Britta Dulac Hartlaub 5 06 03 Abstract Introduction

Britta Dulac Hartlaub 5. 06. 03 Abstract Introduction In this study Customers’ expectations factors in restaurants by Domingo Ribeiro Soriano, 2001. The attributes which influence Spanish customers’ decisions to return to a restaurant for another meal were examined. The survey reported on by the customers in this study used a quality rating on a Likert scale from 0 to 10. The results show that quality of food was rated as the most important attribute, followed by quality of service, cost/value of the meal, and place/ambience of the restaurant. Male customers did not rate the attributes any differently than female customers. The Spanish restaurant sector was selected for this study because, in the last three decades, the restaurant sector as a percentage of Spain’s total economy has been consistently growing. Tourism is one of the most important sectors of Spain’s economy and the restaurant sector is strongly influenced by developments in tourism as well as by other factors such as demography, lifestyle, national or regional customs and, the country’s economic situation. In Spain there is a general tendency towards people eating outside of the home, and eating out is viewed as being part of the lifestyle. Knowing what the customers want and what makes them come back is important for the restaurant sector, therefore the purpose of the research was to examine the customers’ expectations and those factors that influence their decisions to return to a restaurant for another meal. Approximate Confidence Intervals Males: FOOD: (9. 8252, 9. 8748) SERV: (8. 5944, 8. 6656) COST: (8. 0944, 8. 1856) Methods By comparing the different measures of service quality and selecting items derived from other researches a questionnaire was devised to measure customer expectations of a restaurant. Subsequently socio-demographic data were sought to permit comparisons by age and gender. The research study is focused on the following factors to determine the customers’ decisions to return to a restaurant : (1)Quality of food (four items): (2) Quality of service(five items): PLACE: (8. 0064, 8. 1136) - Menu variety - Equipment and appearance of employees Females: - Innovative food - Courtesy of employees FOOD: (9. 9116, 9. 9884) - Presentation of food - Waiting-time before being seated SERV: (8. 8666, 8. 9534) - Fresh ingredients and food consistency - Waiting time before food arriving - Waiting-time before paying the bill COST: (8. 451, 8. 589) PLACE: (8. 1649, 8. 2951) (3)Cost/value of the meal(two items): (4) Place (five items): Comparing Two Means: - Wine was competitively priced - Appearance, ambience or atmosphere of FOOD Importance Rating Comparisons: - Food was competitively priced restaurant (26 -39 yrs vs. <18 yrs) : 1. 8434 (26 -39 yrs vs. 19 -25): 2. 3478 - Appliance repair - Bathroom (26 -39 yrs vs. 40 -59): 1. 5 - Telephone service (26 -39 yrs vs. >60): 4. 4271 - Parking PLACE Importance Rating Comparisons: (26 -39 yrs vs. <18 yrs) : -0. 3659 (26 -39 yrs vs. 19 -25): 0. 5473 (26 -39 yrs vs. 40 -59): 10. 5289 (26 -39 yrs vs. >60): 2. 7892 RESULTS: A total of 3. 872 customers participated in the study. The largest percent of respondents were male, about 40 -59 years of age. Findings showed that FOOD was significantly(p<0. 05) more important than any of the other attributes, SERV, COST or PLACE. SERV was not significantly(p<0. 05) different from COST and COST was not significantly different from PLACE. However, SERV was significantly more important than PLACE. After quality food, quality service and cost/value of the meal were the next two important reasons for clients to return to the restaurant. All four attributes were important (p<0. 05). In the comparison of male and female customer ratings male customers did not rate the attributes differently from female customers. Data comparing age range preferences did not really show any difference from each other. Customers <18 showed the least distinction in importance between the four factors while data from customers >60 showed the most distinct differences in their ratings. FOOD was rated most important SERV and COST were less important than food, and SERV was more important than PLACE.