(This paper was presented to the Marketing class under Dr. Conception, Doctor of Business Administration Program, De La Salle Professional Schools Inc, March 1, 2003)
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Filipinos have a natural liking for food, so much so that eating out has become a national past time. As one foreign writer plainly put it:
“As I gazed out, the signboards of McDonalds, KFCs and Jollibees were everywhere. What I noticed was there was a lot of "eat-outs". This immediately gave me an idea that the people of this country enjoy eating out. This was further confirmed by my visits to the various places in Manila especially to the various shopping malls. I noticed people young and old enjoying the delicious meals and chatting. Even when eating, the kids seem to be dancing”. (James 2001)
The popularity of eating out can be attributed to the improvement in the incomes among Filipinos and economic development in general. In fact according to one report, the expansion of the food franchising sector and the fast food sector is largely due to the rebound of the economy. Around 46 percent of the 177 foreign franchises in the Philippines are in the food business (Strategis, 1999).
Research Problem and Objectives
This ethnographic research on eating out was conducted as part of the requirements in marketing management, DBA program, with the aim of understanding consumer behavior and attempt to answer questions relative to this, vis:
· What are the factors influencing consumer behavior in eating out situations;
· What goes on in the consumer decision process when eating out;
· What are the stages involved in the selection of restaurants and menu when eating out;
· What are the needs and problems addressed by the act of eating out
· What are the postpurchase behaviors involved in eating out.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In "Sociology on the menu", Beardsworth and Kell (1997) explored the social and cultural dynamics of food and eating out. As the authors' discussion of eating out, they make a point distinguishing between the reciprocal and commercial bases of such an activity. On the one hand, the exchange of ffod within the context of social obligation builds social solidarity. On the other hand, when food is part of a commercial transaction, no such obligation exists. However, eating away from home is now a matter of choice as well. Significantly, the scripted nature of these interactions challenges the view that dining out actually increases participation in the society of life.
While the authors should be commeded for their own critical engagement with the research presented, there was a distinct lack of ethnographic evidence which could be used to challenge the primarily survey and interview data provided by the studies examined (Visconti, 2000).
Counihan (1999) explored the way thay makinh, eating, and thinking about food reveal culturally determined gender-power relations in diverse societies. She took a cross-cultural approach to ask compelling questions about eating and discovered that culture plays a role in how and where people eat.
Fox (2003), in his anthropologic view of eating out, argued that it is the result of changing lifestyles - its democratization with the sweeping chnages in technology, affluence, and employment - leaving less time for food preparation at home. Business lunches are a sacred operation where the most important deals are made. People also eat out in posh restaurant to show off their cosmopolitanism in a world that values it more and more.
Fox further argues that the motivation for eating out are two-pronged - to entertain oneself and entertain others. But it is an event, like a family of friends gathering, people who do eat out pay great attention to setting. The main purpose of eating out with others is the same as their home counterparts: to impress on the one hand, and to be different on the other - to make a change. In these cases, the food is important, but when entertainment and business is the issue, it takes second place to setting.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A model for understanding the buyer is the stimulus-response model shown in Figure 1. Marketing and environmental stimuli enter the buyer’s consciousness. The buyer’s characteristics and decision process lead to certain purchase decisions.
Figure 2 presents a detailed model of the factors influencing a consumer’s buying behavior. Such factors consist of cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors, all having an interplay in the mind on the buying consumer.
The stages model of the buying process is shown in Figure 3. The model implies that consumers pass through all five stages in buying a product especially in high involvem,ent product as choosing a place for eating out or a menu in a restaurant. It captures the full range of considerations that arise when a consumer faces a highly involving new purchase.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Three (3) eat-out cases were conducted in three different restaurants comprising of at least three (3) subjects per case. All cases were composed of diverse subject backgrounds and status in order to experience and get a “feel” of the different segments of consumers and decision-making process.
The subjects and eating-places were chosen out of convenience and practicality. Due to the limited time to prepare, the most convenient and readily available people were selected.
The researcher made sure that the each eat-out experience is unplanned and that his influence in the decision-making process is restrained. In order to look natural, however, the researcher participates in the conversations, food discussions and decision-making whenever asked by the subjects.
Data Collection
Data were collected through observation, mental note-taking of feelings and expressions of subjects, and voice recording of the eat-out experience using the Extended Recorder 2.0 in the Nokia Communicator[1]. In eat-out experience, the Nokia 9210 was placed on the table and activated. Post-processing of the voice record files involved transferring to a PC, and replaying – comparing and consolidating with the mental notes. This allowed for the mental recreation of the eat-out experience; thusly, reproducing an accurate account of the conversations.
Method of Data Presentation
To provide anonymity, all of the names used in this report are pseudonyms. Most quotes are presented in their original form (Tagalog and/or English) together with their appropriate translations (English translation).
ETHNOGRAPHIC SAMPLE
The three eat-out cases are labeled are arbitrarily labeled as Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3.
Subject Profile
The profiles of individual subjects are tabulated in Table 1. The information herein presented is based on the personal knowledge and judgement of the researcher.
[1] The Extended Recorder 2.0 in the Nokia 9210 is voice compression software that allows recording of up to 2 hours saved in WAV format. It has a press-any-key feature to activate the recording such that the recording remains unnoticed and hidden in front of all the subjects.
Restaurant Profile
Case 1 took place in the foodcourt of Save-A-Lot, in Pasong Tamo Extension. It has more than ten (10) food outlets that include branded ones such as Domino’s Pizza, McDonald’s, and Binalot, and unbranded food stalls that serve Filipino dishes.
Case 2 transpired in Sugarnut, a stand-alone restaurant in Pasong Tamo Extension located right beside Starbucks. It caters to the professional and business markets, and serves Filipino and Western dishes. Just recently, it added Japanese and Italian menu.
Case 3 took place on February 24 in Good Earth in the newly opened Greenbelt 3. It serves dishes that are a fusion of Oriental and Western influences. It is frequented by the Class A market during lunch and dinner.
DESCRIPTION OF EAT-OUT CASES
Account of Case 1: Fast-food Eat-Out with Younger Subjects
Case 1 transpired in February 17, 2003 after a meeting on an on-going project. Vincent argued that a lunch-together was needed so the subjects can “jell together”. The researcher asked the subjects where they wanted to have lunch. Vincent replied “Sa fast-food lang para mura (Only in a fast-food where its inexpensive)”. He suggested the nearby foodcourt in Save-A-Lot in Pasong Tamo Extension and everybody agreed. The group has taken lunch in this place many times.
In the foodcourt there are more than ten (10) fast-food outlets offering varied meals. The four of us parted ways to scout for some good treats. Vincent went to the far end of the foodcourt where there seemed to be a newly opened outlet. Sharon and Carlos were still choosing among the Filipino cooking in between five food outlets. A sign of dislike was evident on Sharon’s face that she eventually decided to line up in McDonalds. Carlos hurriedly followed the beauteous lady.
While I the researcher was guarding the table, Vincent rejoined with his tray-full of Filipino food wrapped in banana leaves. “Merong bago do’n, Binalot[1]. Mura lang at malinis (There’s a new one there, Binalot. It’s cheap and clean)”. He tried to cajole the researcher and Carlos and Sharon, who were then in line, to try out his new find. Carlos said “Talaga, try natin Sharon (Really, let’s try, Sharon)”. But Sharon replied “I’ll stay here na lang”. Carlos decided to stay with the young lass, while the researcher tried Binalot.
While eating on the table, Vincent could not help but approve of the Filipino meal from Binalot, consisting of lechon kawali, chopsuey, and iced tea. “Mura to, ah for fifty-four pesos” (This is cheap, only fifty-four pesos), he said. Carlos, who was eating the classic chicken with rice, was quick to agree while Sharon was indifferent. It was obvious that Carlos wanted to please Sharon, but was running counter against the young lady’s gastronomic delight. The lady ordered a burger with French fries.
After the meal, everybody was exchanging pleasantries. The researcher asked the subjects on their assessment of the foodcourt and the food it serves. Vincent retorted “Nakakasawa na yung ulam dyan” pointing at the unbranded food outlets around the foodcourt. Carlos agreed “Buti na lang meron nang Binalot dito”. Sharon averred “The food doesn’t look well-prepared”, referring to the unbranded outlets.
Account of Case 2: The Business Lunch
Case 2 took place on February 20 after a business meeting held in Pasong Tamo Extension. The subjects consisted of colleagues. Everybody was all starving for a good lunch. Jerry, the most senior in the group, asked the group where to have lunch; he even offered to drive the group to a restaurant in Glorietta. Ariel commented that it was too far, and that he needed to go back to the office soonest. Paulo and the researcher agreed. Paulo suggested “D’un tayo sa malapit lang, sa Sugarnut. Dun lang yun sa Starbucks (Let’s go to Sugarnut. It’s just beside Starbucks)”. Everybody agreed. Ariel commented, “Sige, para mabago naman ang kainin ko (Alright, I can have different meal)”, referring to usual baon.
When everybody was seated and holding on the menu, Jerry suggested “Subukan n’yo yung Japanese; meron na silang sushi, tempura, and soba (Try the Japanese dishes, they have sushi, tempura, and soba)”. Paulo replied “’Ba, OK ‘to, ah. Sige eto sakin (This is ok. I’ll have this)”. Ariel and researcher also ordered this new offering from the restaurant. Ariel, who recently had a heart problem, told the group “Ayos ‘tong inorder natin, para ‘di ako atakihin (What we ordered is appropriate; so I wouldn’t have a heart attack)” He was hesitant thought o order the Japanese meal perhaps due to its high price tag. Jerry was quick to agree, obviously due to his age.
It took long before the waiter attended to our order. The place was full and was manned by only two waiters. This was a turn-off for the subjects.
While having their meal, the subjects commented how delightful the food and the ambiance were. They were also pointing to the Class A clientele of the restaurant consisting of professionals and businessmen. However, another drawback was the lack of cellphone signal where the group was seated at the end of the restaurant. Jerry was waiting for a call and had to go out of the establishment to get a signal.
Everybody was satisfied with the meal, except for a couple of turn-offs. Ariel commented, “Sa service lang sila nasira”, referring to the lack of waiters. Everybody agreed to have coffee in the neighboring Starbucks. Paulo remarked “Buti na lang may Starbucks dito (It’s good to have Strabucks just beside)”.
Account of Case 3: The Dinner with Friends
On February 20, the researcher called up his friends and former colleagues to have dinner out on February 24. Albert, Grace, and Megan agreed straightaway as they all wanted to relax and unwind after some very hectic schedules. Moreover, they reasoned that they had a lot of things to talk about – a sort of updating.
Albert suggested restaurants in Eastwood City, Libis, but the ladies retorted that people did not anymore frequent the place. “It’s not anymore cool to go to Eastwood” Grace commented. Lilly suggested that dinner be held in newly opened Greenbelt 3 where there are plenty of new restaurants with good ambiance. Grace suggested having dinner in Good Earth where, according to her, fusion food is served. “It’s fresh, maganda crowd d’un, maraming celebrities (The crowd there is pleasant, and frequented by celebrities)” she added. It was appropriate that the researcher knew the owner of the restaurant, as the place is always fully booked in advance.
The researcher arrived early, making sure the dinner table was somewhere conducive to conversation. One by one arrived. It was apparent that Albert, Lisa and Megan were all first-timers in that place. Grace excitedly suggested what to order. “Try the San Xian Beancurd. It’s healthy and has low calories” she recommended. Everybody was looking at the menu carefully and painstakingly, taking time to understand the fusion[2] dishes. Albert ordered the Spareribs with Mandarin Orange Sauce, while the ladies all ordered the Beancurd Specialties and Vegetable Specialties; and for starters, the group ordered Duckquitos.
While waiting for the order, the subjects could not help but look around the crowd. The place was not as big, but the clientele were obviously Class A. “Si Diether Ocampo” Megan whispered gesturing to the local movie star. “This place is good” Albert commented. “I like the interior” Lisa added referring to the wood carved wall and the glass flooring.
While taking dinner, the subjects all agreed to the delightful and innovative dishes. “Masarap and healthy”, Lisa commented. “The service is good”, Albert added. The subjects could not help looking at the meals served to other tables. “That one looks good”, Megan and Lily averred gesturing to the meal served on the table beside the group. The subjects enjoyed the dessert. “This tastes good” Megan commented pointing to the Coco Grass she was relishing.
The place was full and loud, but despite that, all customers seemingly enjoyed the conversations with friends. Most of the clients came in groups.
After dinner, the subjects were all satisfied. They all wanted to come back and try the other dishes. However, they also commented that the place should have been bigger to accommodate more clients and bigger groups. They also relished the fact that the restaurant is just in Greenbelt 3, and near other bars. They all agreed to proceed to Merck’s, a music bar, for some beer.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The three cases described above present a rich information source of consumer behavior when eating out. This is further analyzed in the following sections.
Segmentation
Dr. Roberto, in his book “Strategic Market Segmentation” referred to socio-economic class (SEC) segmentation is the correct partitioning variable as long as the SEC market segments it identifies are differently responsive in terms of their product usage, purchase habits and/or product needs and priority values (Roberto, 2002). Basing on this definition, the subjects can be partitioned into C-market fast-food consumers and AB-market fine dining/restaurant consumers. This is also linked with status segmentation, wherein businessmen and executives chose to eat out in expensive dining places, while the staff/professionals settled for fast food.
Lifestyle segmentation may also be applied. The “healthy diners” include Jerry, Grace, Megan, and Lily who opted for fish and vegetarian food. The opposite, the “don’t mind” diners which include Vincent, Carlos, Sharon, and Albert, ordered and consumed “unhealthy” food such as lechon kawali, pork meals, and fried chicken.
Benefit segmentation may also be employed to certain consumers. Vincent was looking for “economic benefits” in terms of affordable meals. Paulo and Ariel were more concerned with proximity. Grace and Megan were looking for the psychological benefit of trying out something new or “fresh”.
Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior
There are various factors influencing buyer behavior as indicated in Figure 2.
The subjects in all three cases demonstrated an interplay of these factors that influenced their attitudes and behavior.
Social class is very much evident in the cases presented. Case 1 is glaringly different from both Cases 2 and 3, as economic spending drove the subjects in the former. In Case 1, Vincent, who is married and working as an IT staff, personifies the consumer looking for value-for-money meals which may be due to his concern for spending and familial needs. His concern for his family had perhaps indirectly influenced his search for economical meals, as his income was allotted mostly for familial use. On the other hand, Carlos and Sharon ordered McDonald’s instead, a clear indication of what is called “burger culture[3]” – referring to the habituated liking for the sort of fast food.
On the other hand, subjects in Cases 1 and 2 mostly belong to Class AB who are able to spend on high-priced meals and restaurants. Jerry, Paulo, and Albert, who are all accomplished businessmen and executives can afford exorbitant meals in posh restaurants. They, together with the rest of the subjects in both Cases 1 and 2, have reached relatively high statuses due to their occupation, as compared with that in Case 1. Social class is somehow attendant to status and occupation.
Roles also had influenced the subjects buying decision. Carlos in Case 1 was influenced by Sharon to order McDonalds despite his desire to try the Binalot meal; he was apparently taking on the role of a suitor, and thus had to please Sharon. Jerry, a much senior person in Case 2, recommended a dish for the rest of the subjects to try out, and was obviously heeded by the group including the researcher. Aside from his role as a “parent” for the group, he was also taken as a reference that influenced the subjects’ attitudes and behavior.
Grace also served as reference for the rest of the subjects in Case 3 to follow when she suggested the venue and meals to order. Her sociable and assertive personality also influenced the rest to follow suit.
Lifestyle and age differences displayed their influences on buying behavior. Because of his age, Jerry in Case 1 had to maintain his health and instead order healthy Japanese food. Ariel, despite that he is relatively younger, ordered healthy food due to his heart condition. On the other hand, Vincent, a younger subject in Case 1, ordered lechon kawali, unmindful of its acknowledged ill effects on one’s health. Similarly, Grace, Megan, and Lily, all in their 30’s and still single, ordered “low-calorie” meals to stay slim and fit. Age somehow has its accompanying lifestyle character.
Apart from the cultural, social and personal factors that influence behavior, psychological ones were the least obvious among the subjects. Jerry and Ariel believed that Japanese raw fish was a healthy food, unaware of the high rates of stomach cancer in Japan[4]. Carlos’ motivation to line up in and order McDonald’s was not his predilection for burgers, but his desire to please and be with Sharon. Grace suggested ordering what she perceived as “low-calorie” meals, which in the researcher’s scientific opinion was calorie-laden.
The Buying Decision Process
A framework used for analyzing the buying process is the Five Stages Model in Figure 3. The three cases are analyzed separately.
Case 1
The subjects needed to take lunch out after a meeting. Vincent argued that a lunch together was needed so the subjects can “jell together”, as they are all new in the team. A lunch-out was a way for the subjects to “get to know” each other. Carlos, on the other hand, had the hidden agenda of “getting close to Sharon”. To him, a lunch-out was perhaps a prelude to courtship.
Prior to choosing the place where they would have lunch, the subjects were voluntarily provided information on a possible option. Vincent suggested a nearby place where the meals would be inexpensive. Evaluation of such suggestion did not take much time, as the subjects readily concurred due to familiarity of the place.
While in the foodcourt, the subjects had more than ten alternative food stores to choose from. Information on the type of food offered and price were gathered through ocular inspection, as the viands were displayed on a table and/or in a glass cabinet. Vincent again, voluntarily provided information to Sharon and Carlos on a new food stall find by suggesting that they try out its menu.
Sharon evaluated the food stalls and its viands through its physical appearance – most of which she found physically unappealing perhaps due to the manner of presentation or its being “unbranded”. Though Vincent likewise assessed the alternatives in the same manner, he was more inclined to try something new – both physically and appeal-wise. Carlos, on the other hand, did not spend time evaluating and just waited for Sharon’s decision.
Vincent finally decided using the “newness” criteria. He chose Binalot perhaps because of its “novelty effect”, though the brand was not totally new as this was already familiar with Vincent. Sharon chose a “branded” food stall in the form of McDonald’s, manifesting in her the “burger culture”. Carlos was influenced by Sharon’s decision and had to take on the same meal in order to please the lady.
Vincent chose to order the lechon kawali, a common favorite among Filipinos and perhaps his own favorite. Carlos ordered the “chicken meal” as this was the only meal in McDonald’s with rice; and a meal without rice, a staple food among Filipinos, is incomplete in itself. This he did despite his willingness to imitate Sharon, who ordered a burger meal instead.
A postpurchase analysis revealed Vincent’s satisfaction with his meal due to its savor and affordability. He also expressed his dislike for the “unbranded” food stalls because of their unchanging menu, and was thankful for Binalot’s presence. Carlos was somewhat “regretful” for not trying the Binalot; but he expressed approval on its menu and price and would probably try it next time. Sharon was positive on what she was eating, and expressed negative sentiments on “unbranded” food stalls.
Case 2
The subjects were faced with the immediate problem of hunger after a long meeting. Another problem was where to eat out. Ariel’s predicament was that if he would join the rest and eat out. Everybody, including Ariel agreed to eat out instead, seemingly to reward themselves for a grueling meeting. Ariel, on his part, decided to eat out to depart from his usual meal, and perhaps to please the rest of the group and be accepted due to his junior executive position.
Jerry provided information on an alternative to eat out in Glorietta. Paulo also voluntarily offered information on a nearer place, as Ariel was particular about the proximity of the eat-out place due to his busy schedule in the office. This influenced the rest of the subjects’ decision to eat-out in a nearby restaurant where they could just walk and be back in the office soonest.
In the restaurant, the subjects held on the menu to browse on the information on the food offering. However, Jerry was quick to suggest and approve of a “new” Japanese menu. Paulo was quick to adopt the recommendation and this served as reference for the rest of the subjects to adopt. This was due to its “newness” and perceived positive health effects; and perhaps due to the “seniority” of the recommender.
After deciding and ordering the meals, the slow service due to the limited number of waiters turned off the subjects. This was however compensated with the savory food and pleasant atmosphere. But then, the lack of cellphone signal inside the establishment annoyed Jerry who at all times needed communication lines open.
Postpurchase analysis also revealed positive attitudes toward the restaurant due to its tasty meals, but countered by negative feelings toward the slow service. The place’s adjacency with Sturbucks, which perhaps all the subjects associate with positive feelings and good ambiance, helped buffet the damaging impressions on the restaurant.
Case 3
The subjects agreed to have dinner out as a way of relaxation. There was also the need to talk among themselves about work, personal lives, among others – perhaps a way of relieving stress.
Information on an alternative place, which is Libis, was propounded by Albert. But Grace was quick to put down the suggestion, commenting on its being “out of fashion”. This served as reference for Lily who recommended a “new” place in Greenbelt 3. The subjects adopted the suggestion due to its perceived pleasant ambiance, “freshness” and its patronage by celebrities.
Inside the restaurant, the subjects were scanning on the menu, all looking fancy and new due to its fusion nature. Grace, who was outspoken and sociable, voluntarily provided further information by suggesting a meal she had already tried. This influenced the decision of the subjects who were looking for a healthy and low-calorie meal.
After deciding and ordering, the subjects were impressed with the physical appearance and ambiance of the establishment. The sight of a movie celebrity further reinforced these positive impressions.
While partaking of the meal, the subjects expressed their satisfaction with the taste. Meals served to the other tables were also physically pleasant to the subjects who could not help but look around while eating. The overflowing yet jolly crowd, despite its noise, provided some positive feelings to the subjects.
Postpurchase observation revealed that the subjects were, on all accounts satisfied and would want to come back, despite their comment and wish that the place should have been bigger. The establishment’s proximity with other “watering holes” helped reinforce the positive impressions.
CONCLUSION
The buying decision in eating out involves an interpaly of various factors as cultural, social, perosnal and psychological in the buyer's mind. The buyer goes through stages of recognizing the problem/need, searching for information, evaluating the alternatives, making the decision, and manifesting postpurchase behavior.
Buyers may be segmented to categorize and classify their needs and wants. Social class and status played an important role in the buying behavior. There was a clear delineation between AB and C classes wen it comes to choises in eating out. Likewise, lifestyles affect buying decisions - healthy or unhealthy lifestyles. Buyers also looked for different benefits and motivations when choosing a restaurant or a meal - economic or psychlogical benefits.
What is salient is that regardless of segment, buyers tend to look and choose for something "new" or "different". May it be a new food stall, a new menu, or a fresh location, people want to try novel things. And people who try these "new" things and get satisfied with it tend to spread the news. Often referred to as "early adopters' in diffusion theory, they become the purveyors of positive or negative information about the restaurant and food.
LITERATURE CITED
____ (1999), STAT-USA on the Internet US Department of Commerce, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/dd72363e.html, Accessed 02.29.03.
Fox, R. (2003), “Food as Fashion”, http://www.sirc.org/publik/food_and_eating_6.html, accessed 02.29.03
James, B (2001) “Coming to Manila”, http://phil-at-home.com/travel/oh_my/ oh_my_jamesb121500.html, Accessed 02.28.03.
Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall: New Jersey
Lacuarta, G. (2001), “Filipino meal incomplete without rice – study”, www.inq7.net/nat/2001/apr/25/nat_18-1.htm, Accessed 02.29.03
Roberto, N. (2002), Strategic Market Segmentation, Lifecycle Press: Makati City
FOOTNOTES
[1] Binalot is a franchised fast-food outlet that serves Filipino dishes wrapped in banana leaves and served on a wicker platter.
[2] Fusion dish is a combination of Western, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino food influences.
[3] Lacuarta, G. (2001), “Filipino meal incomplete without rice – study”, www.inq7.net/nat/2001/apr/25/nat_18-1.htm
[4] Fox, R.(2003), “Food as Fashion”, http://www.sirc.org/publik/food_and_eating_6.html, accessed 02.29.03
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Filipinos have a natural liking for food, so much so that eating out has become a national past time. As one foreign writer plainly put it:
“As I gazed out, the signboards of McDonalds, KFCs and Jollibees were everywhere. What I noticed was there was a lot of "eat-outs". This immediately gave me an idea that the people of this country enjoy eating out. This was further confirmed by my visits to the various places in Manila especially to the various shopping malls. I noticed people young and old enjoying the delicious meals and chatting. Even when eating, the kids seem to be dancing”. (James 2001)
The popularity of eating out can be attributed to the improvement in the incomes among Filipinos and economic development in general. In fact according to one report, the expansion of the food franchising sector and the fast food sector is largely due to the rebound of the economy. Around 46 percent of the 177 foreign franchises in the Philippines are in the food business (Strategis, 1999).
Research Problem and Objectives
This ethnographic research on eating out was conducted as part of the requirements in marketing management, DBA program, with the aim of understanding consumer behavior and attempt to answer questions relative to this, vis:
· What are the factors influencing consumer behavior in eating out situations;
· What goes on in the consumer decision process when eating out;
· What are the stages involved in the selection of restaurants and menu when eating out;
· What are the needs and problems addressed by the act of eating out
· What are the postpurchase behaviors involved in eating out.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In "Sociology on the menu", Beardsworth and Kell (1997) explored the social and cultural dynamics of food and eating out. As the authors' discussion of eating out, they make a point distinguishing between the reciprocal and commercial bases of such an activity. On the one hand, the exchange of ffod within the context of social obligation builds social solidarity. On the other hand, when food is part of a commercial transaction, no such obligation exists. However, eating away from home is now a matter of choice as well. Significantly, the scripted nature of these interactions challenges the view that dining out actually increases participation in the society of life.
While the authors should be commeded for their own critical engagement with the research presented, there was a distinct lack of ethnographic evidence which could be used to challenge the primarily survey and interview data provided by the studies examined (Visconti, 2000).
Counihan (1999) explored the way thay makinh, eating, and thinking about food reveal culturally determined gender-power relations in diverse societies. She took a cross-cultural approach to ask compelling questions about eating and discovered that culture plays a role in how and where people eat.
Fox (2003), in his anthropologic view of eating out, argued that it is the result of changing lifestyles - its democratization with the sweeping chnages in technology, affluence, and employment - leaving less time for food preparation at home. Business lunches are a sacred operation where the most important deals are made. People also eat out in posh restaurant to show off their cosmopolitanism in a world that values it more and more.
Fox further argues that the motivation for eating out are two-pronged - to entertain oneself and entertain others. But it is an event, like a family of friends gathering, people who do eat out pay great attention to setting. The main purpose of eating out with others is the same as their home counterparts: to impress on the one hand, and to be different on the other - to make a change. In these cases, the food is important, but when entertainment and business is the issue, it takes second place to setting.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
A model for understanding the buyer is the stimulus-response model shown in Figure 1. Marketing and environmental stimuli enter the buyer’s consciousness. The buyer’s characteristics and decision process lead to certain purchase decisions.
Figure 2 presents a detailed model of the factors influencing a consumer’s buying behavior. Such factors consist of cultural, social, personal, and psychological factors, all having an interplay in the mind on the buying consumer.
The stages model of the buying process is shown in Figure 3. The model implies that consumers pass through all five stages in buying a product especially in high involvem,ent product as choosing a place for eating out or a menu in a restaurant. It captures the full range of considerations that arise when a consumer faces a highly involving new purchase.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Three (3) eat-out cases were conducted in three different restaurants comprising of at least three (3) subjects per case. All cases were composed of diverse subject backgrounds and status in order to experience and get a “feel” of the different segments of consumers and decision-making process.
The subjects and eating-places were chosen out of convenience and practicality. Due to the limited time to prepare, the most convenient and readily available people were selected.
The researcher made sure that the each eat-out experience is unplanned and that his influence in the decision-making process is restrained. In order to look natural, however, the researcher participates in the conversations, food discussions and decision-making whenever asked by the subjects.
Data Collection
Data were collected through observation, mental note-taking of feelings and expressions of subjects, and voice recording of the eat-out experience using the Extended Recorder 2.0 in the Nokia Communicator[1]. In eat-out experience, the Nokia 9210 was placed on the table and activated. Post-processing of the voice record files involved transferring to a PC, and replaying – comparing and consolidating with the mental notes. This allowed for the mental recreation of the eat-out experience; thusly, reproducing an accurate account of the conversations.
Method of Data Presentation
To provide anonymity, all of the names used in this report are pseudonyms. Most quotes are presented in their original form (Tagalog and/or English) together with their appropriate translations (English translation).
ETHNOGRAPHIC SAMPLE
The three eat-out cases are labeled are arbitrarily labeled as Case 1, Case 2, and Case 3.
Subject Profile
The profiles of individual subjects are tabulated in Table 1. The information herein presented is based on the personal knowledge and judgement of the researcher.
[1] The Extended Recorder 2.0 in the Nokia 9210 is voice compression software that allows recording of up to 2 hours saved in WAV format. It has a press-any-key feature to activate the recording such that the recording remains unnoticed and hidden in front of all the subjects.
Restaurant Profile
Case 1 took place in the foodcourt of Save-A-Lot, in Pasong Tamo Extension. It has more than ten (10) food outlets that include branded ones such as Domino’s Pizza, McDonald’s, and Binalot, and unbranded food stalls that serve Filipino dishes.
Case 2 transpired in Sugarnut, a stand-alone restaurant in Pasong Tamo Extension located right beside Starbucks. It caters to the professional and business markets, and serves Filipino and Western dishes. Just recently, it added Japanese and Italian menu.
Case 3 took place on February 24 in Good Earth in the newly opened Greenbelt 3. It serves dishes that are a fusion of Oriental and Western influences. It is frequented by the Class A market during lunch and dinner.
DESCRIPTION OF EAT-OUT CASES
Account of Case 1: Fast-food Eat-Out with Younger Subjects
Case 1 transpired in February 17, 2003 after a meeting on an on-going project. Vincent argued that a lunch-together was needed so the subjects can “jell together”. The researcher asked the subjects where they wanted to have lunch. Vincent replied “Sa fast-food lang para mura (Only in a fast-food where its inexpensive)”. He suggested the nearby foodcourt in Save-A-Lot in Pasong Tamo Extension and everybody agreed. The group has taken lunch in this place many times.
In the foodcourt there are more than ten (10) fast-food outlets offering varied meals. The four of us parted ways to scout for some good treats. Vincent went to the far end of the foodcourt where there seemed to be a newly opened outlet. Sharon and Carlos were still choosing among the Filipino cooking in between five food outlets. A sign of dislike was evident on Sharon’s face that she eventually decided to line up in McDonalds. Carlos hurriedly followed the beauteous lady.
While I the researcher was guarding the table, Vincent rejoined with his tray-full of Filipino food wrapped in banana leaves. “Merong bago do’n, Binalot[1]. Mura lang at malinis (There’s a new one there, Binalot. It’s cheap and clean)”. He tried to cajole the researcher and Carlos and Sharon, who were then in line, to try out his new find. Carlos said “Talaga, try natin Sharon (Really, let’s try, Sharon)”. But Sharon replied “I’ll stay here na lang”. Carlos decided to stay with the young lass, while the researcher tried Binalot.
While eating on the table, Vincent could not help but approve of the Filipino meal from Binalot, consisting of lechon kawali, chopsuey, and iced tea. “Mura to, ah for fifty-four pesos” (This is cheap, only fifty-four pesos), he said. Carlos, who was eating the classic chicken with rice, was quick to agree while Sharon was indifferent. It was obvious that Carlos wanted to please Sharon, but was running counter against the young lady’s gastronomic delight. The lady ordered a burger with French fries.
After the meal, everybody was exchanging pleasantries. The researcher asked the subjects on their assessment of the foodcourt and the food it serves. Vincent retorted “Nakakasawa na yung ulam dyan” pointing at the unbranded food outlets around the foodcourt. Carlos agreed “Buti na lang meron nang Binalot dito”. Sharon averred “The food doesn’t look well-prepared”, referring to the unbranded outlets.
Account of Case 2: The Business Lunch
Case 2 took place on February 20 after a business meeting held in Pasong Tamo Extension. The subjects consisted of colleagues. Everybody was all starving for a good lunch. Jerry, the most senior in the group, asked the group where to have lunch; he even offered to drive the group to a restaurant in Glorietta. Ariel commented that it was too far, and that he needed to go back to the office soonest. Paulo and the researcher agreed. Paulo suggested “D’un tayo sa malapit lang, sa Sugarnut. Dun lang yun sa Starbucks (Let’s go to Sugarnut. It’s just beside Starbucks)”. Everybody agreed. Ariel commented, “Sige, para mabago naman ang kainin ko (Alright, I can have different meal)”, referring to usual baon.
When everybody was seated and holding on the menu, Jerry suggested “Subukan n’yo yung Japanese; meron na silang sushi, tempura, and soba (Try the Japanese dishes, they have sushi, tempura, and soba)”. Paulo replied “’Ba, OK ‘to, ah. Sige eto sakin (This is ok. I’ll have this)”. Ariel and researcher also ordered this new offering from the restaurant. Ariel, who recently had a heart problem, told the group “Ayos ‘tong inorder natin, para ‘di ako atakihin (What we ordered is appropriate; so I wouldn’t have a heart attack)” He was hesitant thought o order the Japanese meal perhaps due to its high price tag. Jerry was quick to agree, obviously due to his age.
It took long before the waiter attended to our order. The place was full and was manned by only two waiters. This was a turn-off for the subjects.
While having their meal, the subjects commented how delightful the food and the ambiance were. They were also pointing to the Class A clientele of the restaurant consisting of professionals and businessmen. However, another drawback was the lack of cellphone signal where the group was seated at the end of the restaurant. Jerry was waiting for a call and had to go out of the establishment to get a signal.
Everybody was satisfied with the meal, except for a couple of turn-offs. Ariel commented, “Sa service lang sila nasira”, referring to the lack of waiters. Everybody agreed to have coffee in the neighboring Starbucks. Paulo remarked “Buti na lang may Starbucks dito (It’s good to have Strabucks just beside)”.
Account of Case 3: The Dinner with Friends
On February 20, the researcher called up his friends and former colleagues to have dinner out on February 24. Albert, Grace, and Megan agreed straightaway as they all wanted to relax and unwind after some very hectic schedules. Moreover, they reasoned that they had a lot of things to talk about – a sort of updating.
Albert suggested restaurants in Eastwood City, Libis, but the ladies retorted that people did not anymore frequent the place. “It’s not anymore cool to go to Eastwood” Grace commented. Lilly suggested that dinner be held in newly opened Greenbelt 3 where there are plenty of new restaurants with good ambiance. Grace suggested having dinner in Good Earth where, according to her, fusion food is served. “It’s fresh, maganda crowd d’un, maraming celebrities (The crowd there is pleasant, and frequented by celebrities)” she added. It was appropriate that the researcher knew the owner of the restaurant, as the place is always fully booked in advance.
The researcher arrived early, making sure the dinner table was somewhere conducive to conversation. One by one arrived. It was apparent that Albert, Lisa and Megan were all first-timers in that place. Grace excitedly suggested what to order. “Try the San Xian Beancurd. It’s healthy and has low calories” she recommended. Everybody was looking at the menu carefully and painstakingly, taking time to understand the fusion[2] dishes. Albert ordered the Spareribs with Mandarin Orange Sauce, while the ladies all ordered the Beancurd Specialties and Vegetable Specialties; and for starters, the group ordered Duckquitos.
While waiting for the order, the subjects could not help but look around the crowd. The place was not as big, but the clientele were obviously Class A. “Si Diether Ocampo” Megan whispered gesturing to the local movie star. “This place is good” Albert commented. “I like the interior” Lisa added referring to the wood carved wall and the glass flooring.
While taking dinner, the subjects all agreed to the delightful and innovative dishes. “Masarap and healthy”, Lisa commented. “The service is good”, Albert added. The subjects could not help looking at the meals served to other tables. “That one looks good”, Megan and Lily averred gesturing to the meal served on the table beside the group. The subjects enjoyed the dessert. “This tastes good” Megan commented pointing to the Coco Grass she was relishing.
The place was full and loud, but despite that, all customers seemingly enjoyed the conversations with friends. Most of the clients came in groups.
After dinner, the subjects were all satisfied. They all wanted to come back and try the other dishes. However, they also commented that the place should have been bigger to accommodate more clients and bigger groups. They also relished the fact that the restaurant is just in Greenbelt 3, and near other bars. They all agreed to proceed to Merck’s, a music bar, for some beer.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The three cases described above present a rich information source of consumer behavior when eating out. This is further analyzed in the following sections.
Segmentation
Dr. Roberto, in his book “Strategic Market Segmentation” referred to socio-economic class (SEC) segmentation is the correct partitioning variable as long as the SEC market segments it identifies are differently responsive in terms of their product usage, purchase habits and/or product needs and priority values (Roberto, 2002). Basing on this definition, the subjects can be partitioned into C-market fast-food consumers and AB-market fine dining/restaurant consumers. This is also linked with status segmentation, wherein businessmen and executives chose to eat out in expensive dining places, while the staff/professionals settled for fast food.
Lifestyle segmentation may also be applied. The “healthy diners” include Jerry, Grace, Megan, and Lily who opted for fish and vegetarian food. The opposite, the “don’t mind” diners which include Vincent, Carlos, Sharon, and Albert, ordered and consumed “unhealthy” food such as lechon kawali, pork meals, and fried chicken.
Benefit segmentation may also be employed to certain consumers. Vincent was looking for “economic benefits” in terms of affordable meals. Paulo and Ariel were more concerned with proximity. Grace and Megan were looking for the psychological benefit of trying out something new or “fresh”.
Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior
There are various factors influencing buyer behavior as indicated in Figure 2.
The subjects in all three cases demonstrated an interplay of these factors that influenced their attitudes and behavior.
Social class is very much evident in the cases presented. Case 1 is glaringly different from both Cases 2 and 3, as economic spending drove the subjects in the former. In Case 1, Vincent, who is married and working as an IT staff, personifies the consumer looking for value-for-money meals which may be due to his concern for spending and familial needs. His concern for his family had perhaps indirectly influenced his search for economical meals, as his income was allotted mostly for familial use. On the other hand, Carlos and Sharon ordered McDonald’s instead, a clear indication of what is called “burger culture[3]” – referring to the habituated liking for the sort of fast food.
On the other hand, subjects in Cases 1 and 2 mostly belong to Class AB who are able to spend on high-priced meals and restaurants. Jerry, Paulo, and Albert, who are all accomplished businessmen and executives can afford exorbitant meals in posh restaurants. They, together with the rest of the subjects in both Cases 1 and 2, have reached relatively high statuses due to their occupation, as compared with that in Case 1. Social class is somehow attendant to status and occupation.
Roles also had influenced the subjects buying decision. Carlos in Case 1 was influenced by Sharon to order McDonalds despite his desire to try the Binalot meal; he was apparently taking on the role of a suitor, and thus had to please Sharon. Jerry, a much senior person in Case 2, recommended a dish for the rest of the subjects to try out, and was obviously heeded by the group including the researcher. Aside from his role as a “parent” for the group, he was also taken as a reference that influenced the subjects’ attitudes and behavior.
Grace also served as reference for the rest of the subjects in Case 3 to follow when she suggested the venue and meals to order. Her sociable and assertive personality also influenced the rest to follow suit.
Lifestyle and age differences displayed their influences on buying behavior. Because of his age, Jerry in Case 1 had to maintain his health and instead order healthy Japanese food. Ariel, despite that he is relatively younger, ordered healthy food due to his heart condition. On the other hand, Vincent, a younger subject in Case 1, ordered lechon kawali, unmindful of its acknowledged ill effects on one’s health. Similarly, Grace, Megan, and Lily, all in their 30’s and still single, ordered “low-calorie” meals to stay slim and fit. Age somehow has its accompanying lifestyle character.
Apart from the cultural, social and personal factors that influence behavior, psychological ones were the least obvious among the subjects. Jerry and Ariel believed that Japanese raw fish was a healthy food, unaware of the high rates of stomach cancer in Japan[4]. Carlos’ motivation to line up in and order McDonald’s was not his predilection for burgers, but his desire to please and be with Sharon. Grace suggested ordering what she perceived as “low-calorie” meals, which in the researcher’s scientific opinion was calorie-laden.
The Buying Decision Process
A framework used for analyzing the buying process is the Five Stages Model in Figure 3. The three cases are analyzed separately.
Case 1
The subjects needed to take lunch out after a meeting. Vincent argued that a lunch together was needed so the subjects can “jell together”, as they are all new in the team. A lunch-out was a way for the subjects to “get to know” each other. Carlos, on the other hand, had the hidden agenda of “getting close to Sharon”. To him, a lunch-out was perhaps a prelude to courtship.
Prior to choosing the place where they would have lunch, the subjects were voluntarily provided information on a possible option. Vincent suggested a nearby place where the meals would be inexpensive. Evaluation of such suggestion did not take much time, as the subjects readily concurred due to familiarity of the place.
While in the foodcourt, the subjects had more than ten alternative food stores to choose from. Information on the type of food offered and price were gathered through ocular inspection, as the viands were displayed on a table and/or in a glass cabinet. Vincent again, voluntarily provided information to Sharon and Carlos on a new food stall find by suggesting that they try out its menu.
Sharon evaluated the food stalls and its viands through its physical appearance – most of which she found physically unappealing perhaps due to the manner of presentation or its being “unbranded”. Though Vincent likewise assessed the alternatives in the same manner, he was more inclined to try something new – both physically and appeal-wise. Carlos, on the other hand, did not spend time evaluating and just waited for Sharon’s decision.
Vincent finally decided using the “newness” criteria. He chose Binalot perhaps because of its “novelty effect”, though the brand was not totally new as this was already familiar with Vincent. Sharon chose a “branded” food stall in the form of McDonald’s, manifesting in her the “burger culture”. Carlos was influenced by Sharon’s decision and had to take on the same meal in order to please the lady.
Vincent chose to order the lechon kawali, a common favorite among Filipinos and perhaps his own favorite. Carlos ordered the “chicken meal” as this was the only meal in McDonald’s with rice; and a meal without rice, a staple food among Filipinos, is incomplete in itself. This he did despite his willingness to imitate Sharon, who ordered a burger meal instead.
A postpurchase analysis revealed Vincent’s satisfaction with his meal due to its savor and affordability. He also expressed his dislike for the “unbranded” food stalls because of their unchanging menu, and was thankful for Binalot’s presence. Carlos was somewhat “regretful” for not trying the Binalot; but he expressed approval on its menu and price and would probably try it next time. Sharon was positive on what she was eating, and expressed negative sentiments on “unbranded” food stalls.
Case 2
The subjects were faced with the immediate problem of hunger after a long meeting. Another problem was where to eat out. Ariel’s predicament was that if he would join the rest and eat out. Everybody, including Ariel agreed to eat out instead, seemingly to reward themselves for a grueling meeting. Ariel, on his part, decided to eat out to depart from his usual meal, and perhaps to please the rest of the group and be accepted due to his junior executive position.
Jerry provided information on an alternative to eat out in Glorietta. Paulo also voluntarily offered information on a nearer place, as Ariel was particular about the proximity of the eat-out place due to his busy schedule in the office. This influenced the rest of the subjects’ decision to eat-out in a nearby restaurant where they could just walk and be back in the office soonest.
In the restaurant, the subjects held on the menu to browse on the information on the food offering. However, Jerry was quick to suggest and approve of a “new” Japanese menu. Paulo was quick to adopt the recommendation and this served as reference for the rest of the subjects to adopt. This was due to its “newness” and perceived positive health effects; and perhaps due to the “seniority” of the recommender.
After deciding and ordering the meals, the slow service due to the limited number of waiters turned off the subjects. This was however compensated with the savory food and pleasant atmosphere. But then, the lack of cellphone signal inside the establishment annoyed Jerry who at all times needed communication lines open.
Postpurchase analysis also revealed positive attitudes toward the restaurant due to its tasty meals, but countered by negative feelings toward the slow service. The place’s adjacency with Sturbucks, which perhaps all the subjects associate with positive feelings and good ambiance, helped buffet the damaging impressions on the restaurant.
Case 3
The subjects agreed to have dinner out as a way of relaxation. There was also the need to talk among themselves about work, personal lives, among others – perhaps a way of relieving stress.
Information on an alternative place, which is Libis, was propounded by Albert. But Grace was quick to put down the suggestion, commenting on its being “out of fashion”. This served as reference for Lily who recommended a “new” place in Greenbelt 3. The subjects adopted the suggestion due to its perceived pleasant ambiance, “freshness” and its patronage by celebrities.
Inside the restaurant, the subjects were scanning on the menu, all looking fancy and new due to its fusion nature. Grace, who was outspoken and sociable, voluntarily provided further information by suggesting a meal she had already tried. This influenced the decision of the subjects who were looking for a healthy and low-calorie meal.
After deciding and ordering, the subjects were impressed with the physical appearance and ambiance of the establishment. The sight of a movie celebrity further reinforced these positive impressions.
While partaking of the meal, the subjects expressed their satisfaction with the taste. Meals served to the other tables were also physically pleasant to the subjects who could not help but look around while eating. The overflowing yet jolly crowd, despite its noise, provided some positive feelings to the subjects.
Postpurchase observation revealed that the subjects were, on all accounts satisfied and would want to come back, despite their comment and wish that the place should have been bigger. The establishment’s proximity with other “watering holes” helped reinforce the positive impressions.
CONCLUSION
The buying decision in eating out involves an interpaly of various factors as cultural, social, perosnal and psychological in the buyer's mind. The buyer goes through stages of recognizing the problem/need, searching for information, evaluating the alternatives, making the decision, and manifesting postpurchase behavior.
Buyers may be segmented to categorize and classify their needs and wants. Social class and status played an important role in the buying behavior. There was a clear delineation between AB and C classes wen it comes to choises in eating out. Likewise, lifestyles affect buying decisions - healthy or unhealthy lifestyles. Buyers also looked for different benefits and motivations when choosing a restaurant or a meal - economic or psychlogical benefits.
What is salient is that regardless of segment, buyers tend to look and choose for something "new" or "different". May it be a new food stall, a new menu, or a fresh location, people want to try novel things. And people who try these "new" things and get satisfied with it tend to spread the news. Often referred to as "early adopters' in diffusion theory, they become the purveyors of positive or negative information about the restaurant and food.
LITERATURE CITED
____ (1999), STAT-USA on the Internet US Department of Commerce, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/dd72363e.html, Accessed 02.29.03.
Fox, R. (2003), “Food as Fashion”, http://www.sirc.org/publik/food_and_eating_6.html, accessed 02.29.03
James, B (2001) “Coming to Manila”, http://phil-at-home.com/travel/oh_my/ oh_my_jamesb121500.html, Accessed 02.28.03.
Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall: New Jersey
Lacuarta, G. (2001), “Filipino meal incomplete without rice – study”, www.inq7.net/nat/2001/apr/25/nat_18-1.htm, Accessed 02.29.03
Roberto, N. (2002), Strategic Market Segmentation, Lifecycle Press: Makati City
FOOTNOTES
[1] Binalot is a franchised fast-food outlet that serves Filipino dishes wrapped in banana leaves and served on a wicker platter.
[2] Fusion dish is a combination of Western, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino food influences.
[3] Lacuarta, G. (2001), “Filipino meal incomplete without rice – study”, www.inq7.net/nat/2001/apr/25/nat_18-1.htm
[4] Fox, R.(2003), “Food as Fashion”, http://www.sirc.org/publik/food_and_eating_6.html, accessed 02.29.03
Comments