 6.15%     3 0 0.00%     4 32 49.23%     5 28 43.08%     Total 65 100.00%     Entertainment received a relatively high average at 4.26. Majority of the respondents (32 or 49.23%) said that most of their expectations were met, while 28 (43.08%) said that this dimension was outstanding. Four (6.15%) of the respondents said that only some of their expectations were met, while 1 (1.54%) expressed that this dimension needed improvement. Table 6. Food quantity frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 2.51 0.50 2 32 49.23%     3 33 50.77%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     For food quantity, the average was 2.51, with majority of the respondents (33 or 50.77%) responding that their expectations with the dimension were met; 32 (49.23%) said that their expectations were sometimes met. All other response categories garnered 0.00% response rates. Table 7. Food quality frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 2.58 0.50 2 27 41.54%     3 38 58.46%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     The average for food quality is 2.58. More than half of the respondents (38 or 58.46%) expressed that their expectations on the dimension were met; 27 respondents said that only some of their expectations were met. The remaining response categories did not yield any response. Table 8. Attentiveness frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 1 1.54% 2.57 0.53 2 26 40.00%     3 38 58.46%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     For attentiveness, the average was 2.57. The category met expectations received the most number of responses (38 or 58.46%). Twenty-six (40.00%) said that some of their expectations were met, while 1 respondent (1.54%) expressed that this dimension needed improvement. Table 9. Efficiency frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 2.57 0.50 2 28 43.08%     3 37 56.92%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     Efficiency received a mean rating of 2.57. Most of the respondents (37 or 56.92%) expressed that their expectations on the dimension were met, while 28 (or 43.08%) said that only some of their expectations on the dimension were addressed. All other dimensions yielded 0.00% response rates. Table 10. General staff attitudes frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 1 1.54% 2.46 0.53 2 33 50.77%     3 31 47.69%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     General staff attitudes has a mean of 2.46. Almost half of the respondents (33 or 50.77% said that only some of their expectations on the dimension were met; 31 (or 47.69%) expressed that their expectations were met. Only 1 respondent (1.54%) said that the airline needed improvement on this dimension. Table 11. Staff grooming frequency and percentage distribution (KFC). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 2.51 0.50 2 32 49.23%     3 33 50.77%     4 0 0.00%     5 0 0.00%     Total 65 100.00%     For staff grooming, the average was 2.51. Half of the respondents (33 or 50.77%) said that their expectations on the dimension were met. Thirty two or 49.23% expressed that only some of their expectations on the dimension were addressed. All other remaining categories yielded 0.00% response rates. McDonald’s Descriptive Statistics Table 12. Frequency and percentage distribution of whether or not the respondent has eaten with McDonald’s in the past. Response Frequency Percentage Yes 65 100.00% No 0 0.00% Total 65 100.00% When asked whether they have eaten at McDonald’s in the past, all respondents said yes. Table 13. Frequency of eating at McDonald’s. Response Frequency Percentage Never 0 0.00% Rarely 13 30.77% Sometimes 23 35.38% Always 17 26.15% Total 65 100.00% For the frequency with which they fly, 20 (30.77%) said they rarely eat; 23 (35.38%) expressed they sometimes eat; while 17 (26.15%) always ate. Table 14. Lavatory frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 4.03 0.90 2 5 7.69%     3 10 15.38%     4 28 43.08%     5 22 33.85%     Total 65 100.00%     For the dimension lavatory, the average was 4.03. Most of the respondents (28 or 43.08%) said that their expectations on the dimension were exceeded; 22 (33.85%) evaluated this dimension as outstanding; 10 (15.38%) responded that it met their expectations; 5 (7.69%) expressed that only some of their expectations were met; none of the respondents gauged it as an improvement area. Table 15. Ambience frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 4.28 0.80 2 2 3.08%     3 8 12.31%     4 25 38.46%     5 30 46.15%     Total 65 100.00%     Ambience received a mean rating of 4.28. Thirty (46.15%) said that the dimension was outstanding; 25 (38.46%) expressed that it exceeded their expectations; 8 (12.31%) responded that it met their expectations; 2 (3.08%) said that only some of their expectations were met; while none assessed it as an improvement area. Table 16. Entertainment frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 1 1.54% 4.17 0.94 2 4 6.15%     3 6 9.23%     4 26 40.00%     5 28 43.08%     Total 65 100.00%     The dimension entertainment yielded a mean score of 4.17. Twenty eight (43.08%) said that the dimension was outstanding; 26 (40.00%) said that it exceeded their expectations; 6 (9.23%) expressed that it met their expectations; 4 (6.15%) said that only some of their expectations were met; while 1 (1.54%) expressed that it needs improvement. Table 17. Food quantity frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 4.20 0.89 2 5 7.69%     3 5 7.69%     4 27 41.54%     5 28 43.08%     Total 65 100.00%     Food quantity received an overall mean rating of 4.20. Majority of the respondents (28 or 43.08%) said that the dimension is outstanding; 27 (41.54%) expressed that it exceeded their expectations; met expectations and met some expectations received 5 responses each (7.69%); while none though that the dimension needed improvement. Table 18. Food quality frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 4.15 0.94 2 5 7.69%     3 9 13.85%     4 22 33.85%     5 29 44.62%     Total 65 100.00%     Food quality yielded an average of 4.15. Majority of the respondents (29 or 44.62%) said that the dimension was outstanding; 22 (33.85%) expressed that it exceeded their expectations; 9 (13.85%) responded that it met their expectations; 5 (7.69%) expressed that only some of their expectations were met; none thought of it as an improvement area. Table 19. Attentiveness frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 1 1.54% 4.11 1.05 2 6 9.23%     3 8 12.31%     4 20 30.77%     5 30 46.15%     Total 65 100.00%     For attentiveness, the mean rating was 4.11. Thirty (46.15%) of the respondents assessed the dimension as outstanding; 20 (30.77%) assessed that it as exceeding their expectations; 8 (12.31%) responded that it met their expectations; 6 (9.23%) said that only some of their expectations were met; 1 respondent (1.54%) said that it was an improvement area. Table 20. Efficiency frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 4.23 0.95 2 6 9.23%     3 5 7.69%     4 22 33.85%     5 32 49.23%     Total 65 100.00%     Efficiency garnered an overall mean rating of 4.23. Nearly half of the respondents (32 or 49.23%) evaluated it as outstanding; 22 (33.85%) gauged it as exceeding their expectations; 6 (9.23%) said that only some of their expectations were met; none assessed it as an improvement area. Table 21. General staff attitudes frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 1 1.54% 4.03 0.97 2 5 7.69%     3 8 12.31%     4 28 43.08%     5 23 35.38%     Total 65 100.00%     For general staff attitudes, the mean rating is 4.03. Majority of the respondents (28 or 43.08%) said that it exceeded their expectations; 23 (35.38%) said that the dimension was outstanding; 8 (or 12.31%) expressed that it met their expectations; 5 (7.69%) respondents responded that it met some of its expectations; while 1 (1.54%) said that it needs improvement. Table 26. Staff grooming frequency and percentage distribution (McDonald’s). Rating Frequency Percentage Average Standard Deviation 1 0 0.00% 4.14 0.86 2 4 6.15%     3 8 12.31%     4 28 43.08%     5 25 38.46%     Total 65 100.00%     The mean for staff grooming was 4.14. Twenty eight respondents (43.08%) said that the dimension exceeded their expectations; 5 (38.46%) responded that the dimension was outstanding; 8 (12.31%) responded that it met their expectations; 4 (6.15%) assessed it as meeting only some of their expectations; while none evaluated it as an improvement area. Comparison of Service Dimensions Table 27. Branding service dimensions of KFC and McDonald’s. Branding Service Dimension KFC average KFC standard deviation McDonald’s average McDonald’s standard deviation t p Lavatory 2.49 0.50 4.03 0.90 -20.52 0.00 Ambience 2.58 0.50 4.28 0.80 -23.68 0.00 Advertising 4.26 0.87 4.17 0.94 0.76 0.56 Food quantity 2.51 0.50 4.20 0.89 -22.68 0.00 Food quality 2.58 0.50 4.15 0.94 -20.88 0.00 Attentiveness 2.57 0.53 4.11 1.05 -18.64 0.00 Efficiency 2.57 0.50 4.23 0.95 -21.94 0.00 General staff attitudes 2.46 0.53 4.03 0.97 -19.50 0.00 Staff grooming 2.51 0.50 4.14 0.86 -22.05 0.00 A comparison of the branding service dimensions shows that McDonald’s had significantly higher means that KFC on all facets, except advertising (t=.76, p>.05). McDonald’s yielded higher averages on the following dimensions: lavatory (-20.52, p Read More