For this reason, whatever kind of goods or services are in question, businesses have to take into account the thoughts and behaviors of their customers about their preferences. This is also true for restaurant businesses. Restaurant businesses, whose number is increasing..
Factors Affecting Customers' Restaurant Choices: The Example of Istanbul
Asli ALBAYRAK*
Summary
Restaurant businesses that meet not only the nutritional needs of people, but also their needs such as being together, relaxing and socializing, have to consider the factors that affect the restaurant choices of their customers in order to survive and survive in an intense competitive environment. There are many factors that affect customers' restaurant choices. For this reason, this study was conducted to determine the factors affecting the restaurant choices of customers and to reveal whether there is a difference between the characteristics of the customers and the factors affecting their restaurant choices. First class restaurants in Istanbul were included in the scope of the study.
The study was carried out between April-July 2013, the data were collected by questionnaire technique and 353 restaurant customers participated in the study. Factor analysis, Mann Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis H tests were used to analyze the data. According to the results of the study, it was found that the "Restaurant Features, Food and Beverages, Services and Monetary Value" factors are important in the restaurant choices of the customers, respectively, and the factors affecting the restaurant choices differ in terms of income, education level and the frequency of going to the restaurant.
Login
Today, the starting point of marketing activities for businesses that produce all kinds of goods and services is the customer. It is not possible for businesses to produce goods or services without analyzing the expectations, needs and desires of their customers. Because today, a large number of goods and services are produced to meet the expectations, needs and wishes of customers and serve similar purposes, and businesses that want to provide competitive advantage in this environment and thus maximize both their profits and their image have to try to understand their customers.
For this reason, whatever kind of goods or services are in question, businesses have to take into account the thoughts and behaviors of their customers about their preferences. This is also true for restaurant businesses. Restaurant businesses, whose number is increasing day by day, have to take into account the preferences of their customers in order to meet the expectations, needs and demands of their customers, to maintain their existence and to stand out in the industry where there is intense competition.
Today, various factors such as increase in consumer income, increasing work intensity, increase in the number of working women, time saving, economy, socializing by meeting new people, being with family/friends, having fun, convenience, status-prestige, seeking novelty and avoiding cooking at home. Because of this, more people prefer to eat in restaurants. Restaurants are defined as places where people can sit and eat comfortably (Dash 2005: 5), and the restaurant industry consisting of restaurant businesses has become a growing industry (Pedraja and Yagüe 2001; Bareham 2004; Buchtal 2006).
While restaurant businesses contribute to the economy of the region they are located in, they also provide employment opportunities for those working in the tourism industry. Because restaurants are one of the critical factors underlying the touristic product such as accommodation, transportation, attractiveness and activity factors (Reynolds 1993: 48). People need many foods and beverages, both in their normal lives and during their travels, depending on their life period and their desire to be healthy (Antonioli 1995). Therefore, restaurants are an important factor affecting tourism marketing (Antonioli 1999; Wood 2000).
Restaurant businesses, which have an important place in the service economy, are faced with situations such as increasing labor costs, high turnover rate, competition, food and service differences, and price inconsistency that can drive the customer away from the business (Lee et al. 2011; National Restaurant Association 2011). For this reason, restaurant businesses need to provide effective service in an intense competitive environment, produce new products, recognize and understand the variables that cause differences in the minds of customers and affect their restaurant choices in order to attract more customers or to keep their customers coming back (Yüksel and Yüksel 2002). This is because restaurants are able to continue their existence with long-term success and to develop products that meet the needs and wishes of their customers,
Since the first effect is also the last effect, it is important for restaurant businesses to predict the decision-making processes consisting of different elements before deciding where customers will eat. As a matter of fact, customers are often hesitant to choose among these alternatives when they have too many alternatives (Myung et al. 2008: 120). For this reason, restaurant businesses need to provide an unforgettable experience for customers to stay loyal to the business and think that they get what they pay for (Alonso et al. 2013: 548). On the other hand, determining the factors affecting the restaurant preferences of the customers helps the restaurant managers to determine more accurate marketing strategies (Auty 1992;
When the literature on the subject is examined, it is seen that there are very few studies on the subject in our country, although various studies have been carried out to determine the restaurant preferences of customers, especially in studies conducted abroad. Therefore, with this study, it is thought that determining the factors affecting the restaurant preferences of consumers in our country will contribute to the literature. Therefore, this study was conducted in order to reveal the relationship between the factors affecting the restaurant choices of the customers and the demographic characteristics of the customers and the factors affecting the restaurant choices, and to make suggestions that will allow the restaurant managers to develop their marketing strategies in the light of the results obtained.
Related Literature
Restaurant preferences of customers are affected by a wide variety of factors (Fitzsimmons and Fitzsimmons 2000). As a matter of fact, Pedraja and Yagüe (2001: 316-317) stated that it is necessary to investigate what factors customers pay attention to in restaurant selections and how they choose among alternatives in order for businesses to carry out their activities successfully and to meet the needs of customers. According to the authors, knowing these factors is important for marketing and operational success.
It has been stated that it is important to know the behavior of customers regarding restaurant selection so that restaurant businesses can recognize their target markets and develop appropriate marketing strategies. All of these studies describe the factors that affect customers' restaurant choices and ultimately the factors that affect their decision on where to eat (Table 1).
Table 1. Literature on Factors Affecting Consumers' Restaurant Choices
|
Atmosphere
|
Lewis (1981), Milliman (1982), Auty (1992), Baker et al. (1994), Kivela
(1997), Clark and Wood ( 1998), Lahue (2000), Sharma et al.
Stafford (2000), Soriano (2001 ), Grossbart (2002), Erik and
Nir (2004), Rowe (2010), Özdemir (2010)
|
|
Menu/Food
diversity
|
Lewis (1981), Auty (1992), Kara et al., (1997), Kivela 1997), Clark
and Wood (1998), Erik and Nir (2004), Barta (2008), Choi et al. (2010),
Ozdemir (2010)
|
|
your meals
Quality/Healthy
to be
|
Lewis (1981), Auty (1992), Gregoire et al. (1995), Kivela , (1997),
Qu (1997), Clark and Wood (1998), Soriano (2001), Barta (2008),
Ozdemir (2010)
|
|
Price
|
Lewis (1981 ), Auty (1992), Qu (1997), Kara et al., (1997), Kivela (1997),
Clark and Wood ( 1998), Pedraja and Yagüe (2001), Soriano (2001),
Ariker ( 2012)
|
|
Region
|
Qu ( 1997), Kivela (1997), Cullen (2004), Buchtal (2006), Knutson
et al. (2006 ), Özdemir (2010), Arıker (2012)
|
|
Crowded
|
Tse et al. (2002 ), Plum and Nir (2004)
|
|
Behaviors of Employees
|
Gregoire et al. (1995 ), Kivela (1997)
|
|
Service Speed
|
Clark and Wood ( 1998), Raab et al. (2009)
|
|
Nutritional Content
|
Wootan and Osborn ( 2006)
|
|
Comfort
|
Kara et al., ( 1997), Kivela (1997)
|
|
Child Option
|
Kara et al., ( 1997), Arıker (2012)
|
|
Business Hours of Operation
|
Kara et al., ( 1997)
|
|
Business Image
|
Cullen ( 2004)
|
|
Value of Money Paid
|
Raab et al. (2009)
|
Table 1 shows the factors that affect customers' restaurant choices according to the results of studies conducted by different researchers. According to the data obtained from the studies in the literature on the subject, the factors that most affect the restaurant choices of the customers are "atmosphere, food/menu variety, quality/healthiness of the food, price, region, cleanliness, quality of goods and services, crowd, behavior of employees, speed of service. , nutritional content of meals, comfort, child option, working hours of the business, business image, value for money paid.
The factors affecting the restaurant choices of customers may vary from individual to individual, and the selection criteria of the same individual may differ under different conditions (Boone and Kurtz 2005). For example, the purpose for which the individual goes to the restaurant (entertainment, socialization, work, celebration, time saving, etc.), the people he goes with (family, spouse, friends, etc.), the type of restaurant (luxury restaurant, cafe, fast-food establishments, etc.). factors can also be effective on people's choices (Auty 1992; Kivela et al. 1999a; O'Mahony & Hall, 2007; Upadhyay et al. 2007).
On the other hand, the importance given to each selection criterion by different customers may be at different levels (Kivela et al. 1999b; Njite et al. 2008). The factors that affect the customers' decision about the restaurant they will eat and the degree of importance of these factors are also affected by various factors such as the customers' personality, age, income, gender, marital status, family life period (Lewis 1981; Authy 1992; Gregoire et al. 1995; Kivela et al. 1999a; Yüksel and Yüksel 2002; Kim et al. 2010; Harrington et al. 2011).
METHOD
The examination of the factors affecting the restaurant choices of the customers was carried out by field research. The study was carried out between April and July 2013 in 1st class restaurant businesses with Tourism Operation Certificate in Istanbul. According to the 2011 Address Based Registration System, Istanbul is the province with the highest population and consists of people with different demographic characteristics (TUIK 2011). Therefore, the study was carried out in the province of Istanbul.
On the other hand, food and beverage businesses with Tourism Operation and Investment Certificate are mostly located in Istanbul (Ministry of Culture and Tourism 2012). For this reason, it is assumed that the generalizability power of the data to be obtained as a result of a study to be conducted in Istanbul may be higher. The reason why first class restaurant businesses are included in the study is that these restaurants give more importance to customer preferences and the customers coming to these restaurants are more selective in restaurant selection.
According to the 2012 data of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, there are 133 first-class restaurants with Tourism Operation Certificate and two Tourism Investment Certificate in Istanbul. In order to reach the names of these restaurants, the names of the restaurants were first asked from the Provincial Directorate of Tourism. Ethnic restaurants, specialty restaurants, and businesses that also serve as nightclubs were determined by using the web pages of the restaurants whose names were obtained, and they were excluded from the study, offering services to their customers with products belonging to more than one cuisine (
Cuisine And Healing) such as Turkish cuisine, Italian cuisine, Mexican cuisine, in other words. Restaurants that include products from different cuisines on their menus were included in the study.
The reason why businesses that also serve as specialty restaurants, ethnic restaurants and nightclubs are excluded from the scope of the study because it is assumed that customers who prefer these restaurants may have preferred these businesses to have fun, to try certain foods from an ethnic region or cuisine. Accordingly, the number of restaurants serving their customers with different cuisines in Istanbul has been determined as 19. First of all, the researcher called the restaurants by phone and interviewed their managers, the content of the study was conveyed and they were asked whether they would like to participate in the study. Five of the 19 restaurants did not accept to participate in the study, so 14 restaurant businesses were included in the study.
Since the number of customers who prefer 1st class restaurants in Istanbul is not known exactly, Yazicioglu and Erdogan (2004: 49-50) suggested that sampling error of d= +0.05 and a confidence interval of p=0.05, q=0.05 of the population of the population was 1 million. The Sample Size Table was used, in which it was stated that the sample size should be 384 if the sample size was 384 and 100 million. Based on these data, the sample size was determined as 384 and the individuals to be sampled were selected by convenience sampling method.
Questionnaire technique was used as data collection tool. The questionnaire form consists of two parts. In the first part, there are questions to determine the descriptive characteristics of customers such as age, gender, educational status, income, and questions asked to determine the frequency and reasons of customers going to restaurants and the people they go to restaurants with. In the second part, a 23-item scale was used to determine the restaurant choices of customers.
Cullen (2004), Choi and Zhau (2010), Harrington et al. (2011) and Alonso et al. (2013) have benefited from previous studies. Participants were asked to evaluate the questions in this section on a five-point scale as 1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree. After the preparation of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted with 30 customers in one of the restaurant businesses included in the study to determine whether the missing and missing parts of the questionnaire and the statements in the second part of the questionnaire were fully understood, whether the questions were answered fully and clearly, and the reliability of the questionnaire. As a result of the pilot study, some expressions that were difficult to understand were corrected in line with the suggestions of the participants (for example,
When the results of the pilot study were evaluated, the Cronbach Alpha value of the questionnaire was determined as ,802 as a result of the general reliability test. This result showed that the general internal consistency of the questionnaire was above the acceptable level (Nunnally 1978). For this reason, the questionnaire forms were reproduced and the application phase of the study was started.
During the data collection phase, customers who completed their meals at the suggestion of restaurant managers between April and July 2013 were asked whether they would like to participate in the survey, those who wanted to participate were asked to fill in a questionnaire, and the completed questionnaires were again delivered to the business managers. The surveys were then taken from the business managers by the researcher. During the processing of the data, it was determined that 31 questionnaires were filled incompletely or incorrectly, but these questionnaires were excluded from the scope of the study due to the time cost of reaching businesses and customers again, and 353 questionnaires were evaluated. The data obtained were evaluated with the SPSS 15.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) package program.
First of all, the reliability test was carried out regarding the data obtained from the customers participating in the study, and the Cronbach Alpha value was determined as ,784 as a result of the test. This result showed that the internal consistency of the data obtained as a result of the study was above the acceptable level and related analyzes could be made. Percentage and frequency distributions were used in the analysis of the descriptive questions regarding the characteristics of the participants included in the study and their behavior to go to the restaurant.
In the second part, factor analysis was applied to determine the factors affecting the restaurant preferences of the customers. The reason for using factor analysis in determining the factors affecting customers' restaurant choices is to understand the relationship between the 23-item statements created by using previous studies and to reduce the factors affecting customers' restaurant choices to fewer basic dimensions. Thus, the data consisting of a large number of variables affecting the restaurant choices of customers were expressed as fewer reconstructed variables.
As a result of the analysis of the 23-item scale, it was understood that these factors were not suitable for factor analysis, since the four statements were less than 0.50 in terms of factor loads, and the analysis was repeated with the remaining 19 variables. Afterwards, Mann Whitney U and Kruskal Wallis H analyzes were used to examine whether the obtained factors differ according to some demographic characteristics of the customers, since the data did not show a normal distribution. All evaluated data were analyzed at 95% confidence interval. The hypotheses to be tested in the study were determined as follows:
H1: There is a significant difference between the factors affecting the restaurant choices of customers in different age groups.
H2: There is a significant difference between the factors affecting the restaurant choices of customers from different educational backgrounds.
H3: There is a significant difference between the factors affecting the restaurant choices of customers at different income levels.
H4: There is a significant difference between the factors affecting the restaurant choices of customers with different frequency of going to the restaurant.
H5: There is a significant difference between the factors affecting the restaurant choices of male and female customers.
Results
In the evaluation of the data obtained as a result of the survey, firstly, the demographic characteristics of the participants and the information about their behavior to go to the restaurant were expressed with frequency and percentage tables, then factor analysis was applied for the statements about the restaurant choices of the customers, and finally, it was examined whether the obtained factors differed according to the characteristics of the customers. .
Table 2 shows the demographic characteristics of the participants and their distribution according to their behavior of going to the restaurant.
More than two-thirds of the participants (68.8%) are female and 31.2% are male. More than half (55.5%) of the customers who participated in the study were 30-39 years old, 28.9% were between 20-29 years old, 13.9% were between 40-49 years old and 1.7% were between 50-59 years old. those are following. When the participants were examined in terms of their educational status, it was seen that more than half (51.9%) graduated from university, 38.8% from secondary education, 6.8% from primary school and 2.5% from graduate school.
In terms of income of the participants, it can be said that they are at the middle-high income level. Because 51.8% of the participants stated that they have an income of 3.001-6.000 TL and 42.8% of them have an income of more than 6.001 TL. On the other hand, in the analysis made, more than half of the participants (54.4%) four or five times a month, 28.8% more than five times a month, 13.3% two-three times a month and 6.5% once a month. It was determined that nearly half of the participants (47.9%) went to the restaurant with their friends, 39.4% were family members and 12.6% went to the restaurant alone.
Table 2. Distribution of Participants by Demographic Characteristics and Behaviors of Going to Restaurants
|
|
f
|
%
|
|
f
|
%
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
|
Male
|
110
|
31.2
|
20-29
|
102
|
28.9
|
|
Woman
|
243
|
68.8
|
30-39
|
196
|
55.5
|
|
Education status
|
|
|
40-49
|
49
|
13.9
|
|
Primary education
|
24
|
6.8
|
50-59
|
6
|
1.7
|
|
secondary education
|
137
|
38.8
|
Monthly Income
|
|
|
|
Frequency of Eating at the Restaurant
|
|
|
6.001 +
|
151
|
42.8
|
|
1 per month
|
23
|
6.5
|
Reason for Going to the Restaurant
|
|
|
|
2-3 per month
|
47
|
13.3
|
Ease
|
52
|
5.1
|
|
4-5 per month
|
192
|
54.4
|
Family, friends etc. be with
|
288
|
28.4
|
|
5+ per month
|
91
|
28.8
|
Socialization
|
63
|
6.2
|
|
Person Who Goes To The Restaurant With
|
|
|
Fun
|
70
|
6.9
|
|
Alone
|
91
|
12.6
|
Saving time
|
93
|
9.1
|
|
Family members
|
284
|
39.4
|
Being Economic
|
124
|
12.2
|
|
Friends
|
345
|
47.9
|
Status-Prestige
|
61
|
6.0
|
|
|
|
|
difference
|
109
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
|
Special Reasons ( business-celebration, etc.)
|
157
|
15.4
|
When the participants are examined in terms of the reasons for going to the restaurant, the maximum 28.4% is that they go to the restaurant to be with their family, friends and acquaintances, those who go for special reasons such as business or celebration (15.4%), those who go because it is economical (12.2%), Those who left because of the difference (10.7%), those who left because of time saving (9.1%), those who left because of entertainment (6.9%), those who left due to socialization (6.2%), those who left due to status-prestige (6%, 0) and those who went (5.1%) were found to follow because of its convenience.
After the analysis of descriptive data, principal component factor analysis was used to analyze the scale of customers' restaurant choice. According to the results of the analysis consisting of a total of 19 expressions, the expressions used in the research meet the condition of being suitable for factor analysis (KMO=0.87). This value shows that the variable is suitable for factor analysis (Sipahi et al. 2008: 80).
As a result of factor analysis, four factors with factor loads greater than 0.50 and eigenvalues greater than 1 were obtained.
These factors are named as “Restaurant Features, Food and Beverages, Services and Monetary Value” (Table 3). The four-factor structure obtained explains 61.6% of the total variance. The Restaurant Features factor explains 33.20% of the total variance, the Food and Beverages factor 13.25%, the Services factor 9.5% and the Monetary Value factor 5.59%. Based on these results, it has been seen that Restaurant Features are the first-degree, Food and Beverages are the second-order, Services are the third-degree and Monetary Value is the fourth-degree important factors in the restaurant choices of the consumers.
In the Restaurant Features factor, which primarily affects the restaurant choices of the customers, the highest factor load is the atmosphere, followed by the trust in the restaurant and the awareness of the restaurant, cleanliness, location, comfort, not being crowded and working hours.
Table 3. Factor Analysis Results
|
Factor Groups
|
|
Factor Loads
|
|
AO
|
SS.
|
|
|
one
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
|
|
Factor 1: Restaurant Features
Restaurant Atmosphere
|
,856
|
|
|
|
1.84
|
0.88
|
|
Confidence
|
,826
|
|
|
|
1.95
|
0.93
|
|
Awareness of the Restaurant
|
,738
|
|
|
|
1.89
|
0.90
|
|
Cleaning
|
,706
|
|
|
|
2.13
|
1.01
|
|
Region
|
,669
|
|
|
|
1.37
|
0.66
|
|
Comfort
|
,671
|
|
|
|
2.30
|
1.10
|
|
Crowded
|
,638
|
|
|
|
1.96
|
0.94
|
|
Working hours
|
,614
|
|
|
|
1.91
|
0.91
|
|
Factor 2: Food and Drinks
Quality of Food
|
|
,827
|
|
|
2.68
|
1.24
|
|
Food (Menu) Variety
|
|
,797
|
|
|
2.64
|
1.22
|
|
Presence of Different Cuisine
|
|
,689
|
|
|
2.40
|
1.11
|
|
Nutritional Value of Meals
|
|
,524
|
|
|
2.21
|
1.02
|
|
Factor 3: Services
Behaviors of Employees
|
|
|
,740
|
|
1.72
|
0.83
|
|
ServiceSpeed
|
|
|
,735
|
|
1.81
|
0.88
|
|
Competence of Employees
|
|
|
,730
|
|
1.86
|
0.90
|
|
Presence of Non-Food Services
|
|
|
,705
|
|
1.89
|
0.92
|
|
Factor 4 : Monetary Value
Price
|
|
|
|
,757
|
2.29
|
1.04
|
|
Value of Money Paid
|
|
|
|
,657
|
2.15
|
0.98
|
|
Ability to Use Card
|
|
|
|
,610
|
1.67
|
0.76
|
|
Arithmetic Average of Factors
|
1.92
|
2.48
|
1.82
|
2.04
|
|
|
|
Eigenvalue
|
6,746
|
2,520
|
1,909
|
1,121
|
|
|
|
Percentage of Difference Defined
|
33.20
|
13.25
|
9.54
|
5.59
|
|
|
|
Coefficient of Confidence
|
0.88
|
0.75
|
0.81
|
0.70
|
|
|
As a matter of fact, the results of some studies in the literature support these results. For example, Erik and Nir (2004) stated in their study that the most important factor in restaurant selection is the atmosphere, while Cullen (2004) stated that the reputation of the business, Gregoire et al. (1995), Kivela (1997), and Kara et al. (1997) cleanliness, Qu (1997), Buchtal (2006) and Knutson et al. (2006) of the region, Kara et al. (1997) your comfort, Tse et al. (2002) and Erik and Nir (2004) the crowd and Kara et al. (1997) stated that working hours are important.
The second most important factor affecting the restaurant selection is Food and Beverages, and the quality of the food and the variety of the menu took the load of factors the most. Many studies on customers' restaurant choices support these results (Auty 1992; Kivela 1997; Kara et al. 1997; Qu 1997; Clark and Wood 1998; Lewis Soriano 2001; Choi et al. 2010). In the third-degree Services factor, the behavior of the employees and the service speed have the highest factor loads.
Indeed, Gregoire et al. (1995), Kivela (1997) studies, the behavior of employees, Clark and Wood (1998) and Raab et al. (2009) stated that the speed of service is effective in the restaurant choices of customers. These results support the data obtained as a result of the study. In the fourth-degree Monetary Value factor, price and getting the value for money paid the highest factor load, and similar results were obtained in some studies in the literature (Qu 1997; Kara et al. 1997; Kivela 1997; Clark and Wood 1998; Pedraja and Yagüe). 2001; Soriano 2001; Raab et al. 2009).
Table 4. Kruskal Wallis H Test Results
|
|
|
|
factors
|
|
|
|
|
Restaurant
|
Food
|
Services
|
Monetary
|
|
|
|
Properties
|
and Drinks
|
|
Value
|
|
Age
|
chi-square
|
,886
|
,753
|
2,928
|
1,836
|
|
|
Pearson
|
,612
|
,735
|
,053
|
,376
|
|
Education
|
chi-square
|
4,743
|
9,672
|
2,646
|
17,025
|
|
|
Pearson
|
,313
|
,043*
|
,752
|
,085
|
|
Income
|
chi-square
|
3,515
|
3,122
|
17,983
|
8,320
|
|
|
Pearson
|
,317
|
,350
|
,001*
|
0.102
|
|
Frequency of Visiting the Restaurant
|
chi-square
|
13,875
|
3,132
|
9,423
|
6,907
|
|
|
Pearson
|
,002*
|
,375
|
,021*
|
,221
|
Table 4 examines whether age, education, income and frequency of going to a restaurant are effective on the factors that affect customers' restaurant choices. In the analysis for the age variable, the values obtained for the four factors were found to be greater than .05 and H1 was rejected. From this point of view, it is concluded that age is not a determining factor in restaurant selection. When the relationship between the education levels of the consumers and the factors affecting the restaurant choices of the customers was examined, it was observed that there was a significant difference and H2 was accepted. In other words, the food and beverages offered in restaurant businesses for customers with different education levels have a different degree of importance in restaurant selection.
When the relationship between the income of the customers and the factors affecting the restaurant choices is examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference in the Services factor. Therefore, H3 is accepted. In other words, the importance given to the Services offered in restaurants differs in restaurant selections for customers of different income levels. As a result of the analysis, the frequency of customers going to the restaurant made a difference in the perception of Restaurant Features and Services factors. Therefore, H4 was accepted. In other words, as the frequency of customers going to the restaurant differs, Restaurant Features and Services factors are effective in restaurant choices; Food and Beverages and Monetary Value factors are not effective.
In Table 5, the differentiation status of the factors affecting the restaurant choices of the participants according to gender is given. Accordingly, there is no significant difference between gender and the factors affecting customers' restaurant choices. Therefore, H5 is rejected. In other words, the gender of the customers does not cause differentiation in the factors affecting restaurant choices.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In today's competitive environment, restaurant businesses have to know their customer preferences, needs and wishes and continue to offer goods and services in line with these preferences in order to maintain their current status, renew themselves and stand out in the competitive environment.
Table 5. Mann Whitney U Test Results
|
|
|
Restaurant Features Food & Beverages Services Monetary Value
|
|
Gender
|
Z
|
-.354 - .644 -.219 -1.233
|
|
|
P
|
,743 ,381 ,822 ,213
|
On the other hand, changes in the living standards of the customers, personal characteristics such as the increase in income and education levels, and the increase in the living standard cause differentiation in the preferences of the customers. Therefore, in order for restaurant businesses to develop successful marketing strategies, it is important for customers to have information about the factors affecting restaurant preferences.
Young, higher-educated, high-income and female customers are proportionally higher among the customers participating in this study, which was conducted to reveal the factors affecting the restaurant choices of customers and whether these factors differ according to the characteristics of the customers. Most of the customers participating in the study (87.3%) usually go to restaurants (
Guests to Prefer Restaurants) with their family members and friends at least four times a month (80.2%) and at most for special reasons such as to be with family, friends and acquaintances, and for business or celebration.
Based on these results, it can be suggested that restaurant managers plan some of their businesses as areas where large groups can sit together and have a good time, within the framework of compliance management. However, in some studies in the literature (Lin, 2004), it has been stated that customers prefer the section reserved for them in the restaurant to be away from other groups.
Bu nedenle restoran yöneticilerine yakınları, arkadaşları ve tanıdıkları ile birlikte yemek yemek ve aynı zamanda belirli bir süreyi birlikte geçirmek isteyen müşterileri için U şeklinde loca oturma düzeninde masalar düzenlemeleri önerilebilir. Bu düzen müşterilerin daha samimi bir ortamda yemek yemelerine olanak sağlayacaktır. Aynı zamanda bu oturma düzeni müşterilerin restoran içerisindeki trafikten uzak kalmalarına ve diğer misafirler ya da çalışanlarla çarpışmaların önlenmesine ve dolayısıyla müşterilerin rahat etmelerine ve memnun olmalarına da olanak sağlayacaktır.
"Restaurant Features" is the most important factor affecting customers' restaurant choices, followed by "Food and Beverages", "Services" and "Monetary Value" factors. The atmosphere of the restaurant, its reputation (image), cleanliness, the region where it is located, the fact that it offers customers a comfortable experience and that it is not crowded are the most important factors affecting restaurant choices for customers.
As a matter of fact, while Bitner (1992: 67) states that the atmosphere is extremely important on customer preferences and the experience they live, in some studies (Turley and Milliman 2000; Sulek and Hensley 2004; Han and Ryu 2009; Kim and Moon 2009), restaurant atmosphere is the reason why customers make choices about restaurants. They stated that it is the determining criterion when necessary, and that it affects the general satisfaction of the customers and their loyalty to the business.
These results showed that the atmosphere is extremely important for customers and affects their intention to come back to the business. Therefore, restaurant businesses that want to increase customer satisfaction and be at the forefront in the competitive environment need to create an atmosphere in which customers will not be disturbed in order to increase the quality of the time they will spend in the restaurant and to ensure that they come back to the business.
For this, restaurant managers should create ventilation and air conditioning systems that will be suitable for their customers, prevent unwanted odors and especially the smell of food in the business, keep the music volume in the business at a level that will not disturb the customers, prefer nonverbal music as much as possible, and use a still and non-obstructive lighting. It can be suggested that the business architecture should be arranged in a way that reflects the general atmosphere of the business and that the furniture used in the business should be chosen in a way that allows comfortable sitting and eating.
“Food and Drinks” is a factor that has more importance in restaurant selection for customers with different educational backgrounds. In other words, the quality of the food and beverages served in the restaurant, the variety of the menu, the presence of different cuisines and the nutritional values of the dishes play an important role in the restaurant preferences of the customers with different education levels. In order to satisfy the needs and requests of customers, businesses should put phrases on their menu cards and web pages expressing the quality standards of the materials they use, expand their menus by taking the suggestions of the customers, add important dishes from different cuisines to the menu, and add the calorie content of the meals to the descriptive texts on the menu cards. It is recommended to add values.
The “services” factor, on the other hand, has more importance in restaurant selection for customers with different income levels and frequent visitors to restaurants. For these customers, the behavior of the employees in the restaurant, the speed of service, the competency of the employees and the presence of services other than food are more effective in restaurant selections. On the other hand, the behaviors of the employees, the competencies that express the knowledge level of the employees, the speed of service and non-meal services become more important as the income level and frequency of going to the restaurant increase.
These results show that restaurant businesses can increase their satisfaction levels and their willingness to come back with the services they will provide, as well as the positive atmosphere they will create for their customers. From this point of view, in order to increase customer satisfaction, restaurant businesses should periodically train their employees on customer relations, recruit staff who know the types of food and beverage offered by the business, and/or train the employees on service, on the other hand, valet service, free parking service to customers. It can be suggested that they provide services that will meet their needs other than food, such as children's playroom service.
Another remarkable result is that the "Monetary Value" factor, which expresses the price, value for money and the ability to use credit cards, was not specified as a factor affecting the restaurant selection for the group in which the study was conducted. This situation shows that no matter how different the characteristics of the customers are, the experience they will have in the restaurant before the restaurant selection affects the restaurant choices, and the monetary value they have to pay in return does not have an effect on the restaurant choices.
As stated in the method part of the study, this study was carried out only in a limited number of 1st class restaurant businesses in Istanbul, with 353 people, and this is the most important limitation of the study. Therefore, the data obtained as a result of the study, undoubtedly, do not fully reflect the generality. For this reason, a similar study can be carried out in more different types of restaurants by using a larger sample scale used in the study in the future, and the differentiation in the selection criteria of customers coming to restaurants with different characteristics can be compared.
REFERENCES
Alonso, DA, O'Neill, M., Liu, Y., and O'Shea, M. (2013). Factors Driving Consumer Restaurant Choice: An Exploratory Study from the Southeastern United States, Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 22 (5): 547-567.
Antonioli, CM (1995). Enoturismo: Caratteristiche Della Domanda, Strategie Dell' Offertae Aspetti Territoriali E Ambientali. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Antonioli, CM (1999). Strade Del Vino Ed Enoturisms. Distretti Turistici E Vie Di Communicazione. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Ariker, C. (2012). The Relationship Between the Selection Criteria Used by Consumers in Restaurant Selection and their Demographic Characteristics, Suggestion Journal, 10 (38): 11-32.
Auty, S. (1992). Consumer Choice and Segmentation in the Restaurant Industry, The Service Industries Journal, 12 (3): 324-339. Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994). The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (4):
328-339.
Bareham, J.R. (2004). Can Consumers Be Predictable or Are They Unmanageable, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 16 (3): 159–165.
Barta, A. (2008). Foreign Tourists' Motivation and Information
Source Influencing Their Preference For Eating Out At Ethnic Restaurants in Bangkok, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 9 (1): 1–17.
Bitner, MJ (1992). Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees, Journal of Marketing, 56: 57–71.
Boone, LE and Kurtz, DL (2005). Contemporary Marketing. USA: Thomson Corporation.
Buchtal, K. (2006). Growing up, Restaurants and Institutions, 116 (10): 67–70.
Choi, J., Lee, B., and Mok, J. (2010). An Experiment on Psychological Gaze Motion: A Reexamination of Item Selection Behavior or Restaurant Customers, Journal of Global Business and Technology, 6 (1): 68–79.
Choi, J. and Zhao, J. (2010). Factor Influencing South Florida: Is Health Issue One of the Factors Influencing Consumers' Behavior When Selecting a Restaurant?, Journal of Foodservices Business Research, 13 (3): 237-251.
Chow, IH, Lau, VP, Lo, TW, Sha, Z., and Yun, H. (2007). Service Quality in Restaurant Operations in China: DecisionAnd Experiential-Oriented Perspectives, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26 (3): 698–710.
Clark, M. and Wood, RC (1998). Consumer Loyalty in the Restaurant Industry: A Preliminary Exploration of the Issues, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10 (4): 139–144.
Cullen, F. (2004). Factors Influencing Restaurant Selection in Dublin, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 7 (2): 53–84.
Dash, K. (2005). McDonald's A07-05-0015.Thunderbird. The Garvin School of International Management.
Erik, C. and Nir, A. (2004). Food in Tourism: Attraction and Impediment, Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (4): 755–778. Fitzsimmons, JA and Fitzsimmons, MJ (2000). Services Management, Operations, Strategy and Information Technology.
Third Edition, Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Fu, Y. and Parks, SC (2001). The Relationship between Restaurant Service Quality and Consumer Loyalty among the Elderly, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 25 (3): 320-336.
Gregoire, MB, Shanklin, CV, Greathouse, KR, and Tripp, C. (1995). Factors Influencing Restaurant Selection by Travelers Who Stop at Visitor Information Centers, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 4 (2): 41-50.
Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., and Lapidus, RS (2002). Environmental Dispositions and Customer Response to Store Atmospherics, Journal of Business Research, 21 (3): 225-241.
Han, H. and Ryu, K., (2009). The Roles of The Physical Environment, Price Perception, and Customer Satisfaction in Determining Customer Loyalty in The Family Restaurant Industry, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 33 (4): 487–510.
Harrington, RJ, Ottenbacher, MC, and Kendall, KW (2011). Fine-Dining Restaurant Selection: Direct and Moderating Effects of Customer Attributes, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 14 (3): 272–289.
Heskett, JR, Sasser, WE, and Schlesinger, L. (1997). The Service Profit Chain: How Leading Companies Link Profit and Growth to Loyalty, Satisfaction, and Value. New York: FreePress.
Kara, A., Kaynak, E., and Küçükemiroğlu, O. (1997). Marketing Strategies For Fast Food Restaurants: A Customer View, British Food Journal, 99 (9): 318–324.
Kim, EJ, and Geistfeld, LV (2003). Consumers' Restaurant Choice Behavior and the Impact of Socio-Economic and Demographic Factors, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 6 (1): 3–24.
Kim, WG and Moon, YJ (2009). Customers' Cognitive, Emotional, and Actionable Response to the Servicescape: A Test of the Moderating Effect of the Restaurant Type, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28: 144–156.
Kim, Y.-S., Raab, C., and Bergman, C. (2010). Restaurant Selection Preferences of Mature Tourists in Las Vegas: A Pilot Study, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 11 (2): 157–170.
Kim, YS, Bergman, C., and Raab, C. (2010). Factors That Impact Mature Customer Dining Choices in Las Vegas, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 13 (3): 178-192.
Kivela, J. (1997). Restaurant Marketing: Selection and Segmentation in Hong Kong, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 9 (3): 116–123.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J. (1999a). Consumer Research in the Restaurant Environment. Part 2: Research Design and Analytical Methods, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11 (6): 269-286.
Kivela, J., Inbakaran, R. and Reece, J. (1999b). Consumer Research in the Restaurant Environment, Part 1: A Conceptual Model of Dining Satisfaction and Return Patronage, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 11 (5): 205-222.
Knutson, B., Beck, J., and Elsworth, J. (2006). The Two Dimensions of Restaurant Selection Important to The Mature Market, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 14 (3): 35–47.
Culture and Tourism Ministry. (2012). Operation and Half Certificated Facility Statistics. http://yigm.kulturturizm.gov.tr/TR,9860/turizm-belgeli-tesisler.html, Accessed on March 5, 2014.
Lahue, P. (2000). The New Mature Market: Senior Market, Restaurant Hospitality, 8 (4): 51-56.
Lin, IY (2004). Evaluating A Servicescape: The Effect of Cognition and Emotion, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 23 (2):163–178.
Lee, S., Koh, Y., and Kang, KH (2011). Moderating Affect of Capital Intensity on the Relationship between Leverage and Financial Distress in the US Restaurant Industry, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30 (2): 429-438.
Lewis, RC (1981). Restaurant Advertising: Appeals and Consumers' Intentions, Journal of Advertising Research, 21 (5): 69-74.
Milliman, RE (1982). Using Background Music to Affect the Behavior of Supermarket Shoppers, Journal of Marketing, 46 (3): 86-91.
Myung, M., McCool, AC, and Feinstein, AH (2008). Understanding Attributes Affecting Meal Choice Decisions in A Bundling Context, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27 (1): 119–125.
National Restaurant Association. (2011). Statement of Behalf of the National Restaurant Association. http://www.restaurant.org/pdfs/advocacy/20110330_hrc_testimony.pdf, Retrieved 27 February 2014.
Njite, D., Dunn, G., and Kim, LH (2008). Beyond Good Food: What Other Attributes Influence Consumer Preference and Selection of Fine Dining Restaurants?, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11 (2): 237-266.
Nunnally, JC (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Ozdemir, B. (2010). Eating Out Phenomenon: A Theoretical Model Proposal, Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Research, 21 (2): 218-232.
Pedraja, M. and Yague, J. (2001). What Information Do Customers Use When Choosing A Restaurant?, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13 (6): 316–318.
Raab, C., Mayer, K., and Shoemaker, S. (2009). Price-Sensitivity Measurement: A Tool for Restaurant Menu Pricing, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 33 (1): 93-105.
Reynolds, P. (1993). Food and Tourism: Towards an Understanding of Sustainable Culture, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1 (1): 48–54.
Rowe, M. (2010). Keep It Casual, Restaurant Hospitality, 94 (3): 24–30.
Sharma, A. and Stafford, TF (2000). The Effect of Retail Atmospherics on Customers' Perceptions of Salespeople and Customer Persuasion: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Business Research, 49: 183-191.
Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, ES and Zinc, M. (2008). Data Analysis with SPSS in Social Sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Publishing.
Soriano, DR (2001). Customers' Expectations Factors in Restaurants-The Situation in Spain, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 19 (8/9): 1055–1067.
Sulek, JM and Hensley, RL (2004). The Relative Importance of Food, Atmosphere, and Fairness of Wait: The Case of a Full-service Restaurant, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45 (3): 235-247.
Tse, ACB, Sin L. and Yim, FHK (2002). How A Crowded Restaurant Affects Consumers' Attribution Behavior, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21 (4): 449-454.
Turley, LW and Milliman, RE (2000). Atmospheric Effects on Shopping Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence, Journal of Business Research, 49 (2): 193–211.
Turkish Statistical Institute (2011). Address Based Population Registration System, http://rapor.tuik.gov.tr/reports/rwservlet?adnksdb2& ENVID=adnksdb2Env&report=wa_turkiye_il_yasgr.RDF&p_ il1=34&p_kod=2&p_year=2011&p_dil Accessed: March=1, 2014&p_dil=1&desformat=html
O'Mahony, B. and Hall, J. (2007). An Exploratory Analysis of the Factors That Influence Food Choice among Young Women, International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8 (2): 51-72.
Upadhyay, Y., Singh, SK, and Thomas, G. (2007). Do People Differ in Their Preferences Regarding Restaurants? An Exploratory Study, The Journal of Business Perspective, 11 (2): 7-22.
Qu, H. (1997). Determinant Factors and Choice Intention for Chinese Restaurant Dining: A Multivariate Approach, Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, 2 (2): 35-49.
Yazicioglu, Y. and Erdogan, S. (2004). SPSS Applied Scientific Research Methods. Ankara: Detay Publishing.
Yuksel, A. and Yuksel, F. (2002). Market Segmentation Based on Tourists' Dining Preferences, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 26 (4): 315–331.
Wood, R. (2000). Strategic Questions in Food and Beverage Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wootan, M. and Osborn, M. (2006). Availability of Nutrition Information from Chain Restaurants in the United States, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 30 (3): 266–268.
As the head chef Ahmet ÖZDEMİR, I see the source:
Ms. I sincerely thank Aslı ALBAYRAK for her academic studies titled "Factors Influencing Customers' Restaurant Choices: The Example of Istanbul" and wish her success in her professional life. It will definitely be considered as an example by those who need it in professional kitchens, related research and in the world of gastronomy.