Factors Influencing When and How to Eat - Research Paper Example

Factors Influencing When and How to Eat Many organizations today aim at maximizing their sales through offerings that satisfy their s needs.It is important to note that failure to understand the reasons why customer’s buy particular products at particular times may lead to low sales and even losses. It is for this reasons that many firms would normally take seriously trends in consumer behavior, and what those trends portends for them. This research aimed at finding out the factors that influence the buying and eating trends of consumers with regards to food. Basically, when it comes to food, the consumer have a number of options at their disposal. For instance, they may opt to buy and cook in their own homes. Another alternative would be to eat away from home, or carry cooked food, popularly known as ‘takeaways’. The data was collected using three tools; focus group; interviews and observations. The focus group approach, and involved seven respondents. Out of the seven, four were from Hong Kong while three were from London, Australia and the Philippines respectively. All the participants at least bought their food from outside, and none produces their own food. According to the interviewees, five would opt to cook for themselves if time was not a limiting factor. The other two would definitely eat out because of one felt it was convenient while the other saw this as an opportunity to test different flavors.This observation is line with the findings of Warde & Martens (2000, p. 48) and Jones (2002, p. 39) who observed that some people would eat out for pleasure and leisure even though the food itself would not be nutritious. However, if time is limited, a majority of them (six) would prefer to eat out as this is the most convenient in terms of saving time. But above all, the issue of time came out with regards to what one eats. For all of them, if time is a limiting factor, only one would cook food or even forgo eating, while the rest would opt for ready-made foods. This trend has been observed in other studies and is attributed it to a small minority of consumers who are health conscious and would not eat out if they can avoid it (Baker & Burnham, 2002). Another thing that came out of the interview was that almost all the interviewees had no preferred brand of food or restaurant. What came out is that some had not been in London long enough to develop such a preference. Even though, there was no brand that was mentioned by more than one individual and as a result, each had their own preference. Besides, they used the word ‘I think’ which shows that the preference level is not strong and may easily change with time.Brucks, et al. (2000, p. 362) and Engel, et al. (1995, p. 72)notes that this is only possible in the event that marketing techniques fail to appeal to the consumers. Another issue that influence where and how one eats is the quality of food. In this instance, three of the interviewees identified quality in terms of taste, flavor and brand as influencing their decision to eat. Two of the respondents consider companions as more important than even price. With this regards, if one is eating out with friends, then they may not give price much consideration. This may be because such individuals would feel the pressure to conform (Engel, et al., 1995, p. 89 and Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 47). With regards to quality, two respondents expressed their desire to even travel to get their preferred food. This shows that people would not just consume anything they come across if they have issues with quality. Therefore, location of a restaurant may not necessarily determine where one eats and how they eat. This trend is also common with consumers with strong brand preferences (Schiffman & Kanuk, 1996). On the other hand, given the high cost of living, most people would like to have good value for money. As a result, if the food matches the price, consumers would be willing to buyeven if it is at a premium price (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 23). Conversely, if a consumer thinks that the quality of what is being offered is not in tandem with the price, then they may as well fail to purchase the product.However, three of the interviewees stressed the need for price to be reasonable, alluding to the fact that they won’t buy if price is unreasonably high. Thus, consumers are likely to travel, especially when time is not a limiting factor, to get their best food and meals if the price is reasonable and the quality good(Furaiji, et al., 2012). Another factor that came out is the fact that three interviewees cited convenience as being important, saying that they would definitely be unwilling to waste time if time was limiting. As a result, consumers who have little time in their hands would like to go for readily available restaurant to get their food.Besides, they would also be looking for readily available meals rather than but what they will have to go out and cook. Health consideration was also a factor that determined the choice of when and how to eat. Only one interviewee cited health consideration being the reason for cooking food and not opting for ready-made meals at the restaurant. This represents a tiny minority who are health conscious and would rather post pone meals until they get time to eat what they have cooked. During the observations, it was observed that the participants tended to be more careful when buying food items. As a result, they were keen on making informed decisions through getting as much information from the labels. Key information here included the expiry date as well as the ingredients. Data Collection Methods FOCUS GROUP STRENGTH WEAKNESSES It provides a glimpse into the participants internal thinking (Folch-Lyon & Trost, 1981) which facilitates probing. Open discussion among participants may generate new ideas, hence helping to expound the topic. Participant’s nonverbal expressions such as gestures can offer more insights into what has been said. It is easy to understand the results which will be used to draw the conclusions. Discussion is open ended making it difficult to analyze collected data. As a result, a lot of time may needed to make necessary comparisons to arrive at appropriate conclusions. Difficulty in collecting private information. This is because of the process occurs in public. Heterogeneity of individuals may make the results unsuitable for projections into the general population. For instance, in our case, all the respondents were youths ranging between 20-22 years of age. If the moderator fails to build rapport among the participants(Carey & Smith, 1994, p. 233), the process may fail to give in-depth information. FACE TO FACE INTERVIEW STRENGTHS WEAKNESS It can capture both verbal and nonverbal cues, helping the researcher to get more insights about the respondent thinking. It also captures the emotions of the respondent and the interviewer is able to know how avoid antagonizing interviewee. Clarifications can be obtained instantly, and this helps to get more accurate data on the topic under discussions. Interviewer can create a good rapport with the interviewee such as promising confidentiality them their privacy and this helps to get more information can could not have been got with other non-personal methods. Depended on the interviewing skills of the interviewer. Quality of collected data may be affected. May suffer from reactive effects(Sage publications, 2012). This is a situation whereby the interviewer is only ready to discuss what is desirable. Data collected through open ended questions may pose problems during analysis. Interviewees may not recall important information, limiting extend of data that can be collected. OBSERVATION STRENGTHS WEAKNESS It provides direct access. There is no reliance on third party reports. Can provide information on issues people may not be willing to talk about. Observes is able to see things that may likely escape the attention of those being observed. No information is available to explain the reasons behind observed behavior. Presence of observer may mean that those being observed may behave in a way they think would appeal to the observer. Inability to observed dispersed populations at the same time and draw comparisons. Focus group was the most helpful tool. This is because of the fact that there were more participants which gave a diverse understanding of the subject(Sage publications, 2012). Again, it provided a good background for the topic given that the respondents were from different backgrounds and preferences, hence helping to collect more information and giving better insights. On the other hand, face to face interview enabled the researcher to collect a more detailed data from an individual in a way that was not possible with focus group. Practical Implications The results of this research is important in designing and promoting business offering in a way that can improve performance of a business. The first issue to explore will be how much to charge the offering. Of most importance is the fact that marketers will in most instances tend to balance between profits and affordability of their products by the consumers (Wells & Foxall, 2012, p. 39). However, what this research shows is the fact that the consumers puts a higher premium on the quality of food and would like that to be matched with the price. In most instances, it tends to be assumed that a higher quality has to be matched with a higher price. It will be the important to balance between quality and price, so that businesses do not price themselves beyond the reach of consumers. The research also shows the need to undertake promotional activities with regards to the needs of the targeted consumers. In the research, it is important to note that the participants lacked clear preference for any brand. Yet preference can can be a competitive advantage in such a way that the company can continue generating sales even without investing a lot in advertisements(Mooij, 2013). The low preference is an indicator that the advertisements and other promotional activities have not been able to appeal to the need and interests of the consumers in such a way as to make them consumers’ automatic choice. Another likely implication is the fact that a majority of respondents would be willing to cook their food if time is not a limiting factor. However, if time is limiting, then a majority of them would opt to have ready meals. A business in the food industry aiming to increase sales should also target both market segments. This will means that the business should have a plan to serve both segments. The challenge will probably aim at dominating both segments will superior quality of offerings which are appropriately priced in a way that makes them affordable to their target markets. Hence, those targeting one market segments only should start thinking of diversifying. It is also important to note that business in the ready-to-eat segment should know that their main consumers are those who are pressed for time. This means that these consumers that they have no time to waste. Processes of the businesses should thus be organized in a way that consumers take as little time as possible on the queue and within a short time they should have been served and either eating or existing the restaurant. This will help build their reputation and increase chances of consumers coming back, thus giving them more business (Schiffman& Kanuk, 1996)). Businesses should also aim to make themselves a big a brand of preference among consumers through offering a higher levels of customer service. This would means that the business would aim to offer exemplary service in various dimensions, which goes beyond food being sold. Bibliography Baker, G. & Burnham, T., 2002. The market for genetically modified foods: consumer characteristics. International Food and, Volume 4, pp. 351-60. Brucks, M., Zeithaml, V. & Naylor, G., 2000. Price and brand name as indicators of quality dimensions for consumer durables.. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,, 28(3), pp. 354-71. Carey, M. & Smith, M., 1994. Capturing the Group Effect in Focus Groups: A Special Concern in Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, Volume 5, pp. 225-241. Engel, J., R.D., R. B. & Miniard, P., 1995. Consumer Behaviour. 8 ed. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research.. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Folch-Lyon, E. & Trost, J., 1981. Conducting Focus Group Sessions. Family Planning, 12(12), pp. 443-449. Furaiji, F., Łatuszyńska, M. & Wawrzyniak, A., 2012. An Empirical Study of the Factors influencing Consumer Behaviour in the Electric Appliances Market .. Contemporary Economics, 6(3), pp. 76-86. Jones, P., 2002. Introduction to Hospitality Operations: An Indispensable Guide to the Industry. New York: Cengage. Mooij, M. d., 2013. Consumer Behavior and Culture: Consequences for Global Marketing and Advertising. Washington: Sage. Sage publications, 2012. Data Collection Strategies. [Online] Available at: http://www.sagepub.com/bjohnson5e/study/materials/toolsandtips/datacollectionmethods.pdf [Accessed 30 March 2015]. Schiffman, L. & Kanuk, L. L., 1996. Consumer Behaviour. New Delhi: Prentice Hall. Warde, A. & Martens, L., 2000. Eating Out: Social Differentiation, Consumption and Pleasure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wells, V. & Foxall, G., 2012. Handbook of Developments in Consumer Behaviour. London: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More